City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Council Chambers

Thursday, June 20, 2024

7:00 PM

REGULAR MEETING

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. INTRODUCTIONS

MS. LOE: I would like to call the June 20, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission

meeting to order.

MS. LOE: Commissioner Stanton, may we have roll call?

MR. STANTON: Yes. Ms. Loe?

MS. LOE: Here.

MR. STANTON: I am here. Mr. Williams?

MR. WILLIAMS: Here.

MR. STANTON: Ms. Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Here.

MR. STANTON: Ms. Wilson?

MS. WILSON: Here.

MR. STANTON: Mr. Ford?

MR. FORD: Here.

MR. STANTON: All right. We have a quorum, Madam Chair.

MS. LOE: Thank you.

6 -

Present:

Absent:

Sara Loe, Anthony Stanton, Peggy Placier, Shannon Wilson, Matt Ford and

Thomas Williams

3 - Valerie Carroll, Sharon Geuea Jones and Carl Baysinger

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MS. LOE: Mr. Zenner, are there any additions or changes to the agenda?

MR. ZENNER: No, there are not, ma'am.

MS. LOE: Thank you. I'll take a motion to approve the agenda.

MR. FORD: Motion to approve.

MR. STANTON: Second

MS. LOE: Moved by Commissioner Ford; seconded by Commissioner Stanton. We

have a motion to approve the agenda. I’ll take thumbs up approval on the agenda.

(Unanimous vote for approval.)

MS. LOE: It appears unanimous.

Motion to approve.

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting

MS. LOE: Everyone should have received a copy of the June 6, 2024 meeting minutes.

Were there any changes or amendments to the meeting minutes? Seeing none. I'll take

a motion to approve the meeting minutes.

MR. STANTON: Move to approve.

MR. FORD: Second.

MS. LOE: Moved by Commissioner Stanton; seconded by Commissioner Ford. I'll

take a thumbs up approval of the meeting minutes.

(Unanimous vote for approval.)

MS. LOE: Unanimous. Thank you. That brings us to our first case for the

evening, Public Hearings and Subdivisions.

Move to approve.

V. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SUBDIVISIONS

Case # 158-2024

A request by Crockett Engineering (agent), on behalf of Walter T Sorrels &

Dorothy M Sorrels Family Trust (owners), seeking approval to zone 18.62

acres to M-C (Mixed Use - Corridor) district zoning as permanent zoning,

subject to annexation. The property is currently zoned Boone County R-S

(residential, single family) and is located at 1003 East Brown School Road.

A concurrent request (Case # 159-2024) seeks to preliminarily plat the

property in a single lot in preparation of future development. (This item

was tabled at the Planning Commission’s June 6, 2024 meeting)

(Case # 158-2024)

MS. LOE: May we have a report, please?

Staff report was given by Mr. David Kunz of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends denial of the request to permanently zone the subject

18.62-acre site to M-C (Mixed Use - Corridor).

MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Kunz. Before we move on to questions for staff, I'd like to

ask any Commissioners who have had any ex parte related to this project to please

share that with the Commission now so all Commissioners have the benefit of the same

information on the case in front of us. Seeing none. Are there any questions for staff? If

there are none, we will open up the floor to public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. LOE: Please give your name and address for the record. We do limit comment

to three minutes for an individual and six minutes if you're speaking for a group.

MR. CROCKETT: Madam Chair, members of the Commissioner, Tim Crockett,

Crockett Engineering, 1000 West Nifong. That's going to buy me a little more time

maybe.

MS. LOE: We won't start the clock while you're --

MR. CROCKETT: I woke up this morning and I wondered if I needed to even show up

today because news outlets were reporting that the Commission was going to deny this

tonight. So I'm not sure if I even need to be here tonight, but I'm going to give my

presentation anyway. I had several texts and e-mails all of a sudden blowing up my

phone, and apparently one of the news outlets got ahold of the staff report and said it was

basically a done deal that it was going to be denied, so that was interesting. So I'm

going to -- just briefly give just a little pre -- while we're working on this. I'm here tonight --

Michelle Casey is with me here tonight, as well as Paul Land. Michelle Casey is the

executive -- or the associate director and campaign director for the Central Missouri

Humane Society. Also she'll speak briefly, and so is Julie Aber, the Executive Director,

as well as Bob Churchill, President of the board. There we go. Thank you. I believe the

overview is pretty straightforward. I think that's very similar to what Mr. Kunz presented.

Normally, I stand up here and I say we concur with staff and we -- you know, he did a

very good, thorough staff report. In this case, I take exception to some of the items in

there, and so, respectfully -- this doesn't happen very often, and so I respectfully going to

disagree with some of their -- some of their comments in the -- in the staff report that

we'll go over here briefly. Again, the location, you're familiar with the location map of the

site. Similar to what Mr. Kunz had, I had issues and problems trying to mesh County

zoning and City zoning into a single map, so mine aren't nearly as nice as his, but you

can kind of see some of what we have shown here. The site in the middle of the -- or the

subject site in the middle of the slide, the red is M-C, the purple is -- the light purple is

M-L, and then you've got PD, which is the other purple, and the yellow is residential. I

would like to note that when we talk about residential property in this area, I'm trying to

transition down. The adjacent properties are larger -- older, larger tracts, and we would

certainly anticipate that they would redevelop as you go through in the future. When you

zone out just a little bit, I think this is an important slide. When you zoom out just a little

bit and start looking at this corridor, we always refer to 763. I grew up in that area not too

far from this site. It was always called Rangeline Corridor, 763 corridor. That's exactly

what it is, it's a corridor, and you can kind of see the corridor up and down. You see all

the red, all the purple, industrial and M-C zoning. There's not a piece -- there's one little

piece over here on the far-left side that's M-N. All the rest of it is industrial and M-C

zoning or C-G in the County zoning. Preliminary plat, we can talk about that if you need

to. That's going to come up possibly at the later -- later tonight. The star represents the

subject property. This is a snippet from CATSO from the -- from the major roadway plan.

The two dashed purple lines are major arterial roadways. There's not very many

intersections at two major arterials that we have in town. Behind that the orange line is a

residential -- or, excuse me -- a non-local -- or, excuse me -- a non-local --

MR. KUNZ: Local non-residential.

MR. CROCKETT: -- local non-residential. Excuse me. A local non-residential

street, and we'll talk about that a little bit more in detail. Again, let's back up here just a

bit -- zoom out. Again, the purple lines are the major arterial roadways. We're right at

the intersection of two major arterials. The next intersection of two major arterials going

south toward town on 763 is at the Business Loop. That's how far down you have to go

to, you know, Smiley Lane and Big Bear and all those other intersections -- Blue Ridge

Road. None of those are intense -- or as intense as that intersection will be. Now let's

look at the orange lines on both sides. Both -- on both sides of the corridor, if you will.

You'll start to see that it's being framed with what I would refer to as a rearage road. So

you can kind of see that framework. And what goes between the rearage road and the

main corridor itself is more intense higher uses. Now let's zoom out again. This is kind

of hard to see. There's our star pointed in the top, but you can see where that -- why is

that a major intersection of two major arterials is because it's going to be one day the

connector between I-70 and 63. So it's a major intersection. So the proposed -- so why -

- what's the purpose of the rezoning? Well, first of all, M-N zoning does not allow the

proposed use without a CUP plan. The issue that we have right now is we don't have a

building size, a layout, a configuration, all those things are unknown at this time. We

don't know how we're going to lay out that site exactly. We know that we want to

preserve green space, we want to have open space, we want to have other mission

partners included in this project with us potentially. They're not needed, they're not going

to be driving factor, but we would like to account for some of those. Another, you know, a

private vet and, you know, other entities like that. The first question that the Board gets

asked and the first question that Michelle gets asked when she's raising funds is where

are we going. They have a lot of donors that want to donate money to this project, but

they want to know where it's going first. And so for them to come in here and say, okay,

we're going to spend a lot of money on building plans, this isn't the first site that they've

looked at. They've had other sites that they've looked at. And the concern with that was

is every site has a different building that goes on it. And every time you redesign a

building, it just takes a lot of money working with architects, trying to lay it all out, and

we have to -- that's what we have to do here. So we had to go, basically, through a plan

process. It's very costly to do so. So why here? So, again, the proposed site gives us

the room to grow, and it's something that they don't have now. If you're familiar with the

Humane Society, they don't have a lot of space. It also allows for that green space and

open space that they would like, and it also allows for their partners. So here's some

responses I would have to some of the staff comments. First of all, Highway 763 serves

as a buffer to the east and Brown School Road serves as a buffer to the south. So if

that's the case, if there are buffers, if they're talking about buffers are going to -- you

know, those major roadways are going to be buffers from the M-C, you know, with the

adjacent properties, we have a rearage road. What's the difference in that rearage road

and these rearage roads? All of those out there have high intense commercial uses up

along 763 and they have residential behind them. That's similar to what we're asking for

in our request. If you look at the definition of major arterial, you can look and see what it

says. This comes right out of Columbia Imagined. They are major roadways that handle

the bulk of the through traffic within the City. Now look at the local non-residential. Now

this is the rearage road that they're -- that CATSO says we have to have on the back side

of our property. It says that it is a low-volume, low-speed street that provides access to

commercial, industrial, institutional, and other intensive land uses. So if we're going to

have a rearage road back there, CATSO is saying that they're going to -- you know, it's

supposed to be there for intensive land uses. So I believe that M-C is an appropriate use

for that specific purpose. Let's go back and look at the dash lines. There again, those

dash lines are the local non-residential streets that parallel 763, and you can kind of see

how they act as rearage roads through there, how you have a lot of layers, you have the

residential beyond that. And so we anticipate that same thing happening here. As the

land west of this property would redevelop, it could redevelop in transitional zoning, just

like it did south of our property on the other side of Brown School Road. When you see

that that has M-OF and PD, they didn't do it up at the intersection, they did it further back

on their property. That's what can happen, exactly what can happen west of this

development. The next item is it says the zoning in the entirety of -- excuse me. Zoning

the entirety of the site to M-C would permit commercial uses too intense for the abutting

properties. We have written or verbal approval from our neighbors. Now this isn't all the

neighbors that we have approval from. We have others, as well. We didn't feel

comfortable putting it up there because they -- I wanted to hear it themselves. But these

are the property owners that we spoke to directly that gave us a letter or gave us verbal

approval. They're okay with not only the M-C, but also the use that we have. They

understood, we went through, and we told them what we're doing. We're doing -- it's for

the Central Missouri Humane Society. Those residents had no concern with it. There's a

couple -- I think you have those letters. Here's copies of them, as well. Some of the M-C

uses that are permissible by right have no use-specific standards that would be

inconsistent with the abutting parcels. Again, we have support from our neighbors, so the

M-C that are permissible by right have no use-specific standards and would be consistent

with the abutting parcels. The neighbors understand what we're doing here. They're okay

with it. The UDC has neighborhood protections in place; and furthermore, there's

use-specific standards for our specific use that pushes us off those property lines. So if

you have a kennel or an animal hospital, we're 200 feet away from those residential uses,

much further than any other setback.

MS. LOE: Mr. Crockett, are you going to go back --

MR. CROCKETT: Yes, ma'am.

MS. LOE: -- or forward to the neighbors? So I don't see a letter from the neighbor to

the north and northwest, but you --

MR. CROCKETT: Those are the ones that we have verbal.

MS. LOE: You have verbal?

MR. CROCKETT: Yes.

MS. LOE: All right.

MR. CROCKETT: That is Mr. Wheeler. I don't believe Mr. Wheeler is here tonight.

MS. LOE: I don't see him. Yeah.

MR. CROCKETT: No. We had met with him several times. Myself, -- I have met

with him. Mr. Land has met with him, I think Central Humane -- the Humane Society has

met with him, and he's given us verbal that he's fine with it.

MS. LOE: Thank you.

MR. CROCKETT: Break it now. There we go. Okay. I'll wrap it up here. So, you

know, the requested zoning district is considered inconsistent with the neighborhood

district designation for the property as shown on the future land-use map in the City of

Columbia. Similar M-C zonings have been granted throughout the City of Columbia and

neighborhood districts. The land-use map may not show those now because it's been

modified after those have been granted. There's been several. I briefly looked at it. There

was on Grindstone, out at Lake of the Woods, over on Scott Boulevard, so it's not

inconsistent to look at that. I think that some of the -- the age of the land-use map may

be out of date in some places. And so I know this has been done numerous times before

I the past, and so this is, you know, no different than what we could ask for here. Now

while all the other quadrants of the intersection have M-C zoning, none of them adjoin a

legal residential zoned lot at the lot line They have roads which provide a buffer between

their commercial industrial developments and the homes. Okay. That's important there.

So as they have roads which provide a buffer -- well, I'm going to go back to this slide.

We're going to have a road on our far west side that provides that buffer, so it's there.

And we're not constructing it, we're granting half the right-of-way, but that road will be

planned and it will be constructed at some point. And then this comment, I think this is -

- nothing against Mr. Kunz. I think this one -- this is how it reads: None of the -- none of

the property north of Brown School Road and west of 763 in both the City and County is

zoned anything but residential. I think that was -- it may just be -- yeah.

MR. KUNZ: It was --

MR. CROCKETT: And so, nothing against that. I just want to make sure that if

you read that as Commissioners that you didn't think that there wasn't already

commercially zoned property in that area, so you can see it through here. So I just

wanted to clarify that. And so in conclusion, you know, we believe the proposed site is

located at a major future intersection for north Columbia, two major arterial roadways.

The proposed zoning to M-C is consistent with other zonings up and down to Highway

763, and M-C is consistent with other intersections in the city of Columbia. The applicant

has support from his neighbors. You can see here tonight that I believe that -- I don't

want to speak for everybody, but I believe that most of the folks in the crowd tonight are in

support of this development. I don't think we have any opposition here tonight. The

neighbors have been advertised, it's been out there, they've been notified, and they're not

here tonight. And they're not here tonight because they're okay with what we're

proposing. The UDC specifically addresses additional protections needed for varying

zoning classifications. So M-C backing up to County R-S, there's zoning -- there's

protections in the UDC. That's what the UDC neighborhood protections was created for,

and it's worked great in other locations, it can work for that here. And then of course the

future land-use map, we've already kind of talked about that. And so with that,

Commission, I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Crockett. Are there any questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Mr. Crockett, I loved the presentation. I agree with it in part. So

what's the problem with M-N --

MR. CROCKETT: Uh-huh.

MR. STANTON: -- on part of the land? I want it to be a win-win.

MR. CROCKETT: Uh-huh.

MR. STANTON: But I'm assuming you want to ride or die with this vote up or

down, M-C or nothing. Right? Is that what we're going to go with, or are we -- got room

for compromise?

MR. CROCKETT: Well, I mean, I think -- the issue with M-N, Mr. Stanton, is the

uncertainty and not on behalf of the vote on P & Z or County -- or, excuse me -- City

Council later on, but it's the uncertainty on how we're going to develop the site long term.

You know, if the intent is to make it a larger campus, have it -- have an open green

space, but we don't know how the building is going to fit. We don't know how the -- what

the building is going to look like. We don't know exactly where the dog runs are. We

know that we have setbacks to adhere to. We want to work with the existing pond and

the existing floodplain and all of that to have that open space and trails and outdoor

space for -- for the animals at the shelter. We want to have those opportunities for

someone who is looking to come in. You know, you go in now, you see a puppy, and

you can play with it inside. We want an outdoor area, as well. We want people to be

able to take it on a walk and walk around the pond, and, you know, the animals get -- you

don't get exercise. The concern with that is is every time we make a change, we're going

to have to come back through this Commissioner because our CUP plan, we don't know

what we're going to do. We don't know who our future -- who our future mission partners

are going to be out there, whether it's going to be, you know, a private vet or a small retail

pet shop that goes -- you know, very small that goes, you know, with what we're looking

for. Every time we do that, we're going to have to come back in. We don't know where

we're going to site our building. We don't know how we're going to site those future pad

lots, either, and so that's the concern. Absolutely, we've looked at that. We did look at

that. That was part of the reason why this was tabled for two weeks is that we weren't

prepared because staff insisted that we look at it again. We certainly did. We

understand that, we took their advice, we looked at it, and this is what we came back

with.

MR. STANTON: To quiet the City Staff's fears of the M-C zoning that is going to

allow things in the future -- I mean, you're talking right now. You know us, as a

Commission, we've got to think 50 to 100 years down the road. So talk to me about --

quiet my fears that the staff is presenting in this report.

MR. CROCKETT: Okay. Let's look at other places where we have high, intense

commercial zoning next to residential areas. Has it worked? Has neighborhood

protections worked? Yes. I think it's worked out very well, and I think it can continue to

work out well. Our UDC was based on that principle that we don't want to go with

planned district. Now while the conditional-use permit isn't a planned district, but

basically, we have to present a plan that's very similar -- very similar to that of a planned

zoning district. And the point of the UDC was to get away from those, and to utilize the

neighborhood protections and the use-specific standards to their fullest to protect

neighboring properties adjacent to certain uses. And I think the UDC has worked out very

well, and I think that we can do that in this location, as well. Now if we didn't have the

neighbors on board, I think it -- you know, that's a little bit more of an uphill battle, but we

also have neighbors who are supportive of what we're doing, and so they're going to be

understandable on what we're -- what we're trying to achieve. And so to answer your

question, I hope that -- I hope that did answer it, but I think we let the processes and

procedures and the documents that we have right now work as they should be.

MR. STANTON: Thank you.

MR. CROCKETT: Thank you.

MS. LOE: Any additional questions for this speaker? Commissioner Williams?

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. For -- to follow up on Commissioner Stanton's

question. I guess if you could go to the initial plot diagram.

MR. CROCKETT: The preliminary plat?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. CROCKETT: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMS: And there's two things. One is I don't see a scale on there, so I'm

trying to conceptualize what 200 feet from the north side of the lot would be.

MR. CROCKETT: Okay. Mr. Williams, I'm trying to think here. So you see the

variation on the far -- on the far-left side of the page, you see that, the right-of-way that

runs north and south. Okay?

MR. WILLIAMS: Uh-huh.

MR. CROCKETT: That right-of-way, I believe, is 33 feet. So that's a 33-foot half

right-of-way for that future road that runs through there, the future local non-residential.

And so if you can conceptually see, okay, so that's going to be about -- from that point,

it's about six of those further over is 200 feet.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay.

MR. CROCKETT: So it's -- it's pushing that limit. So that far north corner, you know,

and that's not just off that -- off that property line, but it's also for the north property line,

as well, coming down. And so, you know, we have 200 feet off the west line and 200 feet

off the north line, as well. So there's -- there's a substantial amount of area that we have

for setback there.

MR. WILLIAMS: And then the second question, and this is probably more towards

Commissioner Stanton's point is the southwest -- it's currently the southwest, I guess,

plot, is, based upon the -- the -- where the pond is and the drainage ditch, it seems like

that's the most likely building space. Is that not large enough to -- to have that be M-C

and then the rest of it be zoned separately?

MR. CROCKETT: If -- I guess my -- my comment to that would be that kind of -- if

we're trying to buffer what -- Mr. Williams, I’m not sure -- I guess what you're saying, is

you're trying to say let's take the southwest corner that's the most developable, most

logical location for development, and zone that M-C, and the rest of it M-N, what we're -- I

think what that kind of does is that kind of defeats what staff is trying to do is stair-step

that zoning further as we go west. And so, you know, by just keeping the north M-N, I

mean, I think that possibly could, you know, potentially work for us, but the concern there

is is that we have to come back with a CUP plan, anything along those lines, you know, I

still think that the concern is is trying to step that zoning down. Staff wants to step the

zoning down from east to west, and in doing that, we're taking the westerly most portion

and keeping it M-C. We're kind of stair-stepping it down in reverse order there, I guess is

what I'm saying. And so I don't think that that would achieve staff's goals.

MR. WILLIAMS: With the drainage in the southeast lot, though, is that -- I mean, is

that buildable there?

MR. CROCKETT: No. There's -- there's three things there. There's floodplain. Now

floodplain has -- you know, there's certain procedures and processes we can do to

develop in the floodplain according to FEMA and the City of Columbia. Okay? But that's

limited -- very limited. But the two that really restrict us through there, they're very

restrictive, is one is there is a stream buffer. There is a city of Columbia stream buffer

that runs through there that regulates that, as well as FEMA floodway. So there's

floodplain and floodway. And so there's two items. Floodplain -- or, excuse me --

floodway and stream buffer that would restrict the development in that location.

MR. WILLIAMS: So to your point, though, as far as the east to west, if it's not really

developable in the southeast plot, then I’m -- I know that it undercuts the -- what the staff

recommending. If it's the unlikely that there wouldn't be any development in that

particular quadrant anyway, then the fact that that was M-N and then you have to the

west of it an M-C, I don't know that that necessarily undercuts what they're trying to do.

MR. CROCKETT: I mean -- and I guess if we came back in and just rezoned the

stream buffer and that low-lying area M-N, I mean, it's kind of undevelopable anyway, so

whether it's M-C or M-N, it's not really -- it's not restricting us any further. It's just -- all

due respect, I don't see it serving -- you know, solving a problem is, I guess, is what I'm

saying. I guess we could do it. I don't think -- I don't have an issue with that, I just don't -

MR. WILLIAMS: I was just responding to your comment.

MR. CROCKETT: It would be -- it would be a split-zone tract which is somewhat

different. Staff doesn't like that, and applicants don't like that, either, typically, but yes. If

the Commissioner so desired to make a recommendation, I guess we could.

MS. LOE: Any additional questions, Mr. Williams?

MR. WILLIAMS: No. Thank you.

MS. LOE: Thank you. Any additional questions? Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: I'm going to return to what Commissioner Stanton also asked. That

is we're supposed to give blanket M-C zoning to this despite the fact that, by right, there

would be all that list of possibilities. And so you can see why we would be hesitant to do

that.

MR. CROCKETT: Sure.

MS. PLACIER: Because then maybe there would be a bar go in or who knows what.

I mean, it would be by right. We would never get a chance to look at it again, nor the

neighbors.

MR. CROCKETT: Right.

MS. PLACIER: So what assurances, if any, would we have? Just trust in --

MR. CROCKETT: You know, I'm not -- yeah. Yeah. I'd love to say trust in us to do

what we say we're going to do. And, I mean, we can say that until we're blue in the face.

We've done that many times before, and you certainly are aware, Ms. Placier. What

you're referring to is you believe that since the Missouri Humane Society has full intention

on doing what they're doing, but what if?

MS. PLACIER: Yeah.

MR. CROCKETT: What if the what if happens? I mean, that's what we have to look

at. That's what you're asking for. And I think that if the what if happens, again, I think

that the UDC was strictly written for specific uses just like this. I mean, if -- whether it's

M-C or M-N, our setback is going to have to be the same according to the use-specific

standards. Okay? The neighborhood protections are going to be the same. So for our

use, there's other uses in the screening requirements between -- I mean, it's the -- it's the

most heavy screening requirement between M-C and residential. Okay? I think we also

have to step back just a little bit and look at this. Let's go to this one, and let's look at

long term. If we zone -- if we zone this M-N, are we saying that the rest of that property

is never going to be a transitional zoning? Is it never going to come in for rezoning? I

don't know that. Maybe it does, maybe it stays large-acreage tracts forever. I don't

know. But the idea there is is those residents, you know, we've asked -- and many

times, this Commission has asked us, go talk to the residents. Go get their support.

Go, let them know what's taking place. We've done that. We've done what this

Commission has asked us to do, and we've brought letters and we've brought support to

you. And I think that carries a lot of weight with when the neighbors say listen, you

know, zone your property, we're in support of it, and if I want to live next to it, that's okay.

I supported that zoning.

MS. PLACIER: Just as a follow-up. The letters that we have received all refer to the

Central Missouri Humane Society.

MR. CROCKETT: That is correct.

MS. PLACIER: And want that to be there. They may not be aware that M-C would

allow many other things to be there that --

MR. CROCKETT: We --

MS. PLACIER: -- what disclosure do they have of that possibility?

MR. CROCKETT: We discussed that with them being M-C. We understood -- you

know, we are asking for M-C zoning, period. And the Central Missouri Humane Society

would like to go here. So basically, we explained both of those scenarios to them. It's

not that we want your support for Central Missouri Humane Society, we're asking for M-C

zoning and the Humane Society would like to go there. So we made it clear that both of

those -- that there is a distinction between those two.

MS. LOE: Any additional questions? Mr. Crockett, I have a question. How big

acreage-wise is the pond?

MR. FORD: I can tell you.

MR. CROCKETT: I'm going to -- I'm just going to guess. Shoot off the top of my --

you know, just winging it here, Ms. Loe, I'm going to say a couple of acres.

MS. LOE: Two to three?

MR. FORD: One.

MS. LOE: And where I'm going with that is --

MR. CROCKETT: One.

MS. LOE: One?

MR. CROCKETT: Okay. It looks like it’s quite a bit small. Okay.

MS. LOE: Maybe during the drought season or -- so currently their lot is 2.8 acres, I

believe --

MR. CROCKETT: Yes. Yes.

MS. LOE: -- on the assessor's site, and you were offered a site that was 4.6 by the

City, and that was too small. So how much land is needed, and I'm pulling -- I'm going to

pull two acres out for the pond, just because it's irregular shaped, so we're looking at 16

acres. Part of me is wondering is the -- will the whole site be used for the Human

Society or is there area left over?

MR. CROCKETT: There's going to be some area left over. And so, again, with the

mission partners, I think that -- I think Ms. Casey might be able to speak to that a little

bit on -- on what they envision to have as a campus out here, not just the Central

Missouri Humane Society, but other mission partners over there that, you know, can have

either a not-for-profit or for-profit entities that -- that would coincide with the Human

Society and their mission, you know. And so, you can make a revision, you know, a

couple other of those out here, nothing -- nothing large, nothing major, but more than just

the Humane Society potentially.

MS. LOE: Thank you. Any additional questions? I see none. Thank you.

MR. CROCKETT: Thank you.

MS.LOE: If there's any additional speakers, please come up. And again, we

need your name and address for the record.

MS. CASEY: My name is Michelle Casey; I'm the Associate director and the

campaign manager at the Central Missouri Humane Society, and my home address is

1803 Topsail Drive, 65202. Thank you so much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

I'm here mostly to talk about the building. I have been involved with the Humane Society

since I was 18 years old, and when I first walked into that building, I knew that this was

not okay. They needed a new building 20 years ago, they needed a new building 30

years ago. And we've gotten to the point where we just cannot really operate out of this

building the way that we need to. And what we're really worried about is in the near

future, we're not going to be able to operate out of this building at all. And I'm not sure

what the City would do if we weren't able to operate, and specifically, animal control who

is run by the City, because they are one of our biggest partners. And we love the

relationship we have with animal control, and we're certainly building them space in this

new facility, as well. Our current building, if you have not been there, it has heavily

degraded over the years. We've been there since 1976. Not only that, but when the --

this current shelter was constructed, the population of Columbia was -- was nearly half of

what it is now. So now there is much greater need in the community not just for pet

owners, but just for lost and unwanted pets in the community, as well. So we know what

we need. We have really considered this M-N zoning, and while it does meet some of

the needs of our organization, we're just worried how that might inhibit us in the future.

Because what we really want to do is, we don't just want to have the animal shelter, we

want to create a campus. We want this to be a resource center for this community,

because that's what we are. We -- we serve this community and these pets and these

people. And so we want to build a campus. We are in the animal business. We do not

want to bring in an auto store or a bar that is -- we are strictly animals. But we do want

to have a resource center because not only do we want to have -- be able to take care of

these animals in the shelter, but we want to create safety nets to keep them from coming

into the shelter in the first place, and that -- that may be a partnership with a groomer,

maybe a pet store, any way that we can impact animals and keep them in their loving

homes and out of the shelter, that's what we're trying to do. We've been continuously in

operation since 1943, so we know what we need to operate, but we also know what we

need to grow and evolve as an organization, and that's what we've tried to do over -- over

all of these years. It's been many years in operation, and we believe that this site is

going to be just a wonderful site for us. We were offered the 4.5 acres on Strawn Road,

and after working with Tim, we decided against that road or that land. While we were

grateful for the City to offer it, it was going to be too costly to actually get ready to build.

So to make that site ready was going to cost over $1 million, and that was just not

something that our donors were really receptive to. They really want their dollars to go

towards the animal care, towards those animal housing areas, not $1 million to go

towards dirt work. So this property here, Tim has looked into this and said, you know,

with the dirt work that we need to do, we won't have to bring any in and out, we can just

use what's on the property. So I believe, Tim believes, and I think my staff stands behind

us that the M-C zoning is going to be correct just for the future of our organization, and I

would hope that you all would consider it.

MS. LOE: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Oh, my gosh. I love your organization.

MS. CASEY: Oh, thank you.

MR. STANTON: There's something twanging, and my instincts are very sharp.

MS. CASEY: Give me the twang. What is it?

MR. STANTON: I feel like there's --

MS. CASEY: What is it? What?

MR. STANTON: I feel a hoodwink somewhere and I don't know where it's at. I don't

like it. I'm just trying to figure it out.

MS. CASEY: I understand that. I would hope that as the Central Missouri Humane

Society, you would trust it.

MR. STANTON: Well, it may not be you. I mean, I guess where I'm at is I'm kind of

like with my fellow Commissioners, I hate to even ask this. Are you guaranteed good if

we give you this? I mean, nothing is to stop. My -- my buddy that just left the podium

there, I say, hey, I give you everything you wanted, and you guys back out of the deal,

the funding falls through, or somewhere you find another spot that's better than this. And

now I've given -- I given the keys to the castle.

MS. CASEY: I get it.

MR. STANTON: You say that's our biggest thing. It's our -- and I don't know if

my fellow Commissioners agree, we give you -- we give you M-C, it kind of works like --

you know, it's like algae. You know, it grows here, then the neighbor is going to want it,

you know, then it grows out, and then we're running into residential. There is a lot of

residential kind of off to the side, you know, behind and around your property that you're

looking at. Those are our concerns.

MS. CASEY: Uh-huh.

MR. STANTON: It's not your particular -- it's just the power we're giving you with

the zoning. So can you guarantee this is good for -- that this is yours if we give you what

you're asking for?

MS. CASEY: You give us what we're asking for and this property will be the home of

the Central Missouri Humane Society for the next 100 years, I can guarantee that, and

our life saving will also increase because what we've been able to do out of this current

building with the restrictions that we have, the space restrictions, part of our building now

doesn't even have air conditioning. I mean, not just for the animals, but for the staff, so it

can be just miserable. So I'm telling you that this piece of property, I know in my heart

because we've looked at enough of them, and I've been involved with this organization

since I was a teenager, this is the property for us. And if you will allow that M-C zoning,

this will be our home and this will be where we continue to make an impact in this

community.

MR. STANTON: Thank you.

MS. LOE: Any additional questions? I see none. Thank you. Any additional

speakers on this case? Please come up to the podium.

MR. CHURCHILL: Hi. My name is Bob Churchill; I live at 1110 North Short Drive. I

am the president of the Board of Directors of the Central Missouri Humane Society. And

I just wanted to let you know that the Board endorses and supports the proposition for

this to be M-C zoning. We've discussed this. I can also tell you about -- I don't want to

take a lot of time here. I'm not only on the Board and President of the Board, I volunteer

there two afternoons a week. And that building is falling apart. We have to move. I've

been working with these people for a while now, and we are not going to do something

stupid with that property. The last thing in the world we want is to have a bar next to the

Humane Society. but we are in dire needs of moving and having a building. The place is

crumbling. You've probably seen on the news the last year or so, big chunks of the

ceiling have fallen down in that building, and you could look up and see blue sky.

Luckily, no staff or animals have been hurt, but we are really in dire straits in terms of

moving to a new facility. And I can tell you the first question donors ask me is, fine,

where are you going to go? Where are you going to go? They want to know where that

building is going to be. We're just three stoplights north of where we currently are, so it's

an area that people are already familiar with. And it's -- the land is a nice piece of land,

and we just want to move on and, you know, do the best for the animals and the city of

Columbia because there is no place else to take these stray animals, and they are

multiplying every year as the population grows. So thank you.

MS. LOE: Thank you. If you'll wait one minute. Are there any questions for this

speaker? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: So you're putting your money where your mouth is?

MR. CHURCHILL: Uh-huh. Yes. Personally, I do. I don't serve on boards -- I've

been on six boards since I retired 12 years ago from the University of Missouri. I don't

serve on boards and just go to board meetings. I donate and I volunteer for each of the

organizations that I have served on their boards, so I put my money where my mouth is.

Thank you.

MS. LOE: Any additional questions for this speaker? Commissioner Williams?

MR. WILLIAMS: To Commissioner Stanton's point, I'm curious if you could overview

for us what gives you confidence in the Central Missouri Humane Society's ability to

maintain funding over the next several decades? I think the concern that I have, I won't

impart this to the other Commissioners, is not that I would hope that this would happen,

but the concern I have is that something would happen that you wouldn't be able to make

your obligations or in the future someone decided that -- to sell the property, and then it's

M-C. So in 30 years, we then have a situation where it's something less desirable to the

neighbors is built there because it's owned by someone else. So can you speak to that,

please.

MR. CHURCHILL: Well, I think what I can tell you is that fundraising had been slow

for a while. Covid didn't help things. We started talking about this, you know, around

that time, and that really, you know, slowed things down. I can tell you as of recently,

people that we have talked to and talked about a new building and a new site, fundraising

has really gone up. We have probably raised more money in the last six to twelve

months than we've had in the whole previous time. We're very excited about this. People

-- I'm surprised at how many people actually know about the Humane Society. I have

personally adopted three dogs from the Humane Society, and I just adopted a 12-year-old

boxer two weeks ago, and one of the -- besides him being a very sweet dog is, who is

going to adopt a 12-year-old boxer? People want puppies and younger dogs. But I am

very confident, you know, the contacts that I have made with people around town and

talking about fundraising, everybody is in support of this. I think that we have now gotten

past the point where it looks like we are going to do this and raise all the money,

whereas I would say two years ago or so, you know, you would be scratching your head

and saying can we really do this. But I am absolutely convinced now that we are well on

our way, and we're going to do this. The people -- I can't speak for the people in the

future that are going to run the Humane Society, but if they're anything like the people

who have been there since it started, I wouldn't have any concerns about how they're

going to use that land in the future.

MR. WILLIAMS: And a follow-up question is, are you intending to finance the

buildings that you're putting on the property, or are you intending to raise fully the amount

of capital that's required to build them?

MR. CHURCHILL: Well, I am not chairman of the finance committee. I would hope

that we would raise all of it pretty soon. We're getting, you know, fairly close, but in order

to get the project moving, because we have to get out of this building. It's dangerous.

That is a dangerous building to be in. We would be willing to, I think, finance some to get

this thing -- we'd like to break ground this year, if at all possible, because I invite any of

you to over and visit the current building and take a look and see what the condition it is

in, and you would say, boy, you need to go someplace else.

MS. LOE: Any additional questions, Commissioner Williams?

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

MR. CHURCHILL: You're welcome.

MS. LOE: Any additional questions for this speaker? I see none. Thank you. Any

additional speakers on this case?

MR. LAND: Commissioners, my name is Paul Land; I'm a real estate practitioner

with Plaza Commercial Realty, and I represent the Sorrels, who are the property owners

of this property whom I met about 20 years ago, and they have considered selling this

property since that time. That's the life of a real estate broker. I'm not complaining; I

entered the industry and stayed with it. But until the Sorrels' elders died, the family

wasn't really in a position to sell this property. They put that property on the market

about a year ago. It coincided nicely with the CMHS desire to own real estate and

upgrade their facility. I've lived in Columbia for 40 years and I've practiced commercial

real estate in this community for 37 of those. In my career, I've never seen a facility in

more critical need of replacement than that facility in this community. All my business is

done within a 15-mile radius of this building. I've never seen such a need. There are

projects that appear before you that are projects of desire and there are projects that

appear before you that are absolutely critical need. This is a critical need, and I hope you

will consider granting this request. I personally visited with the two adjoining property

owners to the west and to the north when we first listed the property in advance of the

discussion with CMHS. I asked them if they would support M-C zoning on this property.

They stated they would. They've lived with that and stayed with that commitment. They

see the future of that as M-C. Frankly, I would advise my seller if they had, oh, the desire

to go through this arduous process -- it's an arduous process to ask for rezoning. It's

expensive, it's time-consuming, it's not for the faint of heart. It's intimidating. They

decided they would prefer to wait till an end user appeared to help mitigate the fears of

that. I think you've got that end user today that helps you to mitigate those fears. To

address some of the other questions here as to what the future use of this will be, I won't

envision these people selling off or developing this property in any way that would interfere

with their own mission. This is being platted as a single lot. To -- to sell off any of this

portion in the future will require a plat. That plat requires that it come before you and

before the City Council. If they don't like who's going in on that, that's an opportunity to

deny that plat. You have control. I want you to take control today. You have the

authority. You have the ability. You have the obligation that when an error is made in a

judgment -- and I get along with City staff. We probably disagree five to ten percent of the

time, but 90 percent of the time, we're on the same page. We're all human, we can all

make an error. But I think they made an error in recommending M-N zoning. I think if

you could stand back and look at that map, the other three corners are zoned M-C, any

logical person would step back and say that ought to be M-C zoning, too. It matches the

property line of the property immediately to the south. It's not egregiously going west.

It's not egregiously going north, and the City is getting something in this bargain. They're

getting a 33-foot-wide granted easement or right-of-way on the west side of this property

for a future road. They're getting that for free. So I guess in some way, I think this ought

to be supported. I'd like to appeal to your interpretation that this is the correct zoning for

this parcel.

MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Land. Before you leave the podium, I believe --

Commissioner Stanton has a question for you.

MR. STANTON: Hold up, Mr. Land.

MR. LAND: I would be surprised if he didn't.

MR. STANTON: Hold up there. If I was your client and I lived on East Nance, is that

MR. LAND: Say it again.

MR. STANTON: If I lived on East Nance, and I was your client --

MR. LAND: East Nance.

MR. STANTON: That's north of the proposed property.

MR. LAND: North of this property?

MR. STANTON: Yes.

MR. LAND: Yes.

MR. STANTON: What would you advise me if -- if I was, basically --

MR. LAND: On land?

MR. STANTON: -- yes.

MR. LAND: These properties on Nance are zoned commercial right now.

MR. STANTON: Okay. Say I have a house there, because there's residential --

MR. LAND: Well, they do, but they are zoned in the County.

MR. STANTON: So what would you tell me? I know that it is zoned, but I'm there as

a resident.

MR. LAND: They have the opportunity to pose that right now, don't they?

MR. STANTON: I don't know. I'm asking you as a real estate proprietor. What

would you tell me as your client?

MR. LAND: Well, if --

MR. STANTON: If I was -- if the land was -- if it was going -- getting ready to be

M-C, and I'm residential, and to the south of me is getting ready to be heavy -- the

potential could be heavy industrial. You, as a real estate proprietor, what would you tell

me if I was your client and I lived on that street? I lived in any of those --

MR. LAND: Sir, I live in the world of commercial real estate. I could not advise you

on a residential property. I've never sold -- owned -- or I've leased residential property.

MR. STANTON: Okay. But you just told me that it's commercial now, but I'm using

it as a residential, so what would you advise me?

MR. LAND: Well, I think they know what's coming, don't you? I think they made

decisions to buy where they are now based on zoning that surrounds that area. I don't

see this particular parcel as being anything different than that already exists in that area.

MR. STANTON: Thank you.

MS. LOE: Mr. Land, just for a point of clarification, the four parcels bordered by

Brown School Road and 763, do those encompass all of the parcels owned by the

Sorrels in that area? I mean, do they own any property adjacent to that?

MR. LAND: No. The property line to the west is owned by Gary Pfau. The property

line -- who is an educated and -- I don't know if he still practices real estate. I guess he

does, but he understands. And the property to the north is owned is owned by Doug

Wheeler, who is also a real estate broker, a former member of this Commission. Both

support this. Did I answer your question?

MS. LOE: Yes, you did.

MR. LAND: Okay.

MS. LOE: Thank you. Any additional questions? Any additional speakers on this

case? If there are none, we're going to close public hearing and move into Commission

discussion.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. LOE: Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Okay. Mr. Land kind of answered my fears. I served with Mr.

Wheeler on this Commission, a real estate guy. To the west of this is a real estate guy.

So if we gave them M-C, and two heavy hitter real estate guys own the surrounding

property, and they're good -- I know Mr. Wheeler personally, they’re good businessman.

If they have an opportunity to make this M-C and they're real estate guys, I think they'd

do it. And that would make all of that land M-C. Now, we've taken care of the Humane

Society. Okay. We'll do that. What about the rest of that? And that would run right up

to all of that residential that's kind of buffered at this time, but it's buffered by land that's

owned by some pretty heavy-handed real estate guys.

MR. FORD: That's speculating.

MR. STANTON: I know Mr. Wheeler; I don't even have to speculate. I know that

guy.

MR. FORD: Well, I know him too.

MR. STANTON: They're real estate guys. So that -- if I was a businessman and had

an opportunity to make that M-C, I would do that.

MR. FORD: That's not what's on the docket right now.

MR. STANTON: I don't care what's on the docket. I'm talking right now. I have the

floor. And I have a right to express my opinion on what's on hand, which is M-C versus

M-N, which is supported by staff as M-N. So I'm trying to convince myself why I should

go against professionals that say M-N is the best zoning and convince myself that M-C

isn't. So this has something to do with what's on the table, Mr. Ford. So that’s just my

opinion, looking at the current information that's been presented to this Commission,

which is relative to the M-C versus M-N zoning that is on the table at this time.

MS. LOE: So you're supporting M-N?

MR. STANTON: I don't know. I'm just throwing that out there for what I think about.

I haven't decided yet.

MS. LOE: Okay. All right. Any other discussion on this case? Commissioner

Williams?

MR. WILLIAMS: I -- this is a -- as Mr. Stanton -- I'm not sure if Mr. Stanton has

made up his mind yet -- or if Mr. Stanton has made up his mind yet, but I think that this

is -- where I'm coming down on this is that we have a known good that we are trying to

weigh up against a hypothetical negative in the future. And it was weighing more heavily

on me that the abutting landowners support it until I think you astutely observe that the

extent that this is zoned M-C, then the abutting property may be easier to zone M-C

later, and that might be a -- potentially beneficial to the landowners there, to the extent

that they wish to later sell their property at M-C, which then pushes the M-C zoning

closer to the residential neighborhoods north that are located on Nance Drive. But I think

-- so it's being made difficult by the fact that -- it's a clear good to have the space

available to the Humane Society. I think the trouble is that it would be a much easier

decision if it was zoned -- if they agreed to the M-N zoning, but I appreciate the business

practicalities of not wanting to absorb donor funds in regularly redesigning and coming

before the Commission. So those are the things that I'm weighing out, and I wanted to

share that with the Commission in case it sparks any further thought with anyone else.

MS. LOE: Additional discussion? If you all are still collecting thoughts, I'm happy to

jump in. I typically don't support up-zoning to M-C adjacent to residential, especially R-1

if it's established just because I do see that as a concentrated use that while we do have

neighborhood protection standards in it, in the UDC, it's -- we usually step down the

zoning between those zones. However, in this case, you do have all the neighbors

abutting the property coming forward as supporting the zoning change. In addition, the

inclusion of the CATSO local non-residential collector on the west side of the lot does

appear to me to act much as Edenton Boulevard would on the east side as a buffer

between the M-C and M-OF on that side, and the residential. So I'm -- I don't actually

see rezoning this lot as M-C as being a given that the lots due west would be up-zoned,

because I would consider that collector to potentially act as a buffer. I do see the lot to

the north naturally already lending its way toward since it's already on Rangeline. So

because of those conditions, I would actually support the M-C zoning on this lot.

Additional comments? Or are we ready to go to a motion? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Let's get it on.

MS. LOE: Wait. Wait. Wait. Commissioner Placier has a comment.

MS. PLACIER: Well, just my main question coming in here tonight was why stick

so vociferously to M-C? What would be the reasoning since many, many uses are

allowable under M-N. And now we have the Stanton theory that it's the real estate guys,

and -- and maybe sort of a -- you know, a domino effect all along there of everything going

M-C even though the other three corners are M-C. And so it -- but also you could make a

contextual argument that that also makes sense. The other corners are -- the one corner

isn't developed yet, however. The Moser's is not the most intense or like an industrial

auto mechanics, whatever, use. It could be considered a neighborhood amenity. The

bank, yeah, also not that intrusive. The other thing I'm not sure exactly what they do, but

they are set pretty far back from the road. So whether it's contextual or political, I'm not

sure. I'm still convinced why insist on M-C when M-N would have worked for this use.

That's what raises the speculation that something else may be coming in that would want

M-C, although I can't imagine what it would be if there is an intention to stick with -- or at

least the stated intention, to stick with animal-related businesses. So I don't think my

question has been addressed sufficiently. Why not M-N?

MS. LOE: I believe Mr. Crockett explained that the animal and veterinary services

that they're seeking are not permitted under M-N, so it's a conditional use permit. And

one of their concerns is having to come back as they continue to develop the property,

being it's a conditional, not permitted use, hence wanting to go with the M-C. Any

additional comments? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: If there's not any more questions, I would like to entertain a motion,

Madam Chair. As it relates to Case 158-2024, a request by Crockett Engineering on

behalf of the Walter T. Sorrels, Dorothy M. Sorrels Family Trust, owner seeking approval

to zone 18.62 acres to M-C, I move to approve the rezoning to M-C.

MS. WILSON: Second.

MS. LOE: Moved -- we have a motion moved by Commissioner Stanton, second by

Commissioner Wilson. Any discussion on this motion? Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Do we need to say anything about contingent on annexation or does

that even need to be in the -- okay.

MS. LOE: Mr. Zenner is shaking his head no. If there's not, we will -- no other

questions, we will take a vote. Commissioner Stanton, if may have roll call, please.

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms. Loe,

Mr. Stanton, Mr. Williams, Ms. Placier, Ms. Wilson, Mr. Ford, Motion carries 6-0.

MR. STANTON: We have a unanimous vote.

MS. LOE: Six votes for motion to approve supported and will be forwarded to City

Council. That brings us to our next case for the evening.

As it relates to Case 158-2024, a request by Crockett Engineering on behalf of the

Walter T. Sorrels, Dorothy M. Sorrels Family Trust, owner seeking approval to

zone 18.62 acres to M-C, move to approve the rezoning to M-C.

6 - Loe, Stanton, Placier, Wilson, Ford and Williams

3 - Carroll, Geuea Jones and Baysinger

Case # 159-2024

Yes:

Absent:

A request by Crockett Engineering (agent), on behalf of Walter T Sorrels &

Dorothy M Sorrels Family Trust (owners), for approval of a 1-lot Preliminary

Plat to be known as “Central Humane Society”. The approximately

18.62-acre subject site is located northwest of the intersection of Brown

School Road and Highway 763, and includes the address 1003 E Brown

School Road. A concurrent request (Case # 158-2024) seeking to

permanently zone the property to M-C, subject to annexation, is also under

consideration. (This case was tabled at the Planning Commission’s

June 6, 2024 meeting). (Case # 159-2024)

MS. LOE: May we have a staff report, please?

Staff report was given by Mr. David Kunz of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends denial of the preliminary plat entitled "Central Humane

Society."

MR. ZENNER: The published recommendation is denial, and that was based upon

the staff's recommendation of denial on the requested permanent zoning. It is in the

Commissioner's purview to consider their approval of the permanent zoning as M-C,

reflective of its desire for this property to be annexed in in a compliant fashion to allow for

the plat to then also be approved. Our recommendation on the platting action is

something irrelevant at this point. It had to be produced based upon how we, as a staff,

presented the zoning action. So the Commission is entitled and is assured that the plat

does meet all of the standard Unified Development Code requirements for

recommendation of approval and as such would be supported giving the Planning

Commission's action to have such approval granted by them and that recommendation

forwarded to City Council if they desire.

MS. LOE: Thank you.

MR. KUNZ: Yeah. And any questions now? Apologies about that.

MS. LOE: No. I'm just going to check with the Commission again. We already did

ex parte but reconfirm no one has had any ex parte on this case that they want to share

with the Commission so the Commission has the benefit of the same information on the

case in front of us. And seeing none. Are there any questions for staff on this report? If

there are none, we'll move into public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MR. CROCKETT: Tim Crockett, Crockett Engineering, 1000 West Nifong. Have

nothing else to add. You know, we're fine with the staff report, and we appreciate it with

the revised recommendation. And so I think we've covered all the bases on the previous

request, so if there's any -- I just want to open up if there's any questions of the applicant.

MS. LOE: Any questions for this speaker? Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Crockett.

Any other speakers on this case? If there are none, we will close public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. LOE: Commission discussion? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Madam Chair, if there's you or any of the other Commissioners

having no further questions, I would like to entertain a motion. As it relates to Case 159-

2024, I move to approve the preliminary plat. Everything is kind of mixed up. Is that all I

need to say?

MS. LOE: Is that sufficient? Yes. Do we have a second on this motion?

MS. PLACIER: Second.

MS. LOE: Moved by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Placier.

We have a motion on the floor. Any discussion on this motion? I see none.

Commissioner Stanton, may we have roll call, please?

MR. STANTON: Yes, Madam Chair.

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms. Loe,

Mr. Stanton, Mr. Williams, Ms. Placier, Ms. Wilson, Mr. Ford. Motion carries 6-0.

MR. STANTON: Six votes yes.

MS. LOE: Thank you. The motion is supported. A recommendation for approval will

be forwarded to City Council. That concludes our cases for the evening.

As it relates to Case 159-2024, move to approve the preliminary plat.

6 - Loe, Stanton, Placier, Wilson, Ford and Williams

Yes:

3 - Carroll, Geuea Jones and Baysinger

Absent:

VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS

MS. LOE: This is our public comment period. If there's any additional public

comments you want to make on the cases or in general? Seeing none. We're going to

move on to staff comments.

VII. STAFF COMMENTS

MR. ZENNER: As I promised, you have a break. We will not have a meeting on July

4th, so go celebrate our independence. I at least wore my tie today to do so because we

will not be here. Hopefully, you made your vacation plans, and we'll be back relaxed and

ready to do some more business with us on July 18th, because we do have a full agenda,

as well as we will have probably a tantalizing work session discussion. Mr. Teddy is

working to arrange the Central City Consultant H3, to come in and address the Planning

and Zoning Commission as it relates to the activities that have been undertaken to date

as it relates to the Central City planning activity and we will -- that will most likely occupy

our entire hour and a half time period, so we will not be discussing our lot integration

project which gives me a little bit of time to breathe and collect my thoughts as it relates

to the remaining outstanding standards that we are trying to work on, at least from the

use-specific side. It will also give me an opportunity to not overwhelm two new staff

members that will be joining us hopefully for the July 18th meeting. We have been

recently successful in securing -- filling two of our vacancies, our two planner vacancies,

so you may see my black hair return from gray, and a little bit more productivity as it

relates to what we discuss in our work sessions because I will have hopefully a greater

amount of time to focus on those bigger issues. But we do have cases, and as many of

you are aware, July or June 1, the effective date of our short-term rental ordinance

became real after many years. And what I had indicated at our last meeting that I

thought we had three CUP cases, actually it materialized into one. Of the three that we

had received, one was more of a commentary question as it related to our application,

one was actually a resident occupied R-1, which directly goes to our Neighborhood

Services staff in order to do their evaluation and issue a short-term certificate of rental

compliance, following the article -- or Chapter 22 requirements. And then the other one is

actually a conditional use, so it will be our first conditional-use application. Some of the

conditional-use questions, we will not be able to fully answer given that we don't have all

data that we need to provide answers to all of those conditional uses, so do not be

surprised when you see that staff report, and the one question that I am speaking

specifically of is the number of short-term rentals within 300 feet of the subject site. We

do not have that data available at this point. We are still working through some issues as

it relates to business licensing and accommodation tax collection which are -- which

would be the backbone for outside services that would help us be able to identify those

uses. So right now this is the only application that we have, and we will know more as

we get additional information as to who has not registered that may be around this

dwelling unit in the future. So your five cases that we have, we have what we refer to as

the two-fer process. We have a rezoning request and a preliminary plat. This property

has come before the Planning Commission previously for platting. This is off of Creasy

Springs Road just south of the curve that's referred to as Dead Man's Curve, just before

you get up to the back entry into Blue Ridge Drive on the backside of Vanderveen. This

is a very large tract down in the lowlands just north of where Bear Creek -- the Bear

Creek Trail access is off of Creasy Springs. A preliminary plat and a request to go from

A to R-2, with the intent of doing, I believe, R-2 scale sized lots, potentially, cottage-size

lots in a section of that development through the current Board of Adjustment process.

So that will be a public hearing and a subdivision request held in tandem. And then you

have three public hearings -- standard public hearings. The 400 Clinkscales is the STR

Application. This is directly across from West Boulevard Elementary, if I'm not incorrect -

- or middle -- West Middle. And so that is -- this home is right almost in front of the

drop-off lanes. We have a request off of 1611 Commerce Court. This is a small court

that is off of Vandiver to the west of Rangeline, south of 70. And if any of you are familiar

with this general area, the Machens Automobile Dealership repair facilities are at the very

end of Commerce Court, and then Beyond Meat is actually right on the curve coming into

this particular area. This is an uncommon request. This is M-C to M-BP. M-BP is a

land use category that we don't see a tremendous amount of. That is mixed-use

business park. Mr. Kunz has this request and just as a little bit of a preface of what it is

about. The user at 1611 Commerce is, while compliant with the zoning of M-C, there is a

concern that the change of use in that building may not make it compliant with the future

user that is doing something similar. And therefore, the applicant is seeking to ensure

that the idea of doing storage within the facility that is there, it's currently a clothing

business that basically brings in clean clothes and ships them out during the day to

uniforms and things of that nature. They do not do any cleaning onsite, so they would

like a zoning category that would actually permit them to be compliant with that storage

use. The M-C district does not allow storage -- warehousing or storage. The M-BP

district is almost identical in many respects to M-C, and Mr. Kunz will do what he did this

evening, I believe, and that's provide the comparison. There are very few uses that would

be permitted. The applicant originally wanted I-G for this property. We talked them off

the ledge, so to speak, and said that was a little bit too intense for a single already

developed parcel that you could get a letter of compliance on. M-BP was the

compromise and that is why this request is coming in. It will appear as though it's a spot

on the zoning map, but in many respects, the M-BP district is as similar to M-C as you

can get. This particular applicant also came before this body asking us to make some

changes to M-BP zoning district two years ago in order to potentially help manage a little

bit of the lack of diversity between M-BP, I-G, and M-C. We have never taken that back

up again. This may be the poster child for why, if we had taken action a couple of years

ago, we may not be here today. However, this is a solution to solve the immediate

problem, not one that we want to do a comprehensive re-overhaul of our zoning

classifications on. We're already in the middle of one of them. And then finally the last

request on the agenda is 4414 Smith Drive. This is immediately south of a commercial

development on the corner of Smith and Scott, Westbury. I apologize. I was blanking on

the name, but this is a vacant -- or not a vacant, it is a property that's improved with a

single-family home, and they are seeking to go from R-1 to M-OF in order to assist in

allowing for some development of the property in order to meet an immediate need that

the applicant has with a family member that is on the property, as well as to position the

property into the future with the zoning that they believe to be appropriate south of the

Scott Boulevard right-of-way. Mr. Smith has that one, also. So it'll be Mr. Palmer on the

first two, I will do the STR, and then Mr. Kunz will finish up the last two, and we will

hopefully be able to introduce two new staff members to you during this meeting, as well.

So you can familiarize yourself with where Dead Man's Curve is, if you're not familiar, as

well as the properties that are off of Creasy Springs, that is shown here on the graphic in

front of you, as well as our other three sites. And with that, that is all we have to offer for

upcoming case work. I would like to extend the gratitude of the staff for the opportunity to

have worked with Mr. Ford. This is his last meeting, technically. We did have an

appointment that occurred on Monday of this week. Bob Walters will be joining our staff -

- or joining the Commission, I should say as a Commission member on July 18th. That

will be his first official meeting, and we will welcome him aboard, as well. And again, we

extend our greatest appreciation to Mr. Ford for his services for the short period of time

and wish you the best of luck in your next chapter in life. And I would like to extend my

appreciation to Commissioners for all showing up as close to 5:30 as you could so we

could begin our meeting, and the robust discussion again that we had as it relates to the

use-specific standards discussion and UDC amendments for small lots. Thank you.

VIII. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Zenner. I'm sure the Commissioners wish to join staff in

thanking Mr. Ford for joining us in our endeavors at the dais up here, and in the work

room. Thank you.

MR. FORD: You're welcome.

MS. LOE: We have appreciated your company and benefitted from it, so we will

miss you, but appreciate your spending time with us. Mr. Stanton?

MS. LOE: Did you all get to the Commissioner Comments yet?

MS. LOE: We are on Commissioner Comments. Sorry. I just sort of segue-wayed

into that.

MR. STANTON: Mr. Ford, you have been a pleasure and a wonderful antagonist. It's

good to have people that don't think the same and don't have the same opinions and

come from different points of view, but I would say, you know, you're gone now, so it

doesn't matter. But I will say that anything that comes out of my mouth in particular and

any mouth of any Commissioner up here has value and has relevance. And we have to

be careful not to devalue each other's opinion or positions. I know you're gone, so good

luck to you in your future endeavors. So what I'm going to say to you really doesn't

matter today, but don't you ever disrespect me while I have the floor when I'm talking

about particular items on the agenda. Love you to death. Hope to see you in the future.

Hope we can do business.

MR. FORD: Count on it.

MR. STANTON: Okay. Good. Thank you.

MS. LOE: I will entertain motions.

MS. WILSON: I move that we adjourn.

MS. LOE: Oh. Oh. Commissioner Williams?

MR. WILLIAMS: I just want to thank Mr. Kunz and the staff. I don’t how often being

new that you make a recommendation to not approve something and it goes the other

direction. But I know that you all work very hard and have been understaffed, and so I

certainly wouldn't want tonight to be any -- taken as any sort of reflection of your worker

or what you're doing. I appreciated the report and recommendation, and it was -- so I

wanted to just say that on the record. Thank you for -- for your work and what you did in

preparing the report that you did.

MR. ZENNER: Thank you very much, sir. It is our -- it is our responsibility to provide

you an unbiased opinion as it relates to our thoughts as professionals. We also respect

the position of the Commission in having to interpret the information that has been

provided not only by the staff from a technical perspective, but also that from the public.

And weighing that is the duty of this body placed upon you by City Council. So we do

not take anything personally. We are always here to answer questions should you have

them, and provide advice as requested. So tonight's outcome was one that we

anticipated possibly coming and so it does not surprise us. The facts went where the

facts went. So I -- again, I appreciate your understanding and the position that we often --

we are placed in. But don't worry, it won't change how our staff approaches anything in

the future. Ask Mr. Stanton and ask Ms. Loe.

MS. LOE: We appreciate staff's recommendations --

MR. STANTON: Yes.

MS. LOE: -- and we do understand what you're evaluating and all the work that goes

into them.

MS. PLACIER: Well, and it made it much more of a thoughtful deliberation process

to have to wrestle with all that.