City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Columbia City Hall

Council Chambers

701 E Broadway

Thursday, March 20, 2025

7:00 PM

Regular Meeting

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. INTRODUCTIONS

MS. GEUEA JONES: I will now call the March 20, 2025 meeting of the Planning and

Zoning Commission to order.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton, may we have a roll call?

MR. STANTON: Yes, Madam Chair. Commissioner Brodsky?

MR. BRODSKY: Here.

MR. STANTON: Ms. Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: Here.

MR. STANTON: Ms. Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Here.

MR. STANTON: I'm here. Madam Chair, Ms. Jones?

MS. JONES: Here.

MR. STANTON: Mr. Williams? Ms. Loe?

MS. LOE: Here.

MR. STANTON: Ms. Wilson?

MS. WILSON: Here.

MR. STANTON: Mr. Walters?

MR. WALTERS: Yes, here.

MR. STANTON: We have eight, Madam Chair, we have quorum.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much.

MR. CRAIG: You need to -- we're missing a Commissioner here on roll call. Oh, did

he call -- Oh, I'm sorry. Pardon me.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay? Okay.

MR. STANTON: Counsel, are we good?

MR. CRAIG: Yes, we are.

MR. STANTON: All right.

8 -

Present:

Sara Loe, Anthony Stanton, Sharon Geuea Jones, Peggy Placier, Shannon Wilson,

Robert Walters, McKenzie Ortiz and David Brodsky

1 - Thomas Williams

Excused:

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Zenner, are there any changes or adjustments to the

agenda?'

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

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there a motion to approve the agenda?

MS. LOE: Move to approve the agenda.

MS. ORTIZ: I'll second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner Loe, seconded by Commissioner

Ortiz. Can I get a thumbs-up approval of the agenda?

(Unanimous vote for approval.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Unanimous. Very good.

Move to approve the agenda.

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any changes or adjustments to the minutes from our

March 6th meeting? Seeing none.

MS. LOE: Move to approve the minutes.

MS. ORTIZ: I'll second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner Loe, seconded by Commissioner

Ortiz. Thumbs up approval of the minutes?

(Unanimous vote for approval.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Unanimous. Thank you.

Move to approve the minutes.

V. TABLING REQUESTS

Case # 92-2025

A request by Crockett Engineering (agent), on behalf of P1316 LLC

(owner), for approval of a PD Plan to be known as "Discovery Apartments"

and a revised, site-specific statement of intent. The PD Plan also serves

as a new preliminary plat for the site's 22.14-acres and is being

concurrently reviewed with a proposed replat of Discovery Park

Subdivision, Plat 6A and 7. The PD Plan proposes to create 5 lots and 1

common lot for a mixed-use development containing residential dwellings

and commercial uses. Site-specific development is being proposed on

Lots 1 and 2 of the Plan. The approximately 22.14-acre subject site is

located around the perimeter of the roundabout at the northern end of

Endeavor Drive and is bounded by Brairmont Avenue (private) to the east

and Artemis Drive (public) to the west.

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report on the tabling request?

MR. ZENNER: Yes, you may, ma'am. This was an advertised public hearing, and I

do have the wrong map here. I apologize. So we are down at Discovery is where we're

at. Many of you are aware of where The Kitchen is. This is -- that is bounded by

Endeavor and Nocona. Endeavor is the roadway that comes in off of Gans and goes all

the way to the lake. It currently terminates in a cul-de-sac. We are talking about the

property at the end of the cul-de-sac and fronting on the lake, that 22.14 acres. My

apologies for not having the map. This was an advertised public hearing. However, as we

were finishing up internal staff review, it was identified that there were several issues that

needed to be addressed that will require some significant additional time, hence the

reason for the request to table to April 24th. As stated in the staff memo that came out

with this tabling request, that is the maximum tabling prior to having to re-advertise the

entire project. We will and have sent out notice of this tabling to the adjoining property

owners that were within 185 feet and homeowners' associations, neighborhood

associations within 1,000 feet. We will re-notice that same group of individuals prior to

the April 24th meeting. This tabling request was arrived at after consultation with the

applicant and their design professional. However, again, this was an advertised public

hearing, so if there is anybody here to speak in regards that, standard -- standing policy

would be to allow them to talk on the tabling request. We do not have a report ready.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Very good. Are there any questions for staff regarding the

tabling request? Seeing none. This was advertised for public hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

Did anyone come here tonight to speak on this case? As Mr. Zenner said, we will

not be approaching the merits of the case tonight, but if you would like to speak on the

tabling motion, please come forward. Seeing none. We will close public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comment on the tabling request?

Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: I will make a motion to approve the tabling request for Case 92-2025 to

April 24th, 2025, date certain.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Is there a second?

MS. ORTIZ: I'll second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Tabling moved by Commissioner Loe, seconded

by Commissioner Ortiz. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none.

Commissioner Stanton, may we have a roll call?

MR. STANTON: Yes, ma'am.

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.

Brodsky, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Placier, Ms. Geuea Jones, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Loe, Ms.

Wilson, Mr. Walters. Motion carries 8-0.

MR. STANTON: Eight yeses. The motion carries.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That case will be tabled to date certain April 24,

2025.

Motion to approve the tabling request for Case 92-2025 to April 24th, 2025, date

certain.

8 - Loe, Stanton, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Walters, Ortiz and Brodsky

1 - Williams

Yes:

Excused:

VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

Case # 74-2025

A request by Allstate Consultants (agent), on behalf of Bethel Baptist

Church, Inc. Rt. 3, Columbia, MO 65201 (owner), seeking approval of R-2

(Two-family Dwelling) district zoning as permanent city zoning pursuant to

annexation. The subject 7.85-acre property is presently zoned Boone

County R-S (Single-family Residential) and is addressed as 201 Old Plank

Road. (This request was tabled at the February 20, 2025 Planning

Commission meeting to modify the requested permanent zoning

from R-1 to R-2.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: We are only hearing the zoning tonight, not the annexation.

May we please have a staff report?

Staff report was given by Rusty Palmer of the Planning and Development Department.

Staff recommends approval of the R-2 permanent zoning requested, subject to annexation

of the property into the City's corporate limits.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my

fellow Commissioners have had contact with parties to this case outside of a public

hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Any questions for staff? Seeing none.

We will open the floor to public hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: If any members of the public have come to speak on this

case, please come forward now. State your name and address for the record. We give

six minutes to the applicant and people speaking on behalf of groups, and three minutes

to everyone else. And thank you very much for coming.

MR. SHY: Good evening. My name is Ron Shy; I work with Allstate Consultants,

and I'm representing the church. They have this surplus property, and they would like to

sell it. And the church is obviously staying in place, and as Mr. Palmer said, it's -- it's

got a few issues, but we -- I think we have solved everything to make this work. If there

are any questions, I would be glad to try to answer these.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any questions for this speaker? Seeing

none. Thank you very much. Anyone else here to speak on this case tonight, please

come forward. Seeing none. We will close public hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comments. Any comments on this case?

Seeing none. Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: If there's no Commissioner discussion on this case, I'm happy to make a

motion. Case 74-2025, 201 East Old Plank Road, permanent zoning, move to approve

the requested R-2 zoning subject to annexation of the project -- or property.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there a second?

MR. STANTON: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. We're being too kind to each other, guys. Thank

you. That's a motion by Commissioner Loe, a second by Commissioner Stanton. Is

there any discussion on the motion? I would like to add for the public's edification, this is

just about the zoning, The Planning and Zoning Commission does not make decisions

related to annexation. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none.

Commissioner Stanton, when you're ready.

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.

Brodsky, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Placier, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Loe, Ms.

Wilson, Mr. Walters. Motion carries 8-0.

MR. STANTON: Eight yes, Madam Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation will be forwarded to City

Council. Moving on to our next case for the evening.

Case 74-2025, 201 East Old Plank Road, permanent zoning, move to approve the

requested R-2 zoning subject to annexation of the project -- or property.

8 - Loe, Stanton, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Walters, Ortiz and Brodsky

Yes:

1 - Williams

Excused:

Case # 89-2025

A request by Engineering Surveys and Services (agent), on behalf of

Novelty Construction, Inc. (owner), for approval of a partial rezoning,

Statement of Intent (SOI) revision, and approval of a site-specific PD plan

to be known as, "Centerstate East Subdivision." The 72.08 -acre subject

site is located southeast of the intersection of Vandiver Drive and Highway

63, and is currently split-zoned PD (Planned District) and A (Agriculture).

The rezoning would harmonize the site with PD zoning and establish a

development plan for the parcel, inclusive of two hotels, a conference

center, and a bank. Additional lots depicted on the plan are designated for

common areas or lots for future development.

MS. GEUEA JONES: We are only hearing the zoning tonight, not the annexation.

May we please have a staff report?

Staff report was given by Rusty Palmer of the Planning and Development Department.

Staff recommends approval of the R-2 permanent zoning requested, subject to annexation

of the property into the City's corporate limits.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my

fellow Commissioners have had contact with parties to this case outside of a public

hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Any questions for staff? Seeing none.

We will open the floor to public hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: If any members of the public have come to speak on this

case, please come forward now. State your name and address for the record. We give

six minutes to the applicant and people speaking on behalf of groups, and three minutes

to everyone else. And thank you very much for coming.

MR. SHY: Good evening. My name is Ron Shy; I work with Allstate Consultants,

and I'm representing the church. They have this surplus property, and they would like to

sell it. And the church is obviously staying in place, and as Mr. Palmer said, it's -- it's

got a few issues, but we -- I think we have solved everything to make this work. If there

are any questions, I would be glad to try to answer these.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any questions for this speaker? Seeing

none. Thank you very much. Anyone else here to speak on this case tonight, please

come forward. Seeing none. We will close public hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comments. Any comments on this case?

Seeing none. Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: If there's no Commissioner discussion on this case, I'm happy to make a

motion. Case 74-2025, 201 East Old Plank Road, permanent zoning, move to approve

the requested R-2 zoning subject to annexation of the project -- or property.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there a second?

MR. STANTON: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. We're being too kind to each other, guys. Thank

you. That's a motion by Commissioner Loe, a second by Commissioner Stanton. Is

there any discussion on the motion? I would like to add for the public's edification, this is

just about the zoning, The Planning and Zoning Commission does not make decisions

related to annexation. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none.

Commissioner Stanton, when you're ready.

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.

Brodsky,

Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Placier, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Loe, Ms. Wilson, Mr.

Walters. Motion carries 8-0.

MR. STANTON: Eight yes, Madam Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation will be forwarded to City

Council. Moving on to our next case for the evening.

Case Number 89-2025

A request by Engineering Surveys and Services (agent), on behalf of Novelty

Construction, Inc. (owner), for approval of a partial rezoning, Statement of Intent(

SOI) revision, and approval of a site-specific PD plan to be known as "Centerstate

East Subdivision." The 72.08-acre subject site is located southeast of the

intersection of Vandiver Drive and Highway 63, and is currently split-zoned PD

(Planned District) and A (Agriculture). The rezoning would harmonize the site

with PD zoning and establish a development plan for the parcel, inclusive of two

hotels, a conference center, and a bank. Additional lots depicted on the plan are

designated for common areas or lots for future development.

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?

Staff report was given by Mr. Rusty Palmer of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends the following:

Approval of the proposed rezoning, PD plan, and statement of intent, subject

to a reduction of the maximum building height to 45 feet (M-C district height

standard) for all lots except the hotels and convention center depicted on

Lots 2 and 3, as well as reductions in parking requirements for the hotels

and convention center.

Approval of the recommendation above would require technical corrections to

both the PD plan and the statement of intent before the case is forwarded to

City Council.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my fellow

Commissioners have had contact with parties to this case outside of a public hearing,

please disclose so now. Seeing none. Questions for staff? Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Yeah. I had a question about Lot 7 being used for tree preservation.

MR. PALMER: Lot 7 would actually be for storm water.

MS. PLACIER: Oh, storm water.

MR. PALMER: If I said that --

MS. PLACIER: Sorry.

MR. PALMER: Lot 8 on the southeast corner, that's the tree preservation.

MS. PLACIER: I didn't have a map in front of me anymore.

MR. PALMER: Well, I can go back.

MS. PLACIER: So eight would be tree preservation. What's the force of that in

terms of it being built into the plan, what is our reassurance that these trees could not

just be plowed down? I mean, you've given a lot of reassurances about all of the trees will

probably --

MR. PALMER: Uh-huh.

MS. PLACIER: -- you know, not be damaged, or that area might not be

developed --

MR. PALMER: Yeah. So the portion that's denoted for tree preservation, that is a

protected area. It would require a PD Plan amendment and, you know, likely wouldn't be

supported by staff given that it's -- it's denoted that way. I've never run into that before, so

I don't know what that would look like coming through an amendment process. But then

the other aspect I'd point out is that the stream corridor, especially the floodway, is a

regulated area that can't be developed. So there is at least that stripe along the corridor

on either side that cannot be developed and then, again, that tree preservation area is

very well protected as we move forward, so --

MR. ZENNER: I think just to add to that, Ms. Placier, the Unified Development Code

and our tree preservation standards in Chapter 12A require 25 percent of the climax forest

outside of already regulated corridor which is the stream corridor itself. And the stream --

you can't double-dip. So the stream corridor cannot be used to meet your 25 percent

preservation purpose. I think if this is -- if Lot 8 is identified as a common lot, which

would normally be how in a residential development we would handle tree preservation, it

would be in a common lot, that may be something that can be asked of the applicant to

identify Lot 8 as a common lot and, therefore, not available to development, that would be

a greater assurance at that point that that lot isn't available, and that goes to Mr.

Palmer's point that if they wanted to try to change the common lot, it would require a

major amendment. But typically, if you're going to identify this area on the east side of a

regulated stream corridor, you're likely not going to seek to develop it because it's more

costly to try to get over that corridor to begin with. So I think the assurance that Mr.

Palmer leaves the Commission with is that where it's located in relationship to the other

environmental features, the likelihood of it being lost is limited. But notwithstanding your

point, if it's not identified as a common lot within the current statement of intent, that

would probably be one level of additional assurance that could be offered.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: Related to Commissioner Placier's question, Planner Palmer, you didn't

touch on the Hidden Creek PUD plan that was included in our packet. And can you just

identify where on this plan that is located?

MR. PALMER: This dash line here is the -- the zoning boundary, and so everything

in this quarter would have been part of that. And then the rest of it was the parcel to the

east, so it extended up to -- is it Hanover Boulevard?

MS. LOE: So is Parcel 8 now incorporating part of what was included on the hidden

-- to Commissioner Placier's point --

MR. PALMER: Yeah.

MS. LOE: Okay. Thank you.

MR. PALMER: Yeah. It's -- it's been acquired by the applicant, so it's been -- it's

not under common ownership with the rest of that parcel anymore. And so it's being

included in this one now.

MS. LOE: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further questions for staff? Planner Palmer, did you -- did

you discuss the possibility of straight zoning with this applicant?

MR. PALMER: I believe at the concept review meeting or pre-concept review, it was,

but we kind of had a preconceived notion that given what they were requesting, that it

probably wasn't the right way to approach this.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is that because of the building height and the access?

MR. PALMER: Probably mostly building height, but the access is another

component, as well, so --

MS. GEUEA JONES: And building height, in order to get that design exception

they'd have to go through Board of Adjustment, or could we have granted that design

adjustment for them?

MR. PALMER: I mean, if it's open zoning, it would be a separate action. It would

probably be Board of Adjustment, I believe.

MR. ZENNER: It would have been a Board of Adjustment action.

MR. PALMER: Yeah.

MR. ZENNER: I think also added into the concept review, because I also sat in

on that concept review given the scale of this project. It is a PD today. It's a PD without

any development plan associated with it, and so I think it was a somewhat foregone

conclusion that given the C3 uses that were imbedded in the PD Plan, no plan

associated, no design parameters, approach this from PD Plan perspective, we were well

aware of the Commissioner's dislike of going down this path due to management

processes long term. However, the sensitivity of some of the features that surround this

property and the necessity to ensure that as the development is built out, there would be

better controls on it, and it has always been identified as a PD and this is, in my tenure

working with the City, this is about the fourth or fifth project that has actually come

forward on this property. This is the only project that has gotten this far, so --

notwithstanding the PD designation.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. I guess I'm -- I don't buy the argument that it's about

the sensitivity of the site or the unique features of the site for the simple reason that staff

is very comfortable with an 85-foot trio of buildings, potentially, so I don't think that there's

a lot of -- at least not environmentally sensitive things going on with that part of it. I think

we'd be looking at lot more specialty things in the statement of intent if that was the

concern. So I'm -- I am saying that I am reading through this and reading through this

and reading through this, and other than wanting to build an 85-foot building convention

center, I don't see why we've got another massive PD that has expired that we're now

going to have to manage for the next 20 years as site after site comes before us and

adjustments, and, oh, you know, this is why it's different now. I just don't understand

why we can't get to a place where we are utilizing the straight zoning. And I understand

it's not staff's decision to make, each property owner has to make that decision. But I

am stating on public record, and in a way where I'm not singling out anyone, that this is

very frustrating to me. This is another Discovery Parkway. It is incredibly frustrating to

me. And I -- I would like to see more applicants saying we are comfortable with the

straight zoning requirements. If you will give us this exception on, you know, access

points, or something, that would be much more -- and you could do even with the tree

preservation, you could still have a common lot that has an easement to the City for tree

preservation with straight zoning. So I will quit ranting, but this is frustrating, and is a

global problem. Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: Thank you. To follow up on Chair Geuea Jones' point, because I had a

similar question. So item D under the planned development section requires that planned

developments provide to the City amenities or benefits that help achieve the goals of the

Columbia Imagined Comprehensive Plan that are not otherwise required by the base

zoning districts in return for the added flexibility and uses and design offered by the PD

district. So what -- in staff's opinion, what are the amenities or benefits this PD Plan is

providing?

MR. PALMER: Well, they are -- they are providing a trail connection that we would

normally get otherwise. I think the Lot 8 being preserved as a green space is another

item. It goes above and beyond what they would typically have to. Again, that's a

primary purpose of planned districts would be offsetting, you know, undesirable or

undevelopable portions of a lot with higher densities in other areas that are developable.

Lot 8 would be a large area that's not really accessible or developable for this particular

property owner, and as a means of setting it aside, you know, not necessarily as a

usable space, but as a green space that kind of offsets the development that they're

proposing is one way to look at it, at least. Other than that, they are not proposing a lot

of, you know, public amenities as of yet, but Lot 9 has a lot of development potential.

That could be something that we ask of them as we move forward, but, right now, I would

say we're -- we're limited to just offering extra green space in exchange for taller buildings

on a portion of their site that they can build on.

MS. LOE: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I'm just going to make a statement. I do agree with my colleagues

that we need to push for more straight zoning, but I think if they would have went for

straight zoning, they wouldn't have got it. So they're -- they're playing chess and they're,

like, let's do a PD Plan and we'll make a deal with the City, and I like the give and take in

this PD Plan. So if I were them, I would go PD too because straight zoning, they may

not get anything.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for staff? Seeing none. We will open the

floor for public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any members of the public to come forward? Just as a

reminder, name and address for the record, and six minutes for the applicant, three

minutes for individuals.

MR. KRIETE: All right. My name is Matthew Kriete; I'm with Engineering Surveys

and Services, offices at 1113 Fay Street. I do have a representative from the applicant

and the architect here with me, as well. Can you switch me over, please?

MR. ZENNER: It's in the back. I don't have control.

MR. KRIETE: Oh, okay. So just tonight, I want to touch on a few things, obviously,

a little highlight of the request. Give, you know, an introduction of the applicant, which I

think many of you may already know, discuss the history of zoning on this, and already

been discussed quite a bit, highlight the outreach we've had on this, and, of course,

discuss the plan, a little bit of parking standards and the building height. So from the

request again, this is modernizing the PD zoning standards there, so again the frustration

with managing PDs, I -- I understand the concern. This does bring it up to at least then

to the UDC standards, and we're not trying to manage something from 1998. And then

second, of course, the PD Plan, the associated preliminary plat, will be, you know, for

the northern portion of the parcel. Again, the applicant has been developing and

operating hotels in mid-Missouri since 1996. They have over 700 rooms currently, 500

employees in mid-Missouri, and are also very active in the community and I see some

highlights of their community service. From an outreach standpoint prior to submitting

this request, we did personally contact all of the adjacent property owners, as well as the

Mexico Gravel Homeowners Association. Received no comments or feedback from

them. So again, a little history. Highlighted on this map, you'll see kind of the purple.

There is what's actually zoned PD. The swath through the middle is what is still zoned

A. Again, the larger portion was zoned in 1998, and 2005 with a PD Plan. And just a

little highlight about that southern, very extreme southeast corner. There's about 16 to 24

units proposed on that PD Plan in that area that now will be dedicated as green space.

So the zoning update, of course, is the old 72 acres, and then again, this brings the CP

and PUD into modern standards again, prints out a statement of intent that it did not

exist before, commuting the dimensional requirements and design parameters. The PD

Plan itself, of course, we're focused now on the north side of the site, looking at two

hotels, a conference center, and -- and the bank. Of course, then there's some other

areas available for future development. Again, highlighted in purple are those areas. And

again, public infrastructure will be along with this. We have a water main currently that

ends near the U-Haul north of the site on Vandiver will be extended across to our site,

through the site, and actually across Highway 63 to connect into Vandiver, so certainly a

public improvement available here. And then the green space again highlighted there.

That will be in that green space trail easement. And then I've highlighted also in red the

trail portion that would be there. Parking, again, as -- as highlighted, we did use ITE

standards to calculate the parking. Again, the site is a little unique, and the size of the

conference center, this, I think, is a good calculation to it, and, you know, as you see,

came pretty close to City standards, but there are some additional likely meeting rooms

within these hotels that would increase the number that Mr. Palmer presented to you, but

you see it again, not significantly less, but data-based. Again, we talked about building

height. Well, this is the driving factor on the PD in my mind. You know, receiving a

variance is not an easy task, and the zoning code makes it a very -- a stringent

requirement to meet and, you know, justifying, you know, height can be difficult. Again,

this is where the PD standards exist. It allowed this opportunity to look at more height.

So first, I will highlight the '98 zoning does allow a 45 feet, plus a foot for every foot of

additional setback, so it does allow you to go to a higher height. Again, we'll bring it into

UDC standards, so we are specifically addressing the uses. Our latest statement of

intent does state that the only 60 foot would be allowed from multi-family buildings or any

multi-use building. Any stand-alone building would be limited to the 45 feet. Again,

building height, this is a unique area. You've got a parcel that backdrops a ridge line that

sits, you know, up around 800 feet, so it would be higher than any of the roof lines on this

building. And, of course, all the roofs around the area are equal to or, you know, maybe

even a little higher than the highest building on this site. And then looking at the Vandiver

Bridge that crosses while you're going southbound on Highway 63 is very limiting to the

site visibility, so they get extra building height that helps improve that. So got a couple of

renderings just letting Google Earth just to kind of give you vertical perspective on the

site. So you can see to the left, the hotel, the conference center, and then there's some

other boxes in there that are sitting at 60-foot in height. To the right, you see Menard's,

you'll see the Hilton Garden Inn behind that, and you're kind of getting back to where

Bass Pro is. And then providing a little further back to the north, getting past the bridge a

bit, again looking down on it, you can see that I'm getting the prospective of those

building heights and comparison. Again, you can see where they really truly match a

similar plane. And, then lastly, this -- this prospective gives a -- backwards, sorry. This

perspective gives you a good idea how this looks in the backdrop now of the ridge line

along Hinkson Creek. Again, those buildings actually being a little lower than the top of

that ride line. So, again, they would not impede the view of any development that may

occur back there in the future. And then with that, I would be happy to answer any

questions you may have.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Questions for this speaker? Commissioner

Stanton?

MR. STANTON: So if you don't get your height variance, this is a no go?

MR. KRIETE: It's difficult to build a hotel that's needed here without the height

variance, absolutely.

MR. STANTON: Okay.

MR. KRIETE: Yeah. And again, the nice thing without a PUD, it's not really a

variance, it's a deviation.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Ortiz, and then Commissioner Loe. Sorry.

MS. ORTIZ: Do you feel the same way about the 60 foot?

MR. KRIETE: No.

MS. ORTIZ: Okay.

MR. KRIETE: No. Staff has done a great job reviewing this, and I can't disagree with

the idea of coming back with a plan with specifics. You know, I wanted to show our

case, and I think it's well justified, but to say, hey, yeah, let's look at a specific building

when we ask, and I think that's a reasonable request.

MS. ORTIZ: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: I'm going to ask the same question I asked staff. What do you believe is

being provided to the City in terms of amenities or benefits in return for the flexibility in

design?

MR. KRIETE: Yeah. That's -- thank you for -- thank you for asking that.

Dr. PURI: Can I say that?

MS. GEUEA JONES: No. I'm sorry. We have to do it one at a time, but you can

come up next.

DR. PURI: Even the applicant.

MS. GEUEA JONES: One person at a time.

MR. KRIETE: Yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: You'll have time, I promise.

MR. KRIETE: Sorry. Yeah. I skimmed over that, so thank you for asking that.

March 3rd, the Council actually reviewed a report on conference center need in Columbia.

And, right now, we've got a critical need for additional conference center space, and this -

- this goes a long way to improving that. So I think this, itself, I mean, just the

development itself is something that's sorely needed by the City of Columbia, so I think

that, in itself, is a big benefit of having this development in place. And certainly, you

know, putting the zoning in place, as staff mentioned, as well with Lot 8 being not only

zoned for no use on that. It can be a common lot. It's got a green space conservation

easement. You've got several layers of protection on that tree area and along Hinkson

Creek that don't exist today. And giving, you know, the City a chance to build a trail

through there, as well, so --

MS. LOE: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Walters?

MR. WALTERS: Could you hazard a guesstimate here about if the U-Haul building

that's existing nearby were placed exactly on this site, let's say the white part of the

Hyatt building here, what would be your guesstimate would be up the fourth-floor windows

or the fifth floor? What would you -- I mean, do you have enough information to guess

that, I guess?

MR. KRIETE: Yeah. On top of the U-Haul building sitting, and I would just talk

vertical grades, about 735, so the top of the proposed hotel would be sitting at about 780.

So there is a -- you know, it is quite a bit higher than the U-Haul building.

MR. WALTERS: Is the topography similar -- the base of the U-Haul building, is it

above or below this base?

MR. KRIETE: It's sitting roughly --

MR. WALTERS: Just if you know. I realize --

MR. KRIETE: I mean, yeah. They're pretty similar. About -- sorry. I've got

something to look at here.

MR. WALTERS: Okay. Okay.

MR. KRIETE: So, yeah. It's pretty similar.

MR. WALTERS; Okay. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Other questions? My question is, this is 72 acres?

MR. KRIETE: Yes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And I -- I know, you know, I'm -- the thing that I am struggling

with is it sounds like you are ready to break ground on the convention center; is that

correct?

MR. KRIETE: Yes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And that takes up what portion of that? Three acres maybe?

Is that big? That feels big.

MR. KRIETE: Oh. Well, you consider, you know, the first phase that it's likely the

green space is going into the plat.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Uh-huh.

MR. KRIETE: You've got the hotels, lots platted, and that, so you're looking at

generally a little more than the -- more than a third of the property, you know.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MR. KRIETE: You know, and a lot of this is green space, so, you know, roughly a

developable area, it's close to half.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Close to half, and then everything else is essentially M-C

zoning, but under a PD Plan?

MR. KRIETE: Potentially. Again, potential of building height discussions later on,

but yes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: So to Commissioner Loe's point, the purpose of PD is to have

creative situations, creative mixed use, creative ways of dealing with unique sites, and I

am struggling to see how this fits into that framework because I just keep coming back to

you can't build in the flood plain anyway. There's a -- because of where the flood plain is

located, there is very good chance that you can't develop that southeast corner

regardless of what the zoning is. Right? So I -- I don't disagree that a convention center

is desirable, but I'm not sure that that fits the criteria for being a major benefit enough to

waive portions of the Code and create a 72-acre site we have to manage, where you're not

planning to build half to two-thirds of it anytime in the near future, and you're going to be

coming back here time after time -- not you, maybe, but someone is coming back here

time after time after time with each new lot. Staff is spending time trying to figure out

does it fit the SOI, where are we at on total open space. You see what I'm saying? Like,

you are handing us a legacy problem, and I'm trying to see what in this plan justifies that

on our end. Help me.

MR. KRIETE: Well, I mean, one thing, there is -- I mean, there is a possibility of

additional development and there will be additional development. I think you've got a

possibility of a lot of unique development that, in the end, will necessarily meet the UDC

standards to the T, and there will be flexibility that will be opened up with this

development. Proposing any of that now is nearly impossible because we have infra-- we

have infrastructure that's limited. So as -- as staff had mentioned, Creekwood Parkway

does need to extend and eventually needs to have a southerly connection. So bringing in

a plan for that right now, we can't do. Second, I will highlight again, it's PD today. We're

trying to bring that PD into UDC standards. We could have just come in with a plan

under the current PD code, and just a plan, as well. So we are trying to bring this into a

better situation. I agree. I wish we could do everything under M-C, but we're -- we're

proposing things that don't fit within the Code, so there is a unique situation here. We

are providing a trail easement for the -- for the City on something that is ready to go now,

that they would otherwise be coming through to acquire.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And again, the big hangup with straight zoning is building

height?

MR. KRIETE: That's the biggest hang-up here. You know, I venture to say there's

going to be more hang-ups in the future.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Indulge me briefly. Forty-five feet is four stories?

MR. KRIETE: On a commercial-type building, you're going to struggle getting to

three.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Three stories. Okay.

MR. KRIETE: On apartments, you may get to four, but it's tight.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Sixty is four?

MR. KRIETE: Yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Eighty-five is six or seven.

MR. KRIETE: In this case, not much more than five.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Five?

MR. KRIETE: Yeah. And it's driven a lot by floor or ceiling height, depending on your

use will be a lot, so you think of the apartments generally 11 to 12 feet, floor to ceiling

height. You know, commercial type spaces, hotels, they have larger floor to ceiling

heights.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Do you get a lot of people coming to you saying we want to

build a five-story, six-story, seven-story building in Columbia? Help us.

MR. KRIETE: On occasion, yeah. Yeah. It has been a hang-up.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. If that is the only thing that's keeping you from using

the UDC, that is of great interest to me as someone who thinks that PDs are more

problem than they are problem-solver, and I would add that to my list of things to

consider.

MR. KRIETE: Yeah.

MS. GEUEA HONES: So thank you very much. Any other questions for this

speaker? Seeing none, if you would like to come up now, sir.

MR. KRIETE: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Go ahead. And name and address again for the record.

Thank you.

DR. PURI: I'm Dr. Raman Puri; I'm the owner of Novelty Construction and Puri Group

of Enterprises responsible for this project. I think that we were handed a PD zoning

already in this development, so we, you know, brought what we could to you in the best

form. As far as what we're providing is very -- you know, the tree preservation back there,

we hope to keep that serene back there along Hinkson Creek. We have moved that to

Creek Parkway outside towards Highway 63 so we can preserve that nature area, which

on the CATSO Plan, originally that creek or pathway was, you know, along the creek,

which would have resulted in a lot more ecological damage to the stream. So we have,

you know, mitigated a lot of those things by -- you know, with this development.

Additionally, we also providing a main that we're spending significant amount of money on

to connect to the other side to Menard's, a City water main which would not be

developed. So we are providing that, also. We're also extending the City water main

from U-Haul all the way down to this site, and then putting in all of the infrastructure, such

as electrical, sewer, all of that. So this is what we are providing in this development. The

tree preservation, as Ms. Placier has indicated, that whole hillside will remain with trees.

Nobody is going to touch that, because that is what I would like to see from -- from the

hotel back into that. As far as the height is concerned, building hotels of five stories to

six stories, you need that much amount of height to do that. The Code does not allow

that, hence, the -- you know, the request with this zoning. If the regular open zoning

would allow that building height, then you're right, you would not be here discussing that.

So maybe that needs to be amended in that fashion so you're not dealing -- dealing with

that. So the conference center is elegantly done. It's a hired franchise is the hotel.

There's a lot of green space. We are preserving a lot of nature along the sides of the

property because it's all nestled in that area. The property sits significantly lower than

63. The property where we -- our Hilton sits on the other side of Menard's is significantly

high. So even when it may seem to you that 85 is barely touching the height of what

Menard's is today, which is, you know, not a multi-story building. So because it sits

down low, that's why the height is actually mitigated because it just blends in with the

skyline, so it's not towering above anything because of the way that the land sits below

the highway on the other side. So eventually Creekside Parkway will be connected to the

other side. We do not plan to sit on this development forever. We will do phase one,

which is the conference center and the hotels, and then as we are getting that phase out

of the ground, we'll start working on coming up with a plan on -- on phase two. Our goal

for this development is to have a nature oriented area, which there will be a place where

everybody can, you know, along the trial, along the hotels, along the green space can --

can use as they feel a serene surrounding without ecological disturbance from all the

traffic and other things, just keep it pristine like it is today. That's our goal here. So --

and hence the design that we have proposed in that fashion in saving all of that nature in

its place, no trees are -- basically, you said 72 acres back there, out of which 22 or so

acres are the tree preservation. So the development site is only close to 48 or so acres

that we are looking at, out of which significant amount of green space will exist. And

there is not going to be high density other than, you know, these hotels that are there.

It's going to be basically mixed use and it's going to be done in a very A-class fashion,

and also to preserve the surroundings, and also a place where people can meet,

congregate, and -- and be around and enjoy the nature, as well as the facilities that are

there.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Are there any questions for this

speaker? Commissioner Walters?

MR. WALTERS: Yeah. I would imagine that the access to the trail and so forth

would be an amenity that you would publicize or include in your advertising as a reason

to stay there.

DR. PURI: Absolutely, because throughout the development, we have a detention

center, you know, on the backside, the storms for detention on the backside of the hotel.

So, I mean, we're going to have trails that are going to be along that area, along Hinkson

Creek and the detention area. Yes, it's going to be sort of like a nature preserve, if you

will, to preserve that, at the same time bring in some of these amenities that are needed

because the conference center is needed by the City. The study has been done. It's

been a positive one, and we are doing that without any public funding. With private

funding, we are building that.

MR. WALTERS: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for this speaker? Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: Dr. Puri, just one question. Are there proposed plots currently platted or

is that part of what we're approving? So I'm looking at Lot 9, for example. Is that a

currently platted lot, or are you proposing those boundaries?

DR. PURI: Can you answer that clearly for --

MR. KRIETE: They are not --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Would you say your name again, just --

MR. KRIETE: Yeah. Matthew Kriete.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. They're not currently platted?

MR. KRIETE: They are not currently platted, so this is actually a preliminary plat, as

well.

MS. LOE: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Seeing none. Thank you very

much. Anyone else to speak on this case tonight, please come forward. Seeing none,

we will close public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comments? Any Commissioner comments on

this case? Commissioner Brodsky?

MR. BRODSKY: I'll start us off. I intend to support this -- this development proposal.

Just want to make a couple of comments. One, very much appreciate moving the

roadway away from the creek. I think that will -- that will be a benefit. And I hear your --

your concerns, Chairperson, but I -- I tend to side more where the applicant is coming

from, you know. It was already zoned PUD, and like they mentioned, I think the

community does need an amenity like this. So to get to that place and having adequate

hotel space to -- for that conference center, this seems like a reasonable pathway to get

that -- to get there. Now, if they were coming to us with a PUD plan or a PUD fresh

zoning, that maybe my calculus would be a little bit different there. So, yeah, those are

the totality of my comments. I plan to support this.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any other Commissioner comments?

Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I plan to support it as recommended -- recommended by the staff.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other -- Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Well, just to say that it's hard to imagine these very tall hotels next

to Highway 63 as being some sort of nature-oriented place. But I guess we can imagine,

and I realize that the graphics we've been shown are just, you know, conceptual, you

know. I would like to think that the design and the landscaping would carry through that

promise of something nature oriented, but I will not hold my breath on that.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other comments? Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: I appreciate the comment that this did come in as a PD or started out as

a PD. And I agree that if this were coming as a new PD, it does not appear to be a

strong candidate. So I think that -- unfortunately that some of the comments that were

made this evening identified that PD standards exist to allow for more height, and that is

exactly what I would want to avoid. I do not want applicants going the PD route simply to

get a height variance. We have a process for doing that, and I believe that's the

appropriate process. I also have some real qualms about the position that the applicant

is making for proposing the height increase. I think we're opening a slippery slope by

looking at not even adjacent properties, but of properties some distance away and picking

those heights as heights we want to match to create a ceiling or a datum for an area.

Some cities have done this for a while. Philadelphia is one of them. They set a cap on

all their downtown buildings because they wanted City Hall to be the tallest building.

They no longer have that cap. And it worked for a while in Philadelphia because City --

downtown is relatively flat. I was trying to imagine what San Francisco might look like if it

set a ceiling or a datum, and all the buildings in San Francisco had its finished roof

elevations at a uniform height. Columbia is not a flat city. So if we were to introduce a

height ceiling or datum versus a height limit, we could be assigning more value to land

with lower elevations because they would be allowed to potentially build taller buildings.

And in some cities, that is worth quite a bit of money. So I don't want to open up that

door. I do not like the model that was proposed by these applicants. So if -- frankly, I'm

still on the fence. If I do approve it or support this, it won't be for the argument you

proposed. Rather -- plus I think if someone else owned the property across 63, they

would be fighting having this height -- building height increase as being competitive.

Yeah. I'm really conflicted about that. So it may be that in this case, since again it

came in as a PD, there's reasons to move this forward, but I did want to identify those

concerns. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other comments? Commissioner Walters?

MR. WALTERS: I would support this whether it was rezoning or PD, the way it

presented tonight. I don't think he should be -- people should be penalized because they

chose an option that was available to them. Now whether it's -- you think it's better

straight versus this, I don't think that's relevant as much as what they -- what is before us

here, and it's -- it seems, you know, a tall building in a semi-isolated location in terms of

its impact on nearby residential property owners. Anyway, I think it's a pretty attractive

development, and also I think there's an advantage, a PD in terms of you mentioned

about the necessity of coming back from time to time to get -- to get further parts of this

project reviewed and approved. Well, I think that could be an advantage to them,

because we don't know -- just -- we're having a severe challenge for these right now, but

let's say ten years from now, it's eased, and there's not a demand for multi-family housing

or whatever else they may -- whatever else they may want to do with this site. So I think

it gives them some flexibility to respond to the conditions at hand five years from now, ten

years from now, maybe even fifteen years from now. I don't know.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I definitely agree with Mr. Walters on that point there. Discovery

Ridge is a perfect example. When -- just I've been here long enough to know the original

PD Plan at Discovery Ridge, it looks completely different from how it was intended. But if

we had held their feet to the fire to that, Discovery Ridge probably wouldn't be a

successful development. Because they were able to adjust and adapt, they were able to

adjust and adapt to the market, and I think that's a good thing for the PD Plan, for that

point. But to the other point Mr. Walters made, if you would have accepted straight

zoning or PD, my thing is this. If they had -- if they felt that strongly about it, they would

have went straight zoning and played their card on the high -- on the height building -- on

the building height with adjustment. Probably, they didn't feel that confident with that.

So, like I said, they're playing their best hand, and like I said, I plan to support it as

recommended by staff, and I think it kind of gives a nice compromise.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other comments? I'll say two things. One, I do not find

the current zoning to be a persuasive argument for continuing a bad decision. If -- if -- if

the -- if PD is not appropriate, if they were coming to us with it new, it's an expired plan. I

get the zoning doesn't expire. The plan expired. Now is our chance to say is PD still

appropriate given the fact that we have implemented the UDC? Honestly, I might be

much more comfortable with it if it were the areas that they are ready to build out. We're

talking about 25 acres that are zoned PD with no platting, with no plan, with nothing.

And to Commissioner Stanton's point, Discovery Ridge would be able to move much

more quickly and adjust to market forces if they had been straight zoned. Straight

zoning is the most flexible thing we can do for folks, not PD where they have to come to

back for every single lot and every single time they want to change something. So for

me, it's not so much about -- although it is a little bit about the fact that PD is not

supposed to give you a loophole in all of our zoning codes so that you can get the

building height that you want. I think we need to look at building height, because this is

the second or third time maybe that we've had a building come PD because they want to

be taller. And I don't know if the will of City Council and this body would be to increase

the building heights, but that, much like parking was something we had to look at, maybe

that's something we look at in the future. That's not the purpose of PD. The purpose of

PD is to allow innovation, flexibility, mixed uses, and lessen environmental impact to

allow for mixed housing types and densities, to allow for mixed residential and

commercial uses, to create usable open spaces and amenities, to benefit the comp plan,

to allow for the efficient administration of land using -- instead of walking into strict zoning

requirements. This isn't for that. The -- the places where they are saying they are getting

-- they are lessening environmental impact are already locked in for that. They aren't

choosing to do that as part of the PD. The flood plain wouldn't allow them to build there.

The, you know, building new infrastructure, they'd have to do anyway. I'm just not seeing

a reason to do this under PD other than we want to build taller buildings. And again, if

they were coming for just that, you know, ten or twelve acres, to say we want this to be

PD, we're going to leave the rest of it, you know, this -- we're separating this out, we're

subdividing it into its own PD plan, I'd probably be much more comfortable with it. But

the fact that I am being asked to blindly put a PD zoning with a new statement of intent

that is essentially straight zoning on 25 and a half acres, I -- I can't get comfortable with

that. That makes no sense to me. It's a poor use of our zoning codes, and I -- I just

can't get myself to that part. It's not -- and I can't separate the two. Like, there's no way

to divide that question. I have to either accept all of it, or none of it. And given that we

are talking about a huge swath that I cannot accept, I can't get to a yes on it. Even

though I don't particularly have a problem with what they're ready to build, I cannot do it

on that other 25 and a half acres. So, you know, I -- we all get to vote the way we want,

but looking at the purpose of PDs, looking at the fact that there is nothing in here that

says is it already a PUD that's expired, I just can't get myself there on the 25 and a half

acres. Any other Commissioner comments? Commissioner Brodsky?

MR. BRODSKY: I just want to clarify. When you say the other 25 acres, are you

talking about the undeveloped south or the southeast corner?

MS. GEUEA JONES: The undeveloped south, Lot 9.

MR. BRODSKY: Okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. Anyone else? Seeing none. Would anyone like to

make a motion? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I'm going to read it straight out of the book. File the report because

this is what I support. I move, as it relates to Case 89-2025, Centerstate East PD Plan

and Rezoning, I move to approve the requested rezoning from PD and A to PD, the

proposed PD Plan and the proposed Statement of Intent, subject to reduction of

maximum building height to 45 for the future developed lots. This would be subject to

correction to the PD Plan and SOI before Council consideration.

MS. ORTIZ: I'll second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by

Commissioner Ortiz. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing -- oh.

Commissioner Stanton, go ahead.

MR. STANTON: Okay. So I'm looking at a difference in staff. I need some clarity.

Okay. So what I'm reading in your report versus what you have up here, this -- in the

report, you say a maximum building height of 45, MC district height standard for all lots

except hotels and convention center depicted. So you're saying you agree with the

height they're recommending for the hotel and the convention center, and the rest stays

at the maximum 45 height. Right?

MR. PALMER: Yeah. Again, based on the fact that we have a plan for that building

and we know what it'll be.

MR. STANTON: Okay. That's not really what it said here, so should I read what you

have in your record?

MR. PALMER: I just left off the part about the 85 foot, so your recommendation will

work fine, I believe. It is just --

MR. STANTON: And it will mean the hotel and the convention center?

MR. PALMER: The -- the recommendation you made has the exception stating that

the -- the 40 -- the 60 foot would have to be changed to 45.

MR. STANTON: For the rest of it outside the convention center and the hotel.

Right?

MR. PALMER: Yeah. That's right.

MR. STANTON: Okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Legal counsel?

MR. CRAIG: Is everyone satisfied that that communicated exactly what the intent,

because I think the water is getting muddied here. If everyone is satisfied with that --

MR. STANTON: I'll tell you what, can I restate it? I'm going to read it off the report

instead of off the PowerPoint.

MR. CRAIG: Yeah. I think the best way to do that would be withdraw the previous

motion.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Would you like to withdraw.

MR. STANTON: I would like to withdraw my previous --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Ortiz, is that okay with you?

MS. ORTIZ: I'll withdraw my second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: All right. Withdrawn. Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Okay. As it relates to Case 89-2025, Centerstate East PD Plan

and Rezoning, I move to approve the proposed rezoning, PD Plan, and Statement of

Intent subject to the reduction of maximum building height to 45 feet which is the M-C

district height standard for all lots except the hotels and convention center depicted on

Lot 2 and 3, as well as the reductions and parking requirements for the hotels and

convention center --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Subject to --

MR. STANTON: -- subject to correction of technical corrections on PD Plan and

SOI before City Council consideration.

MS. ORTIZ: I'll second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion remade by Commissioner Stanton, and seconded by

Commissioner Ortiz. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none.

Commissioner Stanton, when you're ready, may we have a roll call?

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.

Brodsky, Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Stanton, Mr. Walters. Voting No: Ms. Placier, Ms. Geuea

Jones, Ms. Loe, Ms. Wilson. Motion ties 4-4.

MR. STANTON: Madam Chair, we have one, two, three, four yeses, and one,

two, three, four nos. So we have no recommendations, is that --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Correct. That means that we have tied and no

recommendation will be forwarded to City Council. They will be informed of our vote, and

have a copy of the transcript put into their reports. Counsel, staff anything else you want

to say about that before I move on? I apologize for the absence.

MR. ZENNER: And that's one problem we had here. In an ideal world, if we were

operating under Robert's Rule of Order, a motion that fails to succeed in passage is a

motion to deny. And while your rules of procedure indicate that a tie is a no

recommendation, our legal staff has been conversing and it is possible that this

recommendation will be registered as a recommendation of denial due to the fact that

there is no action.

MR. CRAIG: It will be --

MR. ZENNER: We will inform you of that, we will address that issue as this process

is forwarded to City Council. The applicant will have an opportunity to discuss and

present their case to City Council, at which point, as we handled -- as we have handled

previously, all of our tied recommendations, Council does at that point, act on them

accordingly. It is a technical issue at this point as to how a no recommendation is

processed by City Council. That does not diminish the action that you have taken this

evening, it is a technical matter that we are internally resolving, and as that further

unfolds, we may be bringing back additional information. But that is the situation as it

exists. Your tie recommendation, as Ms. Geuea Jones indicated as chairman, will be

forwarded with the transcript so they will have all of that in front of them. At that point,

that's all I have to offer at this juncture. Hopefully, we do not have another tie this

evening.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Mr. Zenner.

As it relates to Case 89-2025, Centerstate East PD Plan and Rezoning,move to

approve the proposed rezoning, PD Plan, and Statement of Intent subject to the

reduction of maximum building height to 45 feet which is the M-C district height

standard for all lots except the hotels and convention center depicted on Lot 2

and 3, as well as the reductions and parking requirements for the hotels and

convention center subject to correction of technical corrections on PD Plan and

SOI before City Council consideration.

4 - Stanton, Walters, Ortiz and Brodsky

4 - Loe, Geuea Jones, Placier and Wilson

1 - Williams

Yes:

No:

Excused:

Case # 100-2025

A request by A Civil Group (agent), on behalf of Todd Eckel, Successor Trustee

of the E. Wayne and Kathleen Eckel 2003 Trust(owner), for approval to rezone

1.14 acres of property from the PD (Planned Development) district to the M-N

(Mixed-Use Neighborhood) district to enhance avenues for development of the

existing lot. The subject site, presently improved with a parking lot, is located

west of Forum Boulevard and Chapel Hill Road, and includes the address 1710

Chapel Hill Road.

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?

Staff report was given by Mr. Kirtis Orendorff of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone the 1.14-acres

contained in Lot 1 of the Forum Chapel Plaza subdivision from PD (Planned Development)

to M-N (Mixed-use Neighborhood).

MR. STANTON: Okay. There's a new sheriff in town, while Madam Chair is in the

bathroom. So I will ask my fellow Commissioners if you had any outside information or

communication relating to this case that you would like to share with your fellow

Commissioners, or recuse yourself from said case, that would be welcome at this time.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Seeing none. Any questions for staff? Commissioner

Brodsky?

MR. BRODSKY: In your staff report, you mention that there is no stream buffer

required on this site because it was platted prior to -- to those requirements. I'm

assuming this is either at least a type two or type three stream behind there?

MR. ORENDORFF: I would have to double-check. I'm not 100 percent sure off the

top of my head. They're not requesting any platting, so I don't believe that they would

have to go and put a stream buffer in when they go to develop it, but it is a pretty

significant stream anecdotally speaking from me climbing around in the woods, as you

could see, but I would have to double-check a map on that.

MR. BRODSKY: Okay. And the reason I asked that, there's just -- between the

existing parking and the back of the lot, it's 92 feet. If it's a type two, it would be a 50

-foot stream buffer, and I just don't see them getting a building back there, so that's why I

asked. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: No. I was just trying to remind Commissioner Brodsky to use his

microphone, so this --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, sorry.

MR. BRODSKY: I had my head tilted too far.

MS. LOE: You did. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Commissioner Loe. Any other questions for staff?

Seeing none. We will go to public comment on this case.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Please come forward. State your name and address for the

record. We allow for six minutes for the applicant and groups, and three minutes for

individuals. Please go ahead.

MR. CHERRINGTON: Dave Cherrington, I'm with A Civil Group, 3401 West

Broadway Business Park Court. And the staff report basically sums up everything that

we're requesting. We're trying to rezone from PD to M-N to match -- you know, we want

a few more uses that weren't allowed in the previous PD Plan, as he mentioned, and we

are going for M-N instead of the mixed office just to fit with the surrounding zonings, and

think this area can support the uses that our client is wanting to achieve.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Very good. Any questions for this speaker? Seeing none. I

will just say thank you.

MR. CHERRINGTON: Uh-huh.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Next speaker on this case? Seeing none. I will close the

public hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comments? Any Commissioner comments?

Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Madam Chair, if my colleagues have no other questions, then I'd

like to entertain a motion.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Please.

MR. STANTON: As it relates to Case 100-2025, 1710 Chapel Hill Road rezoning, I

move to approve the request to rezone 1.14 acres from PD to M-N.

MS. LOE: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion made by Commissioner Stanton seconded by

Commissioner Loe. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none.

Commissioner Stanton, when you're ready, may we have a roll call?

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.

Brodsky, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Placier, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Loe, Ms.

Wilson, Mr. Walters. Motion carries 8-0.

MR. STANTON: Unanimous eight votes, Madam Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation will be forwarded to City

Council.

As it relates to Case 100-2025, 1710 Chapel Hill Road rezoning, move to approve

the request to rezone 1.14 acres from PD to M-N.

8 - Loe, Stanton, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Walters, Ortiz and Brodsky

Yes:

1 - Williams

Excused:

Case # 102-2025

A request by Crockett Engineering Company (agent), on behalf of

Wendling Development LLC (owner), for approval of a revised Statement

of Intent (SOI) and amended PD Plan to be known as “PD Planned

Development of Lot 1A of Providence South Plaza, Plat 3 & Lot 2 of

Providence South Plaza, Plat 1”. SOI revisions include amending the

permissible uses on the site for Lots 1A and 2, and the PD Plan will modify

the proposed structure on Lot 1A. The approximately 2.93-acre subject site

is located northeast of the roundabout where Green Meadows Road and

Carter Lane intersect, and includes the address 3101 Carter Lane.

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report.

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

Department. Staff recommends approval of the revised PD Plan to be known as "PD

Planned Development of Lot 1A of Providence South Plaza, Plat 3 and Lot 2 of

Providence South Plaza Plat 1" and its associated site-specific Statement of Intent.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my

fellow Commissioners have had any contact with parties to this case outside of a public

hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Questions for staff? Seeing none. We

will go to public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Please come forward. Name and address for the record, and

six minutes for the applicant and groups, three minutes for the individual.

MR. GREENE: Good evening. Andy Greene with Crockett Engineering, offices at

1000 West Nifong Boulevard, Building Number 1 here in Columbia. Coming before you is

a minor or, I guess, technically a major revision to a PD Plan consisting of two platted

lots, one of which in the middle Lot 2 has got an existing building. That's all staying the

same. Basically, nothing on the site is really changing other than the developer and

owner, Mr. Wendling, has talked to the North Property Owners Association, gathered

support for basically kind of a swap of getting a little bit more uses out of the property, so

taking it strictly from mainly office uses, adding in the retail and some of the other uses

that were mentioned in the staff report, and kind of a swap for reducing the building height

and then, basically, overall square footage reduction in that building. So again, we have, I

think, hopefully, the letter of support from the North Neighborhood was included in your

packet. Happy to answer any questions that you all may have.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any questions for this speaker? Seeing none.

Thank you very much. Anyone else to speak on this case, please come forward. Seeing

none. We will close the public hearing. We will close the public hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Comments. Any Commissioner comments on

this case? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: If my colleagues have no further --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, I do.

MR. STANTON: Oh, sorry, Madam Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: It’s okay. So I just want to point out that this is exactly what I

was talking about with these PD Plans that aren't ready to be built. When we passed

them, we passed this -- well, not we, but the zoning was put in place in 2000. This

particular lot has come back at least twice, possibly three times for different revisions. It

is now part of an inter-connected, very complicated process. I think it's maybe the last

lot to be developed around that roundabout. There's one more I’m seeing from staff. It is

-- and they could have done 99 percent of this stuff with straight zoning at some point.

So I -- this is -- when I say I get frustrated with coming back and again and again and

again, with revision after revision, and every single time they want to do something, we

have to have a hearing about it, this is what I mean. So I just wanted to share that with

my fellow Commissioners. If you wanted to know what I get frustrated about, it's this

exact thing that I get frustrated about, and it's not the applicant's fault because it's a

remnant, so -- Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: On another note, I think that the applicant has done a good job of

reaching out to the homeowner association and gaining unqualified support. And I believe

my fellow Commissioner Stanton has often pointed out that's the way to do it.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Very true. Commissioner Stanton or anybody else?

Commissioner Stanton, if you're ready now.

MR. CRAIG: Commissioner Wilson isn't back yet. She might have something to

say or --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, thank you. Yes. We can wait for a moment.

MR. CRAIG: She might have an objection, you know, so if we could wait for her.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Time that we use briefly. Thank you for noticing that. Oh,

would it be all right if we reopened public comment?

MR. CRAIG: That's at the discretion of the Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: We will reopen public comment.

PUBLIC COMMENT REOPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Please come forward.

MR. WENDLING: Thank you very much. My name is Steve Wendling. I'm actually

the owner of the property. My office is at 510 East Green Meadows Road, Suite 201.

And I'd like to make a comment. When I bought this property in '99, I really did want

straight zoning, but the City was really against straight zoning. PUD was the way to go.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Uh-huh.

MR. WENDLING: So, you know, just ask people to please keep that in mind,

and you say, oh, they keep coming back, keep coming back, it kills me. Engineering

fees, I love the guy, but they're killing me. So straight zoning would be awesome. So --

and I -- the buffer, it has been a challenge from the very beginning. We have a 25-foot --

and it's not just a buffer, it's actually a no-cut zone, as per the City, and I think Mr.

Zenner can speak to that. So anyway, if you have any other questions, I would love to be

able to address them.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Just to say -- or, sorry. Just to say I agree with you entirely,

and that's why we put the UDC into place so that we would stop pushing people into

these PUDs, and I'm sympathetic to your engineering costs. Anybody else for this

speaker? No? Thank you very much.

MR. WENDLING: Thank you for your time.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Final call for speakers on this case, or we'll reclose public

hearing. Okay. Reclosing public hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING RECLOSED.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Back to Commissioner comment. Commissioner Wilson, did

you have a comment on this case? We didn't want to vote until you got back. No.

Okay. Very good. In that case, seeing no further comments from the Commissioners,

Commissioner Stanton, did you have something you wanted to say?

MR. STANTON: Yes. If my colleagues are done with discussion, I would like to

entertain a motion, Madam Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Please do.

MR. STANTON: As it relates to Case 102-2025, 3101 Carter Lane, major PD

revision, I move to approve the proposed PD plan and associated SOI revisions.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there a second?

MS. LOE: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner

Loe. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. Commissioner Stanton,

when you're ready, may we have a roll call?

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.

Brodsky, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Placier, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Loe, Ms.

Wilson, Mr. Walters. Motion carries 8-0

MR. STANTON: Eight yeses, Madam Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

As it relates to Case 102-2025, 3101 Carter Lane, major PD revision, move to

approve the proposed PD plan and associated SOI revisions.

8 - Loe, Stanton, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Walters, Ortiz and Brodsky

Yes:

1 - Williams

Excused:

Case # 95-2025

A request by Bobbi Meneely (agent), on behalf of Grant Lane LLC (owner),

to allow 2107 Grant Lane to be used as a short-term rental for a maximum

of 8 transient guests and up to 210 nights annually pursuant to Sec.

29-3.3(vv) and Sec. 29-6.4(m)(2) of the Unified Development Code. The

approximately 0.57-acre, R-1 (One-family Dwelling) zoned, subject site is

located at the address of 2107 Grant Lane.

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?

Staff report was given by Mr. Ross Halligan of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow 2107

Grant Lane to be operated as an STR subject to:

1. The maximum occupancy permitted within the dwelling shall not exceed

eight transient guests regardless of potential occupancy allowed by most

recently adopted edition of the International Property Maintenance Code

(IPMC),

2. A maximum of 210 nights of annual usage.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my fellow

Commissioners have been contacted by a party to this case outside of the public

hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Questions for staff? Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: Thank you for the report. I had two -- one question, one comment. The

first question, I think, is just a technicality. In the report, it identifies that -- it states it

would appear that access to the dwelling does not require ascending or descending steps

to enter the structure. As such compliance with the accessibility provisions of the UDC

may not be required. That seemed counter logical to me, plus reviewing images of the

elevation, it appears there is a step going into the house.

MR. HALLIGAN: Yeah. That may have just been a typo on my behalf.

MS. LOE: Okay.

MR. HALLIGAN: So that being said, it would be subject to the latter where it

may or may not be subject to requiring -- that requirement.

MS. LOE: All right.

MR. HALLIGAN: Yeah.

MS. LOE: I just wanted to clarify the record.

MR. HALLIGAN: Yeah. You were correct in that notion. I apologize.

MS. LOE: No. The other comment I had really is a general comment, and I just

wanted to make it, since I know we're going to be going through a couple of these cases,

and it has to do with the comment on the mixed-use nature of approving this case. And

so, the report states that the adoption of STR regulations and the requirements of relevant

planning decision-making tools consistent with a Comprehensive policy -- Comprehensive

Plan’s policy which I agree with. Having the STR regulations are a protocol which can be

used to evaluate the introduction of non-residential uses adjacent to residential uses.

However, the report also states that approval of the requested CUP would support the

mixed-use concepts of policy two, strategy one, of the Comprehensive Plan, and I don't

fully agree with that statement. And so I just wanted to identify some mixed uses

generally understood to be a mix of residential, commercial, and civic uses with the goal

of creating a benefit by providing residents convenient access to work, shopping, and

public spaces. Or as stated in policy 2, strategy 3 of the Comprehensive Plan, identify

service gaps and support zoning and development decisions to provide walkable local

commercial service and employment nodes. So all the STRs are considered as

commercial use, and therefore locating them adjacent to residential uses may be

considered a mixed use. I don't believe approving STR conditional use permits which

primarily serve visitors to Columbia, not the local residents, is building the type of

neighborhood scale mixed-use development that the Comprehensive Plan intended to

support the day-to-day lives of the local residents. So just that is being used as a

comment regularly in the reports, and I just wanted to register that I think there's different

types of mixed use, and I do believe this mixing of use is different than what I understand

is an intended buyer Comprehensive Plan. Thank you.

MR. HALLIGAN: Thank you for the comment.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: What were the -- what were the objections that -- on the phone calls

that you got?

MR. HALLIGAN: They were just messages left on my voicemail, just blatant

objections to the actual use. There was no detail pertaining to -- they did not go into

detail relating to the actual matter besides they are not fond of the proposal.

MS. ORTIZ: Okay.

MR. ZENNER: And I -- I have also received in one of the -- one of the calls that Mr.

Halligan received was also forwarded to me. The applicant's primary concern is is

frustration with the fact that this particular type of land use application is even permitted.

They were very frustrated that an outside investor could buy a home in Columbia and

choose to use it for that purpose. It was -- it was a very disturbing phone call that only

internal residents of the City of Columbia should be able to buy homes is what the crux of

that was. This property is not operated as a short-term rental. Since it was purchased

by the current owners, there was a supposition that just allowing it to be operated as

such was going to generate a whole host of concerns that would never be able to be

addressed. It was an hour and a half long conversation just for the point of context for the

Planning Commission, and that is not an uncommon type of contact that I have received

as I am administering the regulations. We have a set of standards that does provide for

an enforcement process that never previously existed. This home could have been rented

to three college students, and their three significant others creating potentially A, an

illegal issue, and B, a potentially far greater impact. There was not really consideration of

any other type of use that could occur here. There was just a very, very upset adjoining

resident.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Seeing none, we will go

to public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there anyone here to speak on this case tonight? Please

come forward and state your name and address for the record. And yeah, go ahead.

MS. MENEELY: Yeah. Hi. Yes. I'm Bobbi Meneely; I'm the sole member of Grant

Lane, LLC. My husband and I, John, live in Chillicothe, Missouri. We are real estate

professionals. He is a contractor/home inspector. I am an interior designer and a

certified public accountant.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I'm sorry, ma'am. Sorry. For the record, can you state your

address?

MS. MENEELY: Sure. My business address is 315 Washington Street in

Chillicothe, Missouri.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. I apologize. Please continue.

MS. MENEELY: Yeah. Sorry. So we are real estate professionals and I'm a

certified public accountant licensed by the State of Missouri. I am a Mizzou Tiger, Class

of 2002, and we absolutely love the Columbia community. We love the trail, and we are

looking at potentially transitioning this direction with our business and would love to help

development and make this a better community in terms of beautification and longevity.

We own three other short-term rentals, not in this community, in Chillicothe, and we have

not had a single complaint. We have nothing but rave reviews on Airbnb and VRBO. We

use those platforms exclusively to vet our guests. Everyone must provide a driver's

license, and everyone must have prior good reviews. Because we made such a

substantial investment in this property, we absolutely will not allow anyone to trash the

place. We're not looking for partiers. This is a -- we would shut that down immediately.

We just won't allow that. We would rather sell the property, honestly, than -- than have a

disruption to the neighborhood. We do look forward to spending some time in the home,

as well, which is why they get the master bedroom and the master bathroom are locked

off. They will not be rented. I may be working down here part time during the week. It's

not going to be rented. A quick turnover is not going to be one night, a clean, and

another night and a clean, and another night and a clean. I don't have the energy for that,

quite honestly. So I hope that addresses that issue. We love this community. We can't

wait to spend more time down here.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? Commissioner

Stanton?

MR. STANTON: If I heard it correctly, staff just had to explain that it's been

advertised as two different levels, like I could rent the top and the bottom; did I hear that

correctly?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Top or whole; right.

MS. MENEELY: Yeah. Top or whole.

MR. STANTON: Top or whole.

MS. MENEELY: That's how it has been advertised at this point.

MR. STANTON: How long is it going to take you to revise that and make that

compliant with this, like, -- like how quick?

MS. MENEELY: Like, an hour. I have an app on my phone.

MR. STANTON: Yeah. I'd like it like -- like right now.

MS. MENEELY: Well, yes.

MR. STANTON: Okay. Because as you see, we're -- as you speak, we're looking

you up. We're looking --

MS. MENEELY: Yeah. That’s fine.

MR. STANTON: -- we're looking -- we're --

MS. MENEELY: That’s fine.

MR. STANTON: We're looking at your listings.

MS. MENEELY: I hope you like what you see.

MR. STANTON: From your mouth, we're looking at everything you're saying, so --

MS. MENEELY: Yes. We absolutely renovated all of our properties. We love to

make them beautiful and welcoming to folks. We want our properties to be a home away

from home. The only reason there are currently two listings is when my husband and I

travel, we don't require a giant house. And so if I could rent one bedroom or the top level

of a giant home and the owner was willing to do that, there would never be a

circumstance where there was a guest on the bottom floor and a guest on the top floor.

So that is made very clear in those listings, and I understand the City ordinance requires

that to be removed.

MR. STANTON: Yeah. So it's going to be clear, like, before I leave?

MS. MENEELY: Yes. You can check it out in an hour, I promise.

MR. STANTON: Watching it right now.

MS. MENEELY: Okay.

MR. STANTON: Okay. Thank you.

MS. MENEELY: Yes. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. And I would say that looking at it, it does say

very clearly that it will not be rented to any additional guests if you have the main level.

MS. MENEELY: Yeah. So --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you for that part. Any other questions? Seeing none.

Thank you for being here tonight.

MS. MENEELY: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else to speak on this case, please come forward.

Seeing none. I will close public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comment. Any Commissioner comments on

this case? Seeing none. Anyone want to make a motion? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: As it relates to Case 95-2025, 2107 Grant Lane, STR, conditional

use permit, I move to approve the request -- request the STR, CUP subject to the

following: 210 nights of rental, a maximum of eight transient guests regardless of

allowance permitted by the IPMC.

MS. ORTIZ: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by

Commissioner Ortiz. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none.

Commissioner Stanton, when you're ready.

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.

Brodsky, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Placier, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Loe, Ms.

Wilson, Mr. Walters. Motion carries 8-0.

MR. STANTON: We have eight, Madam Chair, yes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation will be forwarded to City

Council.

As it relates to Case 95-2025, 2107 Grant Lane, STR, conditional use permit, move

to approve the request -- request the STR, CUP subject to the following: 210

nights of rental, a maximum of eight transient guests regardless of allowance

permitted by the IPMC.

8 - Loe, Stanton, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Walters, Ortiz and Brodsky

Yes:

1 - Williams

Excused:

Case # 97-2025

A request by Deonna Shepard (agent), on behalf of Kelso Holding LLC

(owners), for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow 206

Third Avenue, Unit 100 to be used as a short-term rental for a maximum of

4 transient guests and up to 210-nights annually pursuant to Sec. 29-3.3(vv)

and 29-6.4(m) of the Unified Development Code. The approximately

0.15-acre subject site is zoned R-2 (Two-Family Dwelling), is located west

of the intersection of Third Avenue and Providence Road, and is

addressed as 206 Third Avenue.

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?

Staff report was given by Mr. Kirtis Orendorff of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends approval of the CUP to allow 206 Third Avenue, Unit 100,

to be operated as a short-term rental subject to:

1. Maximum occupancy not to exceed four transient guests,

2. Maximum of 210 nights of annual usage.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my

fellow Commissioners have had contact with parties to this case, outside of a public

hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Questions for staff? I have -- maybe this

is redundant or something, but this is approved for residential occupancy, this building is?

MR. ORENDORFF: Yes. So they have a long-term certificate of rental --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MR. ORENDORFF: -- that I believe is good through October 27. And because

it's a duplex, one-half of it is rented out long term, and then the front half of it would be the

short-term rental specifically, or is currently.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Got it. Thank you very much. Any other questions for staff?

Commissioner Walters?

MR. WALTERS: I was just going to request, could you put that image of the front

facade of that building back up.

MR. ORENDORFF: Yeah.

MR. WALTER: I'm just curious. I don't see it here on Google Map, so --

MR. ORENDORFF: It's a fairly new construction. I had to go out to the site to get

this photograph.

MR. WALTERS: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Seeing none. We will open the floor to

public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: If you are here to speak on this case, please come forward.

Seeing none. We will close public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comment? Any Commissioners to comment

on this case? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Oh. No representation, is kind of tough. You can't answer

questions. You can't --

MS. ORTIZ: Commissioner Stanton, can you speak into your microphone?

MR. STANTON: Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Ortiz. Not representing in the hearing has heavy

weight because we are very used to having the owners here and ask them questions, all

that good stuff. Technically, it meets the requirements, but they can't answer any

questions.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: I've got a question for staff just based on the photograph you're showing.

The driveway appears to occupy quite a bit of the front yard. Did we confirm it's less than

50 percent?

MR. ORENDORFF: I did not confirm that specifically, no. I know that there's a

parking pad in the front and the rear, so the long-term rental in the rear has its own

two-bay parking pad, and then up front here is another two-bay, but the actual distribution

of parking is -- I don' t know that number off the top of my head.

MR. ZENNER: I would -- I would suggest, Ms. Loe, that this building was allowed to

be constructed without any consultation with the City's Planning Division, so, I mean, if

the driveway is occupying greater than -- greater than the allowed, the 30 percent or 500

square feet, but if that is a single or a double-wide driveway that is then occupying the

required 25 foot front-yard setback, the 500 square feet may be the 30 percent, or 500

square feet is what's being issued. Now if it's over 50 percent of the lot front, which is a --

a dimensional standard that's in our -- within the exceptions table, again, that would have

been an error made at the time of permitting, if that is in fact an error. So the applicant is

coming in based upon what was legally permitted to be constructed and has been, as Mr.

Orendorff has indicated, been legally issued a long-term rental certificate. So at this

point, what's there is unfortunately there.

MS. LOE: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other Commissioner comments? Commissioner Placier

and then Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. PLACIER: Oh. Just to place on the record, if the applicant had been here, we

could have asked about the response of the other occupant of the duplex to having the

other half being an STR, but we can't ask those kinds of questions, so that is unfortunate.

I hope they're watching the video.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: Something I noticed in the short-term rental application is that it has

under their website or listing platform, it -- they say that they intend to use Airbnb. But

the only website it's listed on is Furnished Finder, which has a minimum stay of one

month on that website. So if the applicant was here, I would ask them about that.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. Any other Commissioner comments? Commissioner

Wilson?

MS. WILSON: I am normally not the one who puts stuff on the record for the sake of

putting stuff on the record, but I have to do it tonight because it's important for people to

be here for these applications because we have questions. I have questions. And thank

you for that, because I'm searching all of the websites trying to figure out where this

property is, and it's because it's nowhere. And I -- I have security questions. I have

questions. So unlike the other applications we've had in the past where we can just kind

of go through, look at the application that you provided to us, this is different for me, and

I'm very uncomfortable, and I do not support this. Any other -- Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Madam Chair or colleagues, I would not feel bad rejecting this, but

my heart says maybe we should table this to maybe give them a chance, because

technically -- technically, they meet all the requirements. Something in my heart is

there's something shiesty. This is what I feel about it, but I really, really would like to give

the applicant a chance to, like, answer questions, or we vote up and down.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I would say out of compassion for our staff, who knows that

we've got late nights --

MR. STANTON: Okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: -- of these coming forward, that we should just vote it up

and down.

MR. WALTERS: Apartments.com.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And, I mean -- Commissioner Walters?

MR. WALTERS: Yeah. That's a comment. I did find it on Apartments.com, and it is

advertised at $2,000 a month.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah.

MR. WALTERS: Just for what it's worth. And it's very attractive on the inside.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah.

MR. CRAIG: I would also like to remind the Commission that rejection would not be

a bar for re-application, unlike some other applications for STR.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Exactly, yeah.

MR. CRAIG: There would be no minimum waiting period of time --

MR. STANTON: Oh, okay.

MR. CRAIG: -- after which -- so in case of a rejection of the application --

MS. GEUEA JONES: They could resubmit.

MR. CRAIG: -- there could be immediate re-application, yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. I thank you for that, Jesse. I would -- if it were the

owner themself who was applying and putting their name out there, and I know the owner

also signed the application, but they've gone to the extra step of having a manager for this

property. It seems an agent of some kind, and sorry, Commissioner -- or Mr. Zenner, do

you have something to add?

MR. ZENNER: I can add -- I can add to that because I'm the one that talked with the

agent on behalf of the property owner which is Spillman Homes. So Ms. Shepherd is

their office manager, and she probably -- she is the designated individual that they wanted

to have responsible for managing this property. She probably is involved given the fact

that Spillman, the organization that owns the property, does own other multiple -- they

own other properties, they are a land developers within the City of Columbia. And so, and

while that may be interesting, he is not -- the owner, they are not required to obviously

appear. They can have their designated agent. Now I think to the point to just clarify for

the Commissioner, the applicant -- well, the agent was notified of this hearing. So let's --

I want to dispel that they didn't -- they weren't aware. They were. And as far as for you

not being able to find this on Airbnb, that is where we are asking where will you have it

listed, not where are you listed. And so part of what our evaluation is is we go to find out

where it is listed to ensure that that listing is complete. So it is not uncommon maybe to

find a single listing on Furnished Finders, and it is typically by that website that's

normally a long-term -- what would be considered a long-term rental. So I think the points

that you all are making this evening are relevant, and this is why we encourage and, in

essence, mandatorily tell people when we send out confirmation of their application that

they must attend this meeting. If they choose not to, that's -- that, obviously, may bear

on your -- on the decision that's made, and they're made aware of that.

MS. GEUEA JONES: But the -- that actually adds something else to my concerns

about this case, and to what Commissioner Stanton said about something shady going

on. That's a different owner than what is listed on the application. And -- because this is

listed as Kelso Holding.

MR. ZENNER: Kelso Holdings is the Spillmans.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is the Spillmans?

MR. ZENNER: Is the Spillmans. That is their corporate name by which they have

the property's ownership.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Sure. So my point is that the owner took the step to go get

an agent, who is the designated agent who we have said in our zoning code to allow

these STRs needs to be available 24/7 to answer calls, answer complaints, answer

issues, and that agent isn't here, either. And as I was -- where I was going with that is if

it were an owner who it's their, you know, sometime vacation home, their kids are here,

something like that, they're out of town, but they're the ones doing it, and they've got a --

there might be a reason for them to not be here. The fact that this is someone who

engages in commercial properties regularly, has an office manager who is supposed to

be the designated agent to show up, and that person is not here either, makes me very

concerned about the responsiveness that we're going to see out of this owner. And to

Commissioner Placier's point, this is a duplex next to I think what looks like it's probably

another duplex with a very similar setup. We don't --

MR. STANTON: He built them both.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. He built them both. We don't know how the other

residents in this little area feel about this. We don't know if the parking is all for just that

side of the duplex, or if it's a shared parking lot. We have no one to answer these

questions. And so I -- I can't find -- you know, I don't know that it's true that they fully

comply with the Code, because I have a lot of questions about non-compliance that I

can't get answered. So that -- that's where my concerns are. It's not so much that the

owner doesn't have a representative here, it's that I have concerns about the parking

requirement. I have concerns about privacy, about security, about the impact on the

people, you know, the other three dwelling units that are in very close proximity, none of

which I can get answered to my satisfaction because as good as staff is, and thank you,

by the way, for including links to the listings that you find. That's a great improvement.

Staff doesn't know the answers to those things, because those are things that only the

person operating it can answer. So I -- I don't mean to go on at length and belabor the

point, but I don't think it's that we're saying if you're not here, we're going to vote no. I

think it's saying when we have concerns and no one here to help answer those concerns,

we have no choice but to say no, or I have no choice but to say no -- I'm not speaking for

the other Commissioners. With that, I'll stop. But Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I agree. Are there any more questions? I would just --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, sorry. Commissioner Wilson, and then we can --

MS. WILSON: I got sidetracked earlier. I also wanted to make the point that on the

supplemental questions, the last question, E, because all of these are just marked

true/false, and the last one is marked false, so I can't even ask if they have talked to

other people in the neighborhood to find out how they feel about it. I just feel very

frustrated.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Did you have --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Ortiz, go ahead.

MS. ORTIZ: Thank you. I -- yeah. I -- I agree with your point, Commissioner Wilson,

and especially this neighborhood being -- I believe it was 19 rentals in the area. I want to

be mindful and sensitive to -- to that fact, that it is rentals. That's all.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Statement, and then I would like to entertain a motion. Okay. So if

there were a system where, you know, this would be where it would have to come in front

of us technically and this could just go through a process without coming before us,

administratively, no problem, because, technically, it meets all the requirements. But

because we're at the pioneer phase of this, I don't want to set a precedent that if we let

this ride as is, I feel like everybody else that applies is, like, well, shoot, we ain't going to

come. And I don't want a bunch of -- of these to come before us and people are not here

to defend it. These are the pioneers of this process still, and -- and if they don't represent

this, and I can't hold the people accountable for this stuff being in their neighborhood, and

defending and standing on their business decisions So I plan to not support this, and I'm

willing to -- I'm ready to make a motion right now. All right. As it relates to Case 97-

2025, 206 Third Avenue, STR, conditional use permit, I move to -- can you switch to the --

your recommendation, staff, please? I move to approve the requested STR CUP subject

to the following: 210 nights of rental, a maximum of four transient guests, regardless of

allowance permitted by IPMC.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Do we have a second?

MS. PLACIER: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner

Placier. Is there any discussion? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I know we have a lot of lawyers out there. I have made that in the

affirmative.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Correct.

MR. STANTON: Okay. Just to make sure.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yes. For those who are maybe watching and confused, we

make all of our motions in the affirmative. That does not necessarily mean that the

motion maker supports the motion. Are we ready, or any other discussion? If you're

ready, may we have a roll call?

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting No: Mr.

Brodsky, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Placier, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Loe, Ms.

Wilson, Mr. Walters. Motion fails 8-0.

MR. STANTON: Eight nos, Madam Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation for denial will be forwarded

to City Council.

As it relates to Case 97-2025, 206 Third Avenue, STR, conditional use permit,

move to approve the requested STR CUP subject to the following: 210 nights of

rental, a maximum of four transient guests, regardless of allowance permitted by

IPMC.

8 - Loe, Stanton, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Walters, Ortiz and Brodsky

No:

1 - Williams

Excused:

Case # 98-2025

A request by Jesse and Megan Walters (agents), on behalf of THE JAM

Group LLC (owner), for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to

allow 2301 Primrose Drive, Unit 7D to be used as a short-term rental for a

maximum of 4 transient guests and up to 210 nights annually pursuant to

Sec. 29-3.3 (vv) and 29-6.4(m)(2) of the Unified Development Code. The

approximately 0.01-acre subject site is located in the R-MF zoning district,

is located approximately 350-feet to the east of the terminus of Tulip Court

within the Primrose Town Homes subdivision, and includes the address

2301 Primrose Drive Unit 7D.

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?

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

Department. Staff recommends approval of the CUP to allow 2301 Primrose Drive, Unit

70, to be operated as an STR subject to:

1. Maximum occupancy permitted within the dwelling shall not exceed four

transient guests regardless of potential occupancy allowed by the most recently

adopted edition of the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC);

2. A maximum of 210 nights of annual usage.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my

fellow Commissioners have had contact with parties to this case outside of a public

hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. We will go to questions for staff. Are

there any questions for staff on this case? Seeing none. We'll go to public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: If anyone is here to speak on this case, please come forward.

State your name and address for the record, and be sure to adjust the microphone so

you're speaking into it.

Thank you.

MR. WALTERS: Jesse Walters, one of the owners of this property. Our address is

717 Cherry Street, Columbia, Missouri. Everything you said, all accurate. One thing I

will say, this is within a 36-unit complex. The other 35 units are owned by one LLC, and

that we reserve -- we got a verbal approval from him that he is okay with this, too.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any questions for this speaker? Commissioner Wilson and

then Commissioner Ortiz.

MS. WILSON: First, thank you. Secondly, thank you for your thorough answer of

the supplemental questions because that's very helpful. Most of the time, my concern is

have you spoken to your neighbors so that, you know, you're a good neighbor. And so I

noticed on the application that you did, and I appreciate that, and that's -- that's all I have,

but thank you for being here.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: Well, you spoke to the property owners or the property owner adjacent

to your unit, but have you spoken to any renters or people that actually live there?

MR. WALTERS: No, not directly. No.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for this speaker? Before you step away,

quick question for staff. Do we only notify owners still, or are we notifying tenants? I'm

getting a nod that we notify tenants.

MR. KUNZ: We are notifying owners, occupants, and tenants of all structures.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that.

MR. KUNZ: Yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further questions for this speaker then? Seeing none,

Thank you very much for being here. We appreciate it.

MR. WALTERS: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: We're going to stand at ease for just a moment until

Commissioner Stanton gets back for comment. It should not take very long.

(Off the record.)

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

(On the record.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Very good. I will call us back to order, as Commissioner

Stanton has reentered the room. Commissioner comments on this case; are there any?

Seeing --

MS. ORTIZ: I -- sorry.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Go ahead, Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: Thank you. So the reason why I asked about the renters is when I lived

in Kansas City, I -- we rented a condo, and most of the -- like, all of the condos were

owned by different individuals. But a lot of them used them as short-term rentals, and

they don't have a beautiful, like, short-term rental code like we do. I mean, and this was

years ago, so that's why I asked because I think it would have been very nice if my

neighbors would have asked me or just given me a heads up, and I appreciate that the

City does notify tenants, as well as the property owners, but that is why I asked that

question, and I appreciate your transparency and your effort to talk to the property owner.

Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other comments from Commissioners? Would anyone

like to make a motion? Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: Sure. In the case of 98-2025, I move to approve the requested STR CUP

subject to the following: 210 nights of rental and a maximum of four transient guests

regardless of allowance permitted by the IPMC.

MR. STANTON: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion made by Commissioner Loe, seconded by

Commissioner Stanton. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none.

Commissioner Stanton, when you're ready, may we have a roll call?

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.

Brodsky, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Placier, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Loe, Ms.

Wilson, Mr. Walters. Motion carries 8-0.

MR. STANTON: Eight yeses, Madam Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation for approval will be sent to

City Council.

In the case of 98-2025, move to approve the requested STR CUP subject to the

following: 210 nights of rental and a maximum of four transient guests

regardless of allowance permitted by the IPMC.

8 - Loe, Stanton, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Walters, Ortiz and Brodsky

Yes:

1 - Williams

Excused:

Case # 104-2025

A request by Matthew Spence (agent), on behalf of Spence Investments

LLC (owner), for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow 504

Campusview Drive to be used as a short-term rental for a maximum of 8

transient guests for up to 210 nights annually pursuant to Sec. 29-3.3(vv)

and Sec. 29-6.4(m)(2) of the Unified Development Code. The

approximately 0.22-acre subject site is zoned R-1 (One-family Dwelling), is

approximately 200 feet west of the intersection of Bennett Springs Drive

and Campusview Drive, and includes the address 504 Campusview Drive.

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?

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

Department. Staff recommends approval of this CUP to allow 504 Campusview Drive to

be operated as a short-term rental subject to:

1. Both garage parking spaces within the attached two-car garage and the

driveway be made available at all times the dwelling is used for STR

purposes; and

2. The maximum occupancy permitted within the dwelling shall not exceed

eight transient guests regardless of potential occupancy allowed by most

recently adopted edition of the International Property Maintenance Code

(IPMC); and

3. A maximum of 210 nights of annual usage.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my

fellow Commissioners have had any contact with parties to this case outside of a public

hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Questions for staff? Commissioner

Placier?

MS. PLACIER: I may have misheard this. Did you say that in conversations with the

applicant, they either own or manage multiple STRs in this area?

MR. KUNZ: Own. Actually I probably should defer to the applicant if they are here.

MS. PLACIER: Yeah.

MR. KUNZ: They are listed on Airbnb, and the LLC that applied for this

application is also listed under other properties. Yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for staff? I have a question and I don't -- I

don't want to derail everything. But I'm missing the line in the application where they have

to sign the bottom as an attestation where it says they don't own another STR. I thought

that was on the application somewhere?

MR. ZENNER: No. They're -- that is not.

MS. GEUEA JONES: It's just part of the approval process?

MR. ZENNER: That -- yes. I mean, in -- as they're -- that has never been a portion of

the applications that have been submitted to you that they own another. Keeping in mind

the suspension of the regulations, full enforcement is June -- until June 1st of this year.

You could be operating multiple short-term rentals within the City of Columbia

unregistered until that point. I think the applicant needs to speak to what his intention is

with other properties that he may own, and how those will be used moving forward. He is

seeking a specific licensure for the subject property at 504 Campusview.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I understand that. And the -- somewhere in this licensing

regulation system that you are setting up on the back end, you have a list of everyone

who signed an attestation, or everyone who submitted an application?

MR. ZENNER: Of the -- yeah. You're referring to the ownership interest form. That

is correct.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yes.

MR. ZENNER: Yes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yes. That may be what I was thinking of.

MR. ZENNER: Yeah. That is the form -- that's the form you're looking for and we do

-- that has not been supplied, but if you would like that moving forward where it has it --

MS. GEUEA JONES: No.

MR. ZENNER: -- we do have it and, yes, we are maintaining a database.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I am just confirming because I was confused for a minute, so

I'm just confirming that that -- how that is happening, because I knew it was happening.

MR. ZENNER: It is. I apologize.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I just couldn't remember how.

MR. ZENNER: I apologize. I misunderstood the question.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That -- you didn't misunderstand the question.

I'm tired. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none. We will go to

public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Please come forward, state your name and address for the

record.

MR. SPENCE: My name is Matthew Spence; I'm -- I live at 110 State Route U,

Caruthersville, Missouri. I own the property in Spence Investments LLC. I'm the sole

member of the LLC. I recently transferred it out of a different LLC to comply with your

regulations that I'll be the sole owner. My wife and I co-own other properties, and as was

mentioned, we do have other short-term rentals that we plan to stop operating. One of

them is listed for sale and is under contract currently to sell. We may do midterm or

long-term rentals. We haven't decided completely yet, but we plan to comply by June

1st. We have no reservations on any of our properties after June 1st, as we wait to figure

out this whole deal.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? Commissioner

Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Music to my ears. Boy, I had a speech for you, but you've

answered all my questions.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for this speaker? Seeing none. Thank

you very much. Well, I don't know if I want to ask this in this case or the next one, but I

guess you did say that you are not going to be an owner in the other STRs?

MR. SPENCE: Right. So it's a single member LLC. We had them together, and so

my wife owns one and a single member LLC now separate.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Got it. And we knew -- we knew this was likely to happen.

You are the pioneers of the people who are married are also each individual human’s

world.

MR. SPENCE: Yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: So thank you very much. Any -- so one last call. Very good.

Thank you. Anyone else to speak on this case? Seeing none.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comments. Any Commissioner comments on

this case? Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: In the case of 104-2025, move to approve the requested STR CUP subject

to the following: 210 nights of rental, maximum of eight transient guests regardless of the

allowance permitted by the IPMC.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any second?

MR. STANTON: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion made by Commissioner Loe, seconded by

Commissioner Stanton. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none.

Commissioner Stanton, if you're ready.

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.

Brodsky, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Placier, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Loe, Ms.

Wilson, Mr. Walters. Motion carries 8-0.

MR. STANTON: Eight yeses, Madam Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation for approval will be sent to

City Council.

In the case of 104-2025, move to approve the requested STR CUP subject to the

following: 210 nights of rental, maximum of eight transient guests regardless of

the allowance permitted by the IPMC.

8 - Loe, Stanton, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Walters, Ortiz and Brodsky

Yes:

1 - Williams

Excused:

Case # 105-2025

A request by Jennifer Spence (agent), on behalf of JLT Reeves LLC

(owner), for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow 801

Norman Drive to be used as a short-term rental for a maximum of 8

transient guests and up to 210-nights annually pursuant to Sec. 29-3.3(vv)

and 29-6.4(m) of the Unified Development Code. The approximately

0.15-acre subject site is zoned R-2 (Two-family Dwelling), is located east

of the intersection of UMC Drive and Norman Drive, and is addressed as

801 Norman Drive.

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report.

Staff report was given by Mr. Kirtis Orendorff of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends approval of the CUP to allow 801 Norman Drive to be

operated as a short-term rental subject to:

1. No less than two parking spaces within the attached two-car garage be

made available at all times the dwelling is used for STR purposes; and

2. Maximum occupancy not to exceed eight transient guests regardless of

potential occupancy allowed by most recently adopted edition of the

International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) or on-site/off-street parking;

3. Maximum of 210 nights of annual usage.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my

fellow Commissioners have had contact with parties to this case outside of a public

hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Questions for staff? Seeing none.

Excellent work. We will go to public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: If any members of the public with to come forward, please do

so now. You're going to have to pull that down. Thank you. Sorry. Yes.

MS. SPENCE: Okay. Yeah. My name is Jennifer Spence, and my address is 110

State Route U in Caruthersville, Missouri. And I want to make a point that we -- we are --

really have made friends with our -- our neighbors in the neighborhood. We stay there

quite often, and -- because I know that has come up. They all have our phone number

and our house manager's phone number. And we've really, we've had no complaints.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Very good. Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Who hosts this property, your proposed property, as we're looking

at the listing?

MS. SPENCE: Who hosts it? Like --

MR. STANTON: Yes. Let me get to the point. Make sure that your listings are

transparent. We're looking at your listing that shows Matthew --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah.

MR. STANTON: -- as your host for property.

MS. SPENCE: Well, yes. I guess I just -- you are listed as -- I'm a -- I'm listed as

administrator on the account, on our Airbnb. I send the messages.

MR. STANTON: So if I were out and you don't have to.

MS. SPENCE: Uh-huh.

MR. STANTON: Don't know much about how that listing/hosting works, but as

a pioneer, I want that clean. To me that looks like -- How do I want to say it? I want it

clean. Your property, you host, you -- you know, his property, he hosts. I would like the

listing clean.

MS. SPENCE: You would like it separated?

MR. STANTON: Yes. Because if not, then it looks -- you know. And it's legal. You

have yours, he has his, make it look that way.

MS. SPENCE: Okay.

MR. STANTON: My suggestion. But you're a pioneer, so people are looking at how

you do it, especially as a couple. Right?

MS. SPENCE: Right.

MR. STANTON: So if it's not clean, it brings up questions. Like, if we had -- that's

why I looked at it, you know.

MS. SPENCE: Right. I can --

MR. STANTON: Clean.

MS. SPENCE: I can appreciate that.

MR. STANTON: If it's yours -- if it's yours, it's yours. You're the host. You have

your own contact person. It's yours. His is his, yours is yours. You're both allowed to

have one license; do you hear where I'm coming from -- as if you didn't know each other.

Get me?

MS. SPENCE: Yes. I'll accept that it's mine.

MR. STANTON: See what I mean?

MS. SPENCE: Yeah.

MR. STANTON: So we're going to get that done real soon?

MS. SPENCE: Yes.

MR. STANTON: Okay. Thank you.

MS. SPENCE: Thank you. So --

MR. STANTON: We're fine here.

MS. GEUEA JO9NES: Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: Oh, so -- thank you.

MS. SPENCE: Thank you.

MS. WILSON: Your statement was that you're friends with your neighbors, which is

great, because it's great to be a good neighbor. And so we have some information from

Linda Ladd. Do you know Linda, and have you communicated with Linda?

MS. SPENCE: Linda Ladd, no. I do not.

MS. WILSON: All right. Thanks.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Oh. I wanted to follow up on Commissioner Stanton's statement

about separating the ownership. Just as a matter of fairness, it's a big deal in Columbia

that people are allowed one license.

MS. SPENCE: Yes.

MS. PLACIER: And if somebody started investigating and said, oh, they've got two,

you know, we have to be absolutely fair and go by the ordinance, so --

MS. SPENCE: I completely understand and appreciate that.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other -- Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I'm going to piggyback off what Commissioner Wilson is kind of

alluding to -- less than two. Great neighbors because you're pioneers. So if you are

unaware who Ms. Linda is, it would be a good idea maybe -- I don't know if they're close

neighbors. I don't know. I don't know. But --

MS. SPENCE: I'm not really sure exactly where -- I mean --

MR. STANTON: Yeah. Because --

MS. SPENCE: -- I'm not going to say that I know every single person around

me. I'm just saying in the neighborhood and in the vicinity of the house, I have made very

good friends with.

MR. STANTON: For both you and I know your husband is back there, but this -- so I

can kill two birds with one stone. Great neighbors, knowing who they are,

communication, how they can get ahold of you if something goes wrong, who your agent

is. I didn't -- I usually ask this question like if the stuff hits the fan, who is it that I call and

how fast are they going to get there. That's -- make sure all that -- we don't have to get

into it, but I'm just telling you --

MS. SPENCE: Well, I mean, to ease your mind, we get there immediately, and I

think that's why we have -- we have not really had any issues. And really, we go above

and beyond, and our manager is really amazing and has been with us since the very

beginning, and takes it all very personal, just like it's her house. And so if a phone call is

made, really we all three are on it all hours of the night if need be.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Other -- Commissioner Walters?

MR. WALTERS: I think in fairness to -- to you, as Ms. Ladd owns two properties

there nearby. She is the one who has complained and she's -- those two properties are --

have multi-year leases, apparently, so the chances that you might encounter her would

be slim.

MS. SPENCE: Oh, okay. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: It sounds like maybe Connie Carpenter lives across the street.

You don't know her? I think she's a --

MS. SPENCE: I think -- yeah. We boosted their car off, I believe, the last time we

were here.

MS. GEUEA JONES: So, yeah. She -- she also reached out and said that she did

not want short-term rental across the street, which leads me to a question we often ask

when we get neighborhood feedback like that. You've been using this as a short-term

rental since 2003; is that right?

MS. SPENCE: Yes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And honestly, if -- if the staff report is correct, which I have no

reason to think it's not, a much heavier use than we've seen in any other application, 254

nights?

MS. SPENCE: I'm going to -- I'm going to say yes. We're -- it's pretty busy.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And that was just last year, maybe, in 2024; does that sound

right?

MS. SPENCE: Yes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. So it is -- it is comforting to me to hear that you

know the name Connie, you've been -- helped her out -- been neighborly as -- as you say,

and she doesn't seem to have any idea that -- what's happening right across the street,

which means that you're not impacting her in a way that she has noticed because her --

her comments are she doesn't want to see it set up, and it -- it has been.

MS. SPENCE: Right.

MS. GEUEA JONES: It's already there. It's already been operating.

MS. SPENCE: So we try to -- what we've learned throughout the years, you know,

how to screen -- or better screen to get the type of guests that, you know, is respectful of

-- of our property, and of the neighborhood and -- and our neighbors.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Very good. Any other questions? Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: I -- I kind of want to push back on Commissioner Stanton's

recommendation to do two separate profiles because you've been operating for -- for a

while. You're going through this process. You're doing an above-board, and you've put in

a lot of effort on your Airbnb. You have a great rating. So me, personally, my comment

would be I don't see a problem with it because you're doing it the right way, even if it is

under Matthew, her husband, in my opinion.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I counter, Ms. Ortiz, is that people that are opposed to this, people

that are looking to see if everybody is playing the game, at first look at that, like, oh,

they're not separate, they're -- they're just acting like they are, and he's renting hers and

she's renting his. And make it clean and then there's no -- there's no debate, there's no

discussion, there's no none of that. Yes, they've been doing it. The only, you know,

they're great business people.

MS. SPENCE: And I guess my only question, and that's probably an Airbnb

question, is that it would take away my super host status. And a question for you guys,

would it be okay to do -- if you wanted me to do that immediately, we, of course, would

comply. But if it were to be when everything is in effect June 1st, that we're completely

separate.

MR. STANTON: I get -- well, excuse me.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Go ahead.

MR. STANTON: I kind of get where Ms. Ortiz -- what you're saying, you have a super

host status for your property. Right? This property?

MS. SPENCE: For all of our properties, yes.

MR. STANTON: Okay.

MS. SPENCE: And if I were to separate, I would kind of just be -- thrown to the

bottom.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Loe, go ahead.

MS. LOE: Just a clarification. The host is not the owner.

MS. SPENCE: Right.

MS. LOE: Our requirement is for an owner have one, but we have no requirement

that only one host.

MR. STANTON: But the host -- we've only got one for the host.

MS. LOE: And we have some managers that we're already aware of that are

managing multiple STRs.

MR. STANTON: Multiple hosts. Okay.

MS. LOE: So we're going to have some managers on Airbnb that have multiple

listings on them. So I noticed that Matthew was listed as the agent, and it was listed

you as the owner, but that wasn't in conflict in my mind because he can -- Matthew can

manage both of them, and our ordinance does not restrict that.

MS. SPENCE: Right. And our house manager is also listed on our account as an

administrative -- so she can answer questions and, you know, we're all kind of backup.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I don't think it's that --

MR. STANTON: It's a perception. I know --

MS. SPENCE: I know. I mean, I completely understand, and I know you guys have

-- have been through the wringer with all of this, and --

MS. GEUEA JONES: And, honestly, not even our perception. I think the concern is

that it opens you up to be a target of complaints, especially if the other people in the

neighborhood try to enforce the HOA or whatever. I mean, that's not our -- that's not our

purview.

MS. SPENCE: And I do. We did check with the HOA.

MS. GEUEA JONES: So you're good?

MS. SPENCE: Yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. But I -- I think it's what Commissioner Stanton is trying

to say is that it immediately jumps out, if you look at both properties, that they're both

hosted by the same person, and I -- I agree, like, seven years hosting is a long track

record to just throw out the window, but it may be something to consider if you start

having issues with neighbors or something like that. But I don't -- I agree with

Commissioner Loe. I don't think it's a legal requirement. I also agree with Commissioner

Stanton, it -- it has a certain perception. Weigh those two things and decide -- make a

business decision, I guess, but that's not our -- our business. That's your business. Any

other comments or questions for this speaker? No. Thank you very much.

MS. SPENCE: Thank you, guys.

MS. GEUEA JONES: This is what happens when we go late. We start pontificating.

Any other members of the public to speak on this case? Seeing none. I will close public

hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comment? Any Commissioner comments on

this case? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: If there' no other questions, I'd like to entertain a motion, Madam

Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Please.

MR. STANTON: As it relates to Case 105-2025, I move to approve the requested

STR CUP subject to the following: No less than two parking spaces within the attached

two-car garage be made available at all times if the dwelling is used for the STR

purposes, 210 nights of rental, and a maximum of eight transient guests regardless of the

allowance permitted by the IPMC.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there a second?

MS. ORTIZ: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Ms.

Ortiz. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. Commissioner Stanton,

when you're ready, may we have a roll call?

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.

Brodsky, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Placier, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Loe, Ms.

Wilson, Mr. Walters. Motion carries 8-0.

MR. STANTON: We have eight yeses, Madam Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Recommendation for approval will be forwarded to

City Council.

As it relates to Case 105-2025, move to approve the requested STR CUP subject to

the following: No less than two parking spaces within the attached two-car

garage be made available at all times if the dwelling is used for the STR

purposes, 210 nights of rental, and a maximum of eight transient guests

regardless of the allowance permitted by the IPMC.

8 - Loe, Stanton, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Walters, Ortiz and Brodsky

1 - Williams

Yes:

Excused:

VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS

MS. GEUEA JONES: If anyone would like to make comments of a general nature

from the public, please step forward to do so now. Seeing none.

VIII. STAFF COMMENTS

MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Zenner?

MR. ZENNER: Well, we are finally at the end of the meeting. Your next one,

however, is going to be coming up on April 10th, and it will be potentially more painful

than this one. So -- because we have more short-term rentals. However, this evening's

meeting, I will say this much, was actually much shorter than I had budgeted. We are

finishing maybe two hours and 15 minutes earlier than I had the video set up for.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Sorry to ruin the pool.

MR. ZENNER: So here is your list. Don't gasp now, you can gasp later. So these

are your projects. We have a good cornucopia of different projects to discuss. One

subdivision plat in an area of high controversy. This is over in East Campus off of Wilson

Avenue. This is a -- and this is a preliminary plat, and the reason it is a preliminary plat

is the property is proposing to reorient a property line to, in essence, place an existing

home on the corner of the property on its own lot, but in the process of doing so, a

required public utility extension of a sanitary sewer must be made. And so because the

public utility is being required to be extended, it must go through both preliminary and

final platting, and that is why it will show up at your first, and then it would be approved, if

the preliminary plat is approved, it would then go directly to City Council for final plat

approval. Again, an existing home on the lot already, we're reorienting what is an

east-west lot line to a north-south lot line to create two buildable lots. The second

request was a tabling request from two meetings ago, if I recall correctly. This is the

property at the northwest corner of Vandiver and Rangeline. This is the former gas

station site that is at that northwest corner that is vacant today. It does have a design

adjustment as it relates to driveway access locations along both Vandiver and Rangeline,

a city and a state route, respectively, and there is a final plat with this. This is not a

previously platted property and that is why it is coming before the Planning Commissioner

for final plat approval, but in order to get to final plat approval, they must first obtain

design adjustment approval. This project was originally tabled to allow the applicant to

have greater conversation with MoDOT as it relates to the Rangeline access. I'm not

quite sure if they have made headway on that. This project may not be on the agenda,

but, at this point, it's too early to tell. You have two general public hearings, a traditional

CUP, so what we should be delegating a significant amount of our time to in the I-G

zoning district at 801 North College Avenue. The conditional use is to allow for a bar or a

nightclub to be in the I-G zoning district. So that is -- it is a corner parcel, as well.

Currently, if I'm not incorrect, a vacant parking lot that is proposed to be improved with a

new building. And then we have a rezoning request that is immediately north of the

southern terminus of Merideth Drive, so this is just to the northwest of the intersection of

Cherry Hill -- or Chapel Hill -- I apologize -- Chapel Hill and Scott Boulevard. The parcel

immediately to the south is the Daniel Boone Little League property. This property is

currently split zoned, very small sliver along the Merideth Drive frontage that is PD, that

was associated with R-2 development further to the north, and the balance of the property

is -- I'm sorry -- duplex development in a PUD -- in a PD or it was probably a PUD, too, at

the time. The balance of this particular property was zoned out of that PUD into R-2.

The applicant is seeking to develop this with two buildings, parking in the center of the

two structures, as an R-MF request. And then the gaggle of the cases. Again, we're

almost through all of our influx of short-term rentals. You have these eight. 3411

Goldenwood. This was a -- a tabled request. It is an R-1 zoned STR or would be an R-1

zoned STR, 212 Park DeVille, again another R-1 property. You're on 608 Northwest

Boulevard, R-2 property. 310 Sanford, another R-2 property. 1617 Highridge, another R-

1. And then it had to happen at some point, two short-term rentals within 90 feet of each

other, one at 9 McBaine, which came in first, and then just down the street to the south

at 5 McBaine. One is in an R-MF zoning district; however, the other one is in an R-1

zoning district. So we will have a showdown at the OK Corral and probably a meltdown,

but both parcels actually I will say 5 McBaine, the R-1 zoned property, in talking with the

applicant, they're a local resident, they are not looking at using this property as it is not

their principal home, and they are not looking at using it as a maximum 210-night

short-term rental. This is one of the few applications that we have received, I believe it's

the second that is required a conditional use that is actually choosing to self-restrict to

120 nights. It will require, if the Commission is favorable in approving it after the analysis

and the reports are provided, it would need to be -- the 120 nights would need to become

part of a special condition because it is atypical from anything that we do. Both parcels,

just as an overview, have enough parking to support the requisite guest occupancy, but

Mr. Halligan will present those two. He has those, and then the rest are distributed

amongst Mr. Kunz and Mr. Orendorff. Just so you know where we are, most of you

probably do. This is our Wilson Avenue on the corner of Wilson and South William. As I

said, that is an east-west property line switching to a north-south property line. Then our

northwest corner of Vandiver and Rangeline, that is the former gas station site, MFA site.

Our property there at 801 College, and that graphic does show that it does appear to be

two buildings on the property presently, and one may -- I think the parking area to the

very north is what is being proposed to be used as a new structure. And then as we

move forward, our -- our Merideth Drive property just north of the Daniel Boone Little

League acreage. And then our Goldenwood Drive property for short-term rental, our Park

DeVille property, your 608 West, 310 Sanford, and 1617 Highridge, and finally rounding

out the short-term rentals, 9 McBaine, and then 5 McBaine. Tonight we had a good

productive conversation as it related to our short-term -- or our small lot integration

project. As indicated during work session. we are at a point right now where staff will

prepare to consolidate all of the dimensional and the zoning requirements. As I noted

during work session, we will proceed forward to start to evaluate the subdivision

requirements, so this will be Article 5 standards that may need to be amended. We have

several topics that we will need to introduce or at least cover at the April 10th meeting,

one of which is an overview of a request that you are all aware of that I think we have

brought to you previously, just in general commentary, as it relates to revisions to the

definition of family. So we are going to bring that forward, and that is not for -- it is more

for discussion than an overview, so it is going to be a very small component of the

meeting of the remaining portion of that work session will hopefully be devoted to talking

about Article 5 changes. We will not get you the full zoning Article 4 changes that we

have got until I have an opportunity to be able to sit down and compile all of that, but we

cannot lose momentum as it relates to the rest of the project. We are out of the

business, I think at this point, of having to talk about particular things that are

use-specific standard related, the rest of what we're talking about in the way of

amendments are going to be more technical because we are going to need to change

platting requirements, so hopefully they will be a little bit easier to digest and understand

why X needs to be changed to Y so we can get to Z. We will continue to make progress

forward in trying to get the small lot process. This calendar that I gave you several weeks

ago had an August public hearing date estimated and that allows for public design

professional evaluation of the Code to break the Code, and then allows us time to come

back and say, well, this is what the design professionals have said won't work based on

their knowledge of the development world and what we have to do, so that is why it is

pushed out that far. I believe that there is a desire to have something faster, and in

talking, many of you may have noticed this evening that Councilman Waterman was

during -- was at our work session, he was very interested in understanding where we, as

a group, are in relationship to this particular process, and it was precipitated partially by

the fact that the Wyatt Lane project is coming forward and it's got to go through this

awkward gyration of having to do multiple approvals. So there is some desire, I think, and

some movement at the Council level that they'd like to see this sooner, but as I

expressed to Mr. Waterman, we can't rush this process. We need to make sure that

we've been methodical in getting it done. He understood that. I think we need to stay to

task and focused, so I -- I will attempt to do that myself to be able to keep you in

material. And then I think after we voted on the -- the request at Highway 63 and

Vandiver, the question was asked -- the tie vote, Ms. Geuea Jones asked me what that

really meant, and at Monday night's Council meeting, a decision was made, and was

conveyed to the Council members via Nancy Thompson, our City's legal counsel, that a

no recommendation presented by the Planning Commission, it, in essence, constitutes a

super majority vote, which is equivalent to a no vote. So the applicant, the applicant's

agent, was informed of that this evening before they left the building. Your

recommendation of a four-four tie with the minutes will be presented as you have acted.

However, from a technical perspective in following analysis of Robert's Rules of Order,

which neither body has adopted as an order, as procedure, when there is not a clear

outcome, it is considered a denial. And so that is how Council is going to handle this

case. It will require five out of the seven Council members to vote in the affirmative to

approve that case over what ostensibly is viewed as a negative recommendation by this

body. Hence the reason why we hate having an even number of Commissioners present.

I am aware that on the 10th, Mr. Brodsky will be gone, and we may run into this issue as

we come to the appointments process with Commissioner terms ending at the end of

May. And so as you look at your schedules, moving forward, if you will please let Ms.

Geuea Jones and myself know when you will be absent. If you know that in advance, it

would be greatly appreciated. We need to advise our applicants of that, and they choose

to schedule their projects accordingly if they want a full house or if they're willing to take

a vote with less than a full contingent of the Commission. With that, that is all I have to

say. It's been a long evening. I thank you very much for your attention, and we will see

you in two weeks.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much.

IX. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

MS. GEUEA JONES: With that, we will go to Commissioner Comments? Any

Commissioner comments? Seeing none. Anyone like to make a motion to adjourn so

we can do this official?

X. NEXT MEETING DATE - April 10, 2025 @ 7 pm (tentative)

XI. ADJOURNMENT

MS. LOE: Move to adjourn.