City of Columbia, Missouri  
Meeting Minutes  
Planning and Zoning Commission  
Council Chambers  
Columbia City Hall  
701 E. Broadway  
Thursday, February 23, 2023  
7:00 PM  
Regular Meeting  
I. CALL TO ORDER  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I will now call this meeting on February 23, 2023 of the  
Planning and Zoning Commission to order.  
II. INTRODUCTIONS  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Carroll, may we please have a roll call?  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Present.  
MS. CARROLL: I am here. Commissioner Geuea Jones?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Kimbell?  
MS. KIMBELL: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Loe? Commissioner Stanton? Commissioner  
Burns?  
MS. BURNS: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: We have seven; we have a quorum.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.  
7 -  
Present:  
Tootie Burns, Michael MacMann, Valerie Carroll, Sharon Geuea Jones, Robbin  
Kimbell, Peggy Placier and Shannon Wilson  
2 - Sara Loe and Anthony Stanton  
Excused:  
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Zenner, are there any changes to the agenda?  
MR. ZENNER: No, there are not, ma'am.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Could I have a motion --  
MR. MACMANN: Move to approve.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.  
MS. KIMBELL: Second it.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by  
Commissioner Kimbell. Can I get a thumbs up approval on the agenda?  
(Unanimous voice vote for approval.)  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you all very much.  
Move to approve  
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  
February 9, 2023 Regular Meeting  
MS. GEUEA JONES: We all should have received a copy of the February 9th, 2023  
regular meeting minutes. Are there any changes or adjustments to the minutes?  
MR. MACMANN: Move to approve.  
MS. KIMBELL: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by  
Commissioner Kimbell. Could I get a thumbs up approval of the minutes?  
(Unanimous voice vote for approval.)  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you all very much. They are approved.  
Move to approve  
V. TABLING REQEUSTS  
Case # 49-2023 & Case # 50-2023  
A request by A Civil Group (agent), on behalf of Kanco, LLC (owner),  
seeking approval of a multi-tract zoning map amendment (Case #  
49-2023) and 14-lot preliminary plat (Case # 50-2023). The 30.7-acre  
property is unimproved and currently zoned R-MF (Multi-family Dwelling)  
and M-OF (Mixed-use Office). The proposed rezoning seeks approval to  
rezone the acreage into M-C (Mixed-use Corridor), M-N (Mixed-use  
Neighborhood), and M-OF (Mixed-use Office) designations. A concurrent  
14-lot preliminary plat is also sought to be approved that would  
accommodate future commercial, office, and residential uses. The site is  
located on the south side of New Haven Road, east of Lenoir Street. (A  
request to table these cases to the May 4, 2023 meeting has been  
received. This is the applicants second request and give its length  
will require readvertising and property owner notification.)  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there a staff report on the tabling request?  
MR. ZENNER: This particular request has been asked as was raised with our  
discussion at the end of our last meeting. Due to issues beyond the applicant's control,  
that is the reason for the extended length, MoDOT is reevaluating design options  
associated with the off-ramp design that was originally proposed in this particular location  
and impacting the site. It is believed that the May 4th date will provide us sufficient time  
to be able to have MoDOT complete its reevaluation of design options, address  
outstanding staff comments, as well as potentially put together a development agreement  
that would come with this particular project at the Council level. The applicant is here  
tonight if you have any particular questions of him. This was a table to date certain date;  
therefore, the public hearing component of this would need to be left open in case there  
are individuals from the public wanting to speak on the tabling request only. Staff is  
supportive of the extended length, and as indicated in the announcement, we will be  
requiring readvertising, as well as new property owner notification in accordance to our  
notification procedures.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. And if we table it now and they request again,  
then they have a year delay; is that correct or --  
MR. ZENNER: So three tabling -- the third tabling request is always at the option of  
the Planning Commission. It is often that we would advise to the applicant at that point  
that a withdrawal is more appropriate. However, the Commission, based on the situation  
and the conditions associated with that third request, can extend. Again, given that it  
does require readvertising and renotification, keeping it within our queue is nothing more  
than an administrative function for us. We prefer to keep things in and out of the queue  
as quickly as possible, but we also understand that life happens. And so if it does need  
to be delayed again, which was a conversation with the applicant, we'll cross that bridge  
when we get there.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners  
for staff? Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Just a comment, and this is for Mr. Gebhardt, too. If -- and I  
understand, you know, MoDOT does their thing. Just, I guess, let us know ASAP if  
MoDOT is going to need more time or if they create another obstacle so we can get this  
off your schedule or move it up or move it back or whatever we need to do. Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any other Commissioner questions? Seeing  
none. Since this was advertised for a public hearing, I would invite any member of the  
public who wishes to speak on the tabling of this case to come forward. A reminder, this  
is just on the tabling. We will not be voting on the merits of this case tonight. Any  
member of the public? Seeing none. Very good. Are there any Commissioner  
comments on this case -- on the tabling motion? Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: I do have a motion if we don't have any concerns. In the matters of  
Cases 49-2023 and Case 50-2023, I move to table to date certain 4 May 2023.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there a second?  
MS. BURNS: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by  
Commissioner Burns. Are there any -- is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing  
none. Commissioner Carroll, may we have a roll call.  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.  
MacMann, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier, Ms. Kimbell, Ms. Wilson,  
Ms. Burns. Motion carries 7-0.  
MS. CARROLL: We have seven yes; the motion carries.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Those cases -- thanks. Those cases will be  
tabled until May 4th, 2023, pending MoDOT's involvement.  
In the matters of Cases 49-2023 and Case 50-2023, I move to table to date certain  
4 May 2023.  
7 - Burns, MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Kimbell, Placier and Wilson  
2 - Loe and Stanton  
Yes:  
Excused:  
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS  
Case # 262-2-2022 (remand)  
A request by the City of Columbia to amend Chapter 29, Sections 29-3.3  
[Use-specific standards] and 29-4.3 [Parking and loading].  
MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report.  
Staff report was given by Mr. Clint Smith of the Planning and Development  
Department. Staff recommends that a public hearing be conducted.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. So to be clear, you are not expecting a vote this  
evening, but perhaps a recommendation if we would like changes made to the language,  
or are you expecting a vote?  
MR. SMITH: I think -- I think a vote either way is appropriate. I didn't necessarily  
want to -- to offer a recommendation from my standpoint because it has already been  
approved by P and Z.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.  
MR. SMITH: But I think for clarity for City Council's purposes, a vote to reaffirm, I  
think, the approval would be appropriate? Would you say so?  
MR. ZENNER: That was what I was going to add. This is really -  
MR. SMITH: Yeah.  
MR. ZENNER: This is really an affirmation -- a reaffirmation vote or it is a vote  
subject to changes that you may want to which we will either need to request additional  
time to make those changes, should the Commission want additional work session  
opportunity to discuss them, or just additional time to ensure that those text changes  
can be incorporated in what is being submitted to Council for consideration on the March  
6th Council agenda, that is when the requested tabling or request -- yeah -- requested  
tabling of action was extended to from the January 17th initial date.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I will keep that in mind as we get closer to that time. I  
normally do a statement about outside comments and that sort thing, but given there are  
no parties, I'm going to skip over that and ask are there any questions from  
Commissioners? Okay. I do have one more. It is my understanding that if we do not  
reaffirm this language and if it is not adopted by City Council, there will be no  
drive-throughs allowed on street side; is that correct?  
MR. SMITH: No drive-through service windows on street sides, yes.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Right.  
MR. SMITH: That would be still prohibited.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: And do any of these changes affect drive-through windows  
that are currently permitted?  
MR. SMITH: No, they do not.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. And with that, we will go to public  
hearing.  
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED  
MS. GEUEA JONES: If any members of the public are here to speak on these  
changes, please come forward. State your name and address for the record. We allow  
six minutes for groups, three minutes for individuals. And we are streaming, so be real  
comfortable up at that mic.  
MR. TRABUE: Good evening, Commissioners. Appreciate it. My name is Tom  
Trabue with Trabue Engineering; offices at 3530 South Old Ridge Road. I am  
representing the Columbia Board of Realtors this evening and would like the six minutes  
for my presentation. And real quickly, I'd like to recognize we have several of our board  
members here, if they just want to wave. Some of them may speak, but I wanted to -- to  
recognize them for being here in support of -- of not only the letter that was written, but  
the additional comments. I'd like to express my appreciation to the Planning Department  
and the Commission for continuing to recognize that the UDC was not a perfect  
document, and that amendments will continue to be required, and I very much appreciate  
that. Very sincere about that. As staff reported, you've seen the letter from the -- from  
the CBOR to the City Council expressing our concerns. Time doesn't permit me to  
verbally address all of those, so I will kindly direct you back to that letter. As the staff  
report indicated, in addition to some general cleanup of the ordinance, the primary reason  
for this amendment is to allow a drive-up facility to be placed on a building street facing  
facade. We support the change to allow this, but we do not believe that the associated  
restrictions are necessary or appropriate. The stated purpose of the ordinance is to, in  
part, reduce visual impacts of drive-up facilities on abutting uses. I think we all know that  
one size does not fit all with regard to drive-up facilities. The UDC should differentiate  
between the different types of drive-up facilities that we have across our community and  
will have across our community. We agree that drive-up facilities adjacent to R-1 and R-2  
zoning areas should be treated with greater scrutiny than those in commercial areas.  
Drive-up facilities with high traffic volumes, probably typically fast-food, should be treated  
differently than those with low traffic volumes -- pharmacies, dry cleaners, a lot of our  
neighborhood type businesses. The proposed solution that you all have presented in the  
amendment to reduce visual impact is to construct a porte cochere that provides full  
screening from ground to roof extending the full width of the drive lane. A fully screened  
drive-up facility has been, as was indicated in the staff report, creates hiding spaces and  
blind spots, creates security concerns for owners, users, and police officers. Fully  
screened porte cocheres do create a tunnel effect that can be quite discomforting for  
many users, and they are expensive to construct. Our estimates of $25,000 to $50,000,  
we believe, are on the low end. It was stated at the last P and Z hearing that there was  
an expectation that the street facing facade look like the front of a building. As I review  
drive-up facilities in our community, especially the newer constructions, I found that the  
drive-up side of the buildings had very similar facades to the front facing sides. The  
Scooters -- the new Scooters on Stadium that was shown -- a photo was shown earlier, if  
you look to the window side of it, the facade looks exactly the same. There's a service  
window instead of a door. Otherwise, it looks exactly the same. Designers accomplish  
this with bump-outs, changing planes, textures, surfaces and signage. We do not believe  
that requiring an expensive porte cochere is necessary to address the visual impact of  
the building, and we, in fact, consider it to be overly restrictive. The photos that I'm  
sharing are of some of the drive-up facilities that we have in our community that function  
well but are not allowed under the current ordinance or the proposed amendment. We  
recognize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I don't presume that everyone will  
like every building. It is important to note that many of these locally owned facilities are  
retrofits to existing structures that cannot accommodate the construction of an elaborate  
porte cochere, or have a sufficient room for the proposed landscape areas. With regard  
to the landscaping, we request that the landscaping area adjacent to the street  
right-of-way should removed. Creating visual screens between two automobile-centric  
uses, roadways and drive-ups, should not be necessary. I am personally a -- really a big  
fan of landscaping, but the Code already has very strong site landscaping requirements.  
And as I review buildings, I was most impressed with well-designed landscapes that  
provided intermittent screening instead of a Code dictated unnatural row of screening. If  
you keep this in the ordinance, we would request that the land -- the additional  
landscaping area that you have identified should not be counted -- that it should be  
counted as part of the general landscaping requirements and not be in addition to. We've  
just got to quit adding more and more landscaping requirements. As noted in our letter,  
we've got other concerns. I think others are going to probably testify to some of those.  
Wrapping up, we support an amendment that allows drive-up facilities to be oriented to  
the street facing facade as it was in 2017 prior to adoption of the UDC so that new  
facilities can be constructed to similar to those that are already working effectively in our  
community. I'd be open to any questions anyone has.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thanks, Tom. Any questions? Commissioner MacMann and  
then Commissioner Carroll.  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Trabue, I have one question, and  
you may not like this choice. If you had to choose between going back to the 2017  
standard or staying with the 2017 standard, or going ahead with this new standard, would  
you have a position on that?  
MR. TRABUE: I would like to go back to pre-UDC where we could build the Taco  
Bells and some of the other facilities that are shown on the screen. I think those are  
important. I think what you're asking me is -- is do I have a preference between accepted  
the porte cochere restrictions that are produced in this amendment to allow for a street  
facing service window. That's a tough one. I don't -- because I don't agree that we need  
to have a porte cochere in that type of screening.  
MR. MACMANN: Do you appreciate that the essence of this amendment has been a  
giving, not a taking?  
MR. TRABUE: I do understand that it is a relaxation of the existing ordinance. My  
position is we've opened this back up, this is an opportunity for us to get it where we  
believe as a business community that it should have been in the first place.  
MR. MACMANN: Let me --  
MR. TRABUE: When the UDC was adopted, we picked our battles, and this was  
one we chose not to pick.  
MR. MACMANN: All right. Let's -- going politics for a moment. If you'll allow me a  
little discretion, Madam Chair? While I would admit that staff maybe didn't make the  
most scientific survey, it's one of my backgrounds, it's okay. It seemed as if the public  
likes this.  
MR. TRABUE: So I -- I -- you know, you've brought it up, and if you will allow me a  
little latitude --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Sure.  
MR. TRABUE: The survey was -- was kind of difficult. I think that the ability to gain  
any measurable responses from that, you know, I mean, I -- I -- to answer the question  
about the Culver's, I said yes. This looks nice. I do believe that's a nice-looking building.  
Do I think that should be the new requirement? No. And so that's just one example.  
The Scooters, as an example, does this building look nice? I'm going to be really honest  
with you. I don't think it's a very attractive building, but that's a branding thing.  
MR. MACMANN: You don't like The Scooters. Yeah. Well, that's -- the brown and  
orange is real good to look at. I get it.  
MR. TRABUE: But I will say that I went and looked at that building specifically, and  
the -- the drive-up window side of the building that backs up to the other buildings -- I  
understand that -- looks almost identical to the picture that was shown.  
MR. MACMANN: One last thing, and this is just kind of an indication of where things  
are going, and you follow the trends. We see you all the time. More landscaping is  
coming down the road. You get that. Right? I mean, as time goes on?  
MR. TRABUE: No. I don't -- I don't get that, because I think we actually -- we have  
very --  
MR. MACMANN: Okay. Well, we are constantly under pressure to add landscaping  
to everything.  
MR. TRABUE: Yeah. Yeah.  
MR. MACMANN: Madam Chair, thank you very much.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: When you included the drive-throughs on your not allowed  
PowerPoint, did you check on the zoning of the properties that were included?  
MR. TRABUE: No. I did not specifically go into that. And I -- and I will admit that  
several of those, you know, because of the zoning districts, would be allowed as  
conditional uses. My concern there is that if we adopt a standard in the by-rights portion  
that identifies porte cocheres as the standard, that when we get into a conditional-use  
situation, that that will be the standard by which they're judged.  
MS. CARROLL: So I'm noticing at least two and perhaps three that perhaps Planner  
Zenner could confirm later that I believe are PD plans.  
MR. TRABUE: And -- and --  
MS. CARROLL: -- and those came through this body under the current UDC  
with the regulations as they stand, and this body approved them. I don't see us -- and I  
realize each PD plan is unique. But I don't think that the regulations related to  
conditional use under R-1 or R-2 change anything about how we judge a PD plan. In fact,  
this came forward as a PD plan that someone willingly offered up, and we said that's  
something that worked and we would like to extend that to everyone should they choose  
to use it.  
MR. TRABUE: I -- and I appreciate your comments, Ms. Carroll. I -- I believe that. I  
did not look at the underlying zonings of all of them, but I do know that part of our -- one  
of the goals of the UDC was to minimize the number of new PDs coming forward. And so  
I'm looking forward -- I understand -- I agree with you 100 percent, and -- and my  
examples are more to show that we have these facilities in place without porte cocheres.  
No one, to my knowledge, and I've spoken to a lot of people over the last 60 days. None  
one, to my knowledge, has complained about any one of these not having reasonably  
positive visual impact. They are colored a little rinky-dink, but -- but the more -- the  
commercial ones, the franchise types, the Taco Bells, the Lakota Coffee, that's been  
around for a long time. I don't know of anybody that has ever complained about that and  
said, oh, that needs to be fully screened. I have problems with that because I can see  
that. The Taco Bells, you know, the Taco Bell there across from Hickman, it has streets  
on three sides of it, and that -- that drive-up window faces a street, happens to face a  
street that you allowed a drive-up on the other side of the street, and they would not be  
allowed to do that under the current ordinance.  
MS. CARROLL: I'd like to make it possible for them to be allowed to do it when they  
previously were not.  
MR. TRABUE: Excuse me? I'm sorry.  
MS. CARROLL: We would like to make it possible for them to be allowed to do it  
when they were previously not allowed to do it by passing this amendment.  
MS. TRABUE: And I -- and we appreciate that. We want an amendment that will  
allow that, we just don't want it with the level of restrictions. We don't think that a porte  
cochere and all of that additional screening is necessary when pre-UDC, we built all of  
these facilities and they're operating and functioning very well in our community. The  
Chipotle on Worley right now, you know, that's -- it's right there. That -- the facade is  
fine. I -- that's -- and these are opinions, but that's -- that's kind of our position. We just  
think it's too restrictive. We would like to go back to allowing them without these  
restrictions.  
MS. CARROLL: Thank you.  
MR. TRABUE: Appreciate your questions. Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for this speaker? Thank you very much.  
MR. TRABUE: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else to speak on this case?  
MS. WHITE: Hello, Commission. My name is Lily White; I'm the vice president of  
External Affairs at the Columbia Chamber of Commerce. We are a business-oriented  
membership with nearly 1,000 members of businesses. We represent over 50,000  
employees and residents here in Columbia. And we are not taking a position on this  
specific case. We really wanted to discuss the ways in which the case have been  
communicated to the residents. So the Columbia Chamber of Commerce works hard to  
track business issues in our community, and at the state level, such as the case in front  
of us today. When a business issue arises, we attempt to make our business  
community and membership at large aware of the intricacies of the topic and when or  
how they can make their voices heard. From our understanding, there was a survey that  
was distributed; however, it was not offered on the BeHeardCoMo website, or sent out to  
the business community at large. We fear that this has resulted in a lack of  
transparency and adequate feedback. There are multiple stakeholders involved in this  
and many other issues, and any way that this information may be presented will affect all  
of those stakeholders. By this survey -- by the ways that this survey was sent out and  
targeted towards one specific group, the stakeholders were not given the same amount of  
time or ability to provide feedback, rendering this information ineffective and not providing  
the full picture both to this Commission, to the community, and to the City Council, which  
will later vote. Therefore, we are requesting before any decisions are made that this issue  
be given a more transparent option to the business community to have an equal  
opportunity to provide feedback that the homeowners associations and neighborhood  
associations were given. We would like to also express that the Chamber is both here to  
represent businesses to the Commission and to the Council in the same ways that we  
are here to represent information from the City and from the Commissioners back to the  
business community, so we're always here to provide that information. It was a decision  
of the board to not send the survey out to our members because the way that the  
questions were written on the Google form weren't really feasible for businesses to be  
able to answer them in the same way. So we just wanted to bring that information to the  
Commission, and I'm happy to answer any questions, to the best of my ability.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions from the Commission for this  
speaker? I thought it was on BeHeard.  
MS. WHITE: It was a Google form. We had to spend a couple of business days  
tracking down who sent that out. It was sent to us by members of the REDI team.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. If you would stay just for a second.  
MS. WHITE: Absolutely.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Because we try really hard, I believe, as a Commission to not  
--  
MS. WHITE: And we did reach out to City staff as far as public information officers  
that told us they weren't sure which survey we were referring to and asked about it.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: There are several right now. Planner Smith, would you  
please?  
MR. SMITH: Yeah. I can confirm it was not on BeHeard.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.  
MR. SMITH: And that was -- that was a decision we specifically made given this was  
a very targeted request. I think the -- the impression we were given I think was the  
BeHeard is going to be reserved for a little bit broader community type topics. And so we  
chose to go with a specific survey. And we did send that out to the various business  
group e-mails that we have. So I -- I think she did contact me last week that they had not  
received it, and so we sent it to them last week. I think that they had through this week  
to -- to complete that. I would say this probably has -- has a broad distribution for any  
type of feedback we've ever requested. We -- as far as I know, we've never been  
requested to send out kind of on a notice like this just to receive broad community  
feedback on a specific text amendment. So this whole process has been a little bit new  
for us, as well.  
MS. WHITE: And we're certainly not saying that staff has to be perfect at this. We  
are currently doing two surveys, and we target them to different areas. And while I  
understand that the residents need to have their voices heard, the questions on the first  
page of the Goggle form were written to be asked to residents, not business owners, and  
they're going to look at those questions in a very different way. So even if it was a more  
specific -- specific or targeted survey towards business owners that could have been  
distributed with the same amount of time, or in the same targeted fashion, that would  
have maybe been a little bit more permissible for the business owners.  
MR. SMITH: And, you know, that was reflective of Council's direction, to seek  
neighborhood association feedback.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. Yeah. Thank you very much. We are all learning  
here. Appreciate you being here.  
MS. WHITE: We're happy to help anytime.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any other member of the public?  
MS. CARROLL: Can I ask a question of staff?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Go ahead, Commissioner Carroll.  
MS. CARROLL: Was this -- my understanding was -- thank you. My understanding  
was that the survey was going to be sent out to the general contact list of interested  
parties. Does that list include businesses and engineering professionals?  
MR. SMITH: It -- I believe it does. I don't have that specific list in front of us, but we  
did discuss that internally, I think. You might have --  
MR. ZENNER: And I think what comes as a surprise in the comments that were just  
offered by the Chamber is they chose not to send it. It was provided -- it was provided to  
them and they chose not to send it because they felt that the questions were improperly  
formatted for their members who are potentially residents of the City to answer those  
questions, as well provide additional comments in a free-form field. I think we would have  
potentially received free form comments from those business owners had they been  
provided an opportunity to see it. And, yes, we do have lists that do include design  
professionals that we typically will work with. We have registered individuals that sign up  
for our P and Z List Serve that would inform them of not only meetings here, Board of  
Adjustment, CATSO, Bike and Ped, and a whole slew of other board and commission  
actions that Community Development is engaged in, as well as we provided information to  
our Visitors and Convention Bureau, asked them to utilize their list. Chamber -- or not --  
our REDI staff also provided additional opportunities for them to sort it to theirs. I mean,  
we utilize about every source of outreach that we possibly are aware of, and, you know,  
as I think Mr. Smith pointed out, this was a very focused survey based on Council's  
general direction, but I think could have been easily made -- it could have easily been  
responded to by business interests through the general questions and then, more  
specific, if they had them. We also are not hiding behind a wall that we are not  
accessible to staff and contact information was available for that, as well.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Well, I don't think that was suggested. For the record, Ms.  
White is still at the podium.  
MS. WHITE: Thank you. So we received the e-mail last week, so if it was open for  
60 days, as was noted by the previous speaker, we received it last week, maybe a little  
bit earlier based on some staff turnover that we have had, which is on our end, as well.  
The Goggle form, since it is a different format than BeHeard, on the BeHeard, and we do  
have these conversations about other surveys, so currently, we're looking at the survey on  
things like short-term rentals. We can see every single question that will be asked on  
BeHeard. On the Goggle form, the first page asks you to select the answers to three  
questions and does not offer any information that there will be open-ended questions later  
on, so we were unaware of that because we were unwilling to answer the first three  
questions as a business organization that doesn't represent a single home. The first  
three questions are I am, and then you select either a resident, a member of a  
neighborhood association, a business owner, or other. Do you live next to business that  
has a drive-through and are you okay with drive-throughs occasionally blocking spaces.  
None of those questions have to do with the business interest or the business-minded  
part, which is the part we are hired to present to our businesses, though they are  
residents. They probably could have found that information as residents, we're -- we're  
here to do the business side. So because we didn't see any free formatting, and I believe  
we also were informed of a question saying would you like to see a drive-through from  
your home, which I -- when I went back to find the survey, do not -- no longer see those  
questions just aren't questions that are business minded, so our board did make the  
decision to not send the survey out because it is from a residency end point, and we are  
a business focused organization. So because you couldn't see all the questions, that's  
why we made that decision -- the Board made that decision, and I serve at the leisure of  
the board.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I will just say I know that we had long discussions in work  
session about trying to get comments. I know that we -- every time we send out a  
survey, every time we have language like this, we try to do better.  
MS. WHITE: And we're certainly not saying it can't be done better.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Sure.  
MS. WHITE: And, like, the Board of Realtors is a Chamber member. We know that  
our Chamber members are not going to even find, you know, common ground on all  
issues. We're just asking for the business community to have equal footing to the  
neighborhood associations in this specific matter that so directly impacts a business --  
several business areas.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: If you -- if you had gotten it at the beginning of the 60-day  
period --  
MS. WHITE: Yes. Uh-huh.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: -- would you have theoretically reached out to staff and said is  
there a way we can just give you our general comments or something --  
MS. WHITE: So we do things like that. So we did end up sending out information to  
our business community. We sent out information regarding this public hearing, and we  
do also have two different groups that meet that are business related in the government,  
so we have a Transportation Infrastructure Committee, and we have a Government Affairs  
Committee. So we would have at least supplied the information to both of those  
committees, and neither of them met in the last week. And we ask our businesses to be  
involved in those ways. We are sent regularly board and commission openings from the  
City, as well as BeHeard surveys that we have sent out on behalf of the City when they  
specifically have to deal with a business interest. And so, yes. We're absolutely open to  
that at any time, and if we can see all of the questions, we're happy to provide feedback if  
it is wanted from a business perspective or if even we can answer or provide additional  
information rather than just what's being asked on a survey that's maybe directly targeted  
to neighborhood associations. We're happy to be that conduit because that still gives our  
businesses a better opportunity to be represented at the City level.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Well, I personally would ask that if you've got thoughts on the  
other survey that we currently have circulating, which I believe is short-term rentals --  
MS. WHITE: Uh-huh.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: -- would you please reach out to staff with that?  
MS. WHITE: Absolutely. And we appreciate you having that on the BeHeard  
website, as well.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: And then you don't have any comment on the merits of the --  
MS. WHITE: No. The Board did not want to take a position on the merits of the  
issue tonight. They just -- we had -- we have local policies that we bring to City Council  
at the beginning of each -- currently it's at the beginning of a state legislative session, so  
we presented those to the City in December. And specifically one issue that is on our  
local priorities is just transparency across the board. And so it's not just in this room, it's  
in all the rooms, so that is the direction that our Board chose to take this topic.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I appreciate that.  
MS. WHITE: Absolutely.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: And I do understand what staff is saying. We were asked  
to do a very narrow thing by City in a scenario that is not usual because it was a remand,  
so --  
MS. WHITE: And we have discussed saying the same words at another meeting in  
the City Hall, so --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Appreciate you.  
MS. WHITE: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Anyone else to speak on this case,  
please come forward.  
MR. SCAVONE: Good evening. Ed Scavone; I'm the presidency of Central Bank  
across the street, 2806 Moss Oak Court, Columbia. As a community bank, you know,  
our job is to be close to the communities we serve. It's not only good business, but it's  
required by regulators that we serve all communities. And in that regard, we want our  
facilities in those communities as close to residents so they can reach those. And as --  
our -- our properties are generally very visible, welcoming from everybody, and we  
generally operate normal business hours, 9:00 to 5:00, really no extended hours. And we  
found during Covid how critical drive-throughs are to our business. We -- we've always  
had them, but prior to the Covid, we wouldn't be operating during Covid had we not had --  
we wouldn't have been open, and some banks were not that did not offer drive-through.  
So we've accommodated that. We have multiple locations at -- that have four  
drive-throughs, plus an ATM lane, so we have five -- five drive-throughs as -- as kind of  
described here tonight. You know, we have clients that come and maybe want to make a  
deposit, or, you know, pick up some cash, and they'll be coming down West Broadway,  
and they'll see how many cars are in that line from half a mile away, and they'll decide,  
well, I'll come back or not, so the visibility of the -- the amount of traffic actually helps the  
client make a decision whether they want to come or not, which I think screening might  
hold back somewhat. The other part within banking is, you know, help -- be more  
effectively serve our communities, ATMs and now ITMs - an ITM is just an ATM that has  
a video teller, you know. I think you're familiar with that. And so we're -- we're using  
those very effectively in communities where it's just not cost effective to put up bricks and  
mortar. We really don't need that, and they serve the same function. So, for instance,  
we have an ITM on -- on Ash and Clinkscales where the -- the Columbia Health Center is,  
and that -- that, I believe, actually faces the road. And so I think about what that looks  
like to a client. If we have to flip it away from the road, put a portico on it, and you're  
pulling up in there in the evening, anybody who sees you go in there knows you're either  
picking up cash or depositing cash. They know you're entering this -- this space without  
cash. Now we have cameras, we put up lights, but, I mean, personally, when I go to an  
ATM and I work at a bank, you know, that moment when you pull in that cashing  
machine, you're worried about someone coming up. I mean, that's -- that's a risk. And  
so, you know, I am somewhat concerned about how, you know, people feel about going  
into a -- maybe a tunnel where anyone knowing there would cash involved there. It's also  
becoming practice, maybe not so much here, but in other parts of the country, that banks  
are not making ATMs or ITM lanes attached to their buildings. And I don't know if this is  
contemplated here, so you could have the bank facility on one side of the street and four  
sets of ATM lanes on the other side of the street, because with the technology now, you  
don't need to have it attached to the property, so that's something that also could come  
to fruition. The other -- the other thing we deal with -- with serving clients through ITMs  
and ATMs, and even though they're visible from the public, we -- we always deal with  
vandalism. And so that would mean skimmers - you've heard about skimmers, you've  
heard about them being jerked off the -- of the bank property. We have people putting  
Super Glue into the keys. I mean, it's just that sort of thing, and that's with open to the  
public. So, you know, add -- add some closure there, it could allow people to do things  
maybe we don't want them to do. So those are just some general comments I had  
regarding this subject and how it affects us in practice.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Any questions for this speaker.  
Seeing none. Thank you for your time. Anyone else to speak on this case?  
MR. LAND: Commissioners, my name is Paul Land; I'm a real estate broker, City of  
Columbia, offices at 2501 Bernadette Drive. I support all the speakers that have  
presented ahead of me. I thought they brought up really good points. I'm a member of  
the Board of Realtors, a member of the Chamber of Commerce. I'm a past board member  
of those places. I'm a has been, but -- but I appreciate their taking a stance on things.  
I'll make a couple of comments. This -- this survey that I observed showed pictures, do  
you like this or do you like that? It sort of like put -- comparison this old broken down  
broker of 70 years to Charles Atlas. Do you like that or do you like that jerk over there,  
you know. I don't think it yielded the results that we were looking for. I don't think there  
was clear explanation of what -- what was -- what the ordinance was seeking. It was -- it  
was a beauty contest. That -- that's my interpretation of what I observed. I would like to  
echo the comments and I appreciate the interchange Commission Carroll had with -- with  
Tom, but I think we ought to go back to the 2017 proposal. There are an awful lot of  
drive-through lanes that are on street facing, and I've never heard a single complaint about  
that. Maybe you folks have. I'd like to -- I'd like to hear it if you did. But I think it's -- it's  
a matter of safety. If -- it shouldn't be a matter of appearance because, otherwise, we'd  
have walls down the lanes of highways. I mean, if we're -- these commercial businesses  
that are doing drive-through businesses are part -- are coming into an area that's already  
developed. There aren't very many of them going out into the neighborhood and saying,  
boy, I hope the folks come to me. They come in at the last moment, pay the highest  
price for that real estate, pay the highest taxes as a result of that higher price, and are  
going to auto-centric places because they're convenience oriented. So I think a matter of  
safety for those folks that are using those drive-through lanes to be seen and to be able  
to see out is an important standard, and I don't think it would accomplish much by putting  
on a -- I'm going to blow this word -- porte cochere and making them 50 percent open.  
What's the point of that? Let's just make them 100 percent open, the way they function  
forever. I appreciate all the work you -- you folks do. I don't know how you do it. But  
when an issue comes up that affects the business community, a public hearing is a very  
uncomfortable place to be. It sometimes comes off as confrontational. We don't want to  
be that. We want to be cooperators. But if there's a way when -- when an item like this,  
which is really geared towards several industries, I think at a work session, if you could  
invite either the Board of Realtors or the Chamber of Commerce or the Missouri  
Restaurant Association, or the Missouri Bakers Association in advance, then you get  
another viewpoint, and I guess I would offer that up sometime in the future. Thank you for  
your time.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Any questions for this speaker?  
Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: So with the comments that I've heard this evening, and I think that  
there are other of my co-commissioners who have said we discussed this on more than  
one occasion for a really long time.  
MR. LAND: Yes.  
MS. WILSON: Trying to really think about all angles, all sides. And what I need  
people to understand and I'm asking you, so when we're given this, we're not changing  
laws. We are working within the confines of what the law is or what the regulations are.  
So the current regulations are you can't do this. So since you can't do this, we're trying  
to figure out ways, well how can we facilitate people being able to do this. Now, the porte  
cochere was not an original idea from us, it actually came from Culver's. They decided,  
hey, we could put up a porte cochere, and we were, like, hey, that's great. And then we  
have regulations, but they decided to do one more grand than our regulations. That's  
their business. So I just need people to think that through and consider that, that we're  
actually trying to help the situation, we're not trying to take anything away.  
MR. LAND: No.  
MS. WILSON: Which I think is what was already mentioned.  
MR. LAND: I get that, and I appreciate that. But if we're going to look at an  
ordinance from 2017 in the year 2023 that had flaws, let's go back and correct them.  
When the UDC was originally proposed here, there was a wall to be around every City  
block in downtown, and people came forward and said that's a crazy idea. We're creating  
barriers, we're creating safety concerns, but that was in the original UDC, and public input  
was provided. So all I'm trying to do -- and I appreciate that effort that you're putting in to  
try to permit more rather than restrict. But if we're going to go to the UDC, and we're  
going to make revisions that make sense, I'm offering that I would like to go back to 2017  
and make it more permissible.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: Given that going back to 2017 isn't the amendment that's in front of  
us tonight, I'm going to ask the same question that Commissioner MacMann asked, and  
that's if you have the option to either go forward with an amendment that allowed you to  
have a drive-through window street facing with a porte cochere, or continue to not allow a  
drive-through window street facing at all, as stands, which option would you prefer?  
MR. LAND: I'm not going to answer that question in that format, and I appreciate you  
asking it, but I don't like the porte cochere for safety reasons, and I don't think it really  
addresses the issue. It's an attempt to address the issue, and I appreciate the effort of it.  
I just -- and it worked for one company. I just don't see it applying across all industries  
that -- and there's going to be more and more businesses that are going to come to some  
sort of drive-through solution, and we can't guess what those are going to be now, and  
they may end up on very small lots that may not be able to permit that. And it would  
require then, I guess, a Board of Adjustment hearing and then that's very cumbersome.  
I'm sorry. I didn't probably answer your questions the way you wanted me to with yes or  
no --  
MS. CARROLL: No, I understand.  
MR. LAND: -- but I don't think I can do that.  
MS. CARROLL: So due to the safety issue?  
MR. LAND: Pardon?  
MS. CARROLL: Due to the perceived safety issue, is it better to just not have  
drive-through windows --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: On the street side?  
MS. CARROLL: -- on the street side?  
MR. LAND: I think it's more safe to have them on the street side, I guess is what I'm  
saying, or at least visible.  
MS. CARROLL: Thank you.  
MR. LAND: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: Just before you sit down, thank you for coming. I had to address the  
issue of inviting particular audiences to come to our work sessions. I think that could be  
viewed by many of us in a city of 126,000 people or about -- hear about, as providing a  
special audience and special participation for certain interests. And so I think we have to  
preserve that space --  
MR. LAND: Well, that's fair.  
MS. PLACIER: -- and have the public hearings be for -  
MR. LAND: I would not preclude public hearings. You still have to have public  
hearings, but if -- if there are several work sessions and you know a few industries are  
going to be impacted, I think it would be worthwhile to have their input.  
MS. PLACIER: Well, the public was one of our interests in forming any kind of  
regulation under the UDC, the public and pedestrians and others are one of our primary  
audiences, so we cannot exclude them from our considerations.  
MR. LAND: And I'm not excluding. I recognize you have to come back to a public  
hearing. It's just that this interchange with Commissioners is not as comfortable as with  
the industry people that would -- I'd rather have a restaurant operator up here talking  
about how this affects his business than a commercial broker talking about how it affects  
the restaurant business.  
MS. PLACIER: That would be good. I wish they had come.  
MR. LAND: Okay. Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much, Mr.  
Land. Anyone else from the public to come and speak?  
MR. ROSS: I have some pictures to share. My name is Ben Ross, and I'm the  
chairman of the Smithton Ridge Neighborhood Association. We had a special meeting  
on Tuesday. We talked about several subjects including the drive-through facilities. We  
had 52 people, my neighbors. I'm proud to represent the 140 families in my  
neighborhood. Fifty-two people came to the meeting. That's about four times the number  
that are out here today. We talked about a bunch of different things. Our neighborhood  
is on the west end of Scott Boulevard next to Smithton Middle School, West Broadway,  
turn down to Scott Boulevard, and we talked about I-70 and the City property on Strawn  
Road. We talked about crime. There's crime issues in our neighborhood. We want to  
start a Neighborhood Watch Program. These are all slides from the meeting we had  
Tuesday. We talked about the drive-up facility issue. My neighborhood, I think, is  
representative of many of the new neighborhoods that are, you know, really car  
dependent. We can't really walk to a service. We can't walk to the grocery store. We're  
about a mile down from Walmart and Hy-Vee, and I asked my neighbors who walks to  
those places, and no one walks. There's -- all elderly people; they drive. So we are -- we  
are customers who drive. I showed them the slide here about the current UDC not  
allowing service windows to face the street, and I said before -- before the UDC was  
developed, they were allowed to. And they're familiar with many service windows near our  
neighborhood that face the street, and we showed pictures of that. And I had mentioned  
the porte cochere and used that as an example on Culver's and how it's screening a  
drive-up facility from a nine-lane wide state highway across the street from the Columbia  
Mall parking lot. I showed them this e-mail from Bill Canton that was reaching out, you  
know, the City Council's direction to neighborhood associations. And of the 52 people in  
the room, besides me, none of them had heard of this, you know. So the communication  
to our neighborhood failed to happen. None of them worked on the online survey. Here's  
an existing facility near our neighborhood, and it's the Starbuck's, you know, the service  
window is right here, visible from the street. And I asked my neighbors, does that blue  
car or that red car or the service window bother you more than this parking lot over here  
with all those cars, or this gigantic parking lot in front of Walmart? And they said, no,  
this doesn't bother us at all. Here's an example where we took the zoning into account.  
So this is the Taco Bell and there's a Simmons Bank ATM right there, and that -- that  
faces the street, so -- but pretend the street is not there. There's R-2 property across --  
this is the R-2 property, Hickman High School parking lot. We don't -- my neighbors do  
not think we need that special screening. It's expensive, that it's going to screen the view  
of the parking from an ATM. That doesn't make sense to us. It should be the actual use  
of the property and not the zoning. This is an ATM in front of Hy-Vee. This is real close  
to my neighborhood. And I say, here -- here's an ATM facing the street, so if this were to  
be built under the new proposed regulations, you would have a wall something like that  
that would, you know, block the view. Imagine you're the police officer driving by, and you  
see a wall versus the ATM. And my thought was, you know, like some other people have  
said, someone is going to come up there and rob you at the ATM. And we had senior  
members of law enforcement live in my neighborhood, and they told the group how, yeah,  
that happens. There's crime at the drive-up window, but there's also the people who steal  
the whole ATM right off the pad and take it someplace and cut it open. I'm surprised that  
those folks are not here tonight praising this idea of building a wall between the ATM and  
the police officer on the street. I did reach out to law enforcement to ask about this, and I  
got a response from Assistant Chief of Police, Brian Richenberger, and then replied back,  
I agree with the above statement. I'm not going to read it all to you, but his -- his -- the  
statement at the bottom, In my opinion, protecting residential neighborhoods from  
drive-up service window impacts is good, but it's unnecessary in commercial areas like  
the new Culver's. And I think that is the real key. We're trying to protect neighborhoods.  
We're trying to protect people's homes. We don't need to protect an R-2 parking lot at  
Hickman, or the R-1 bank -- or not -- the R-1 church next to the Central Bank on West  
Broadway. We -- protecting people's homes is good. I went through these things line by  
line. The R-1 and R-2 residential use as opposed to the zoning, the traffic impact  
analysis, and I took the time and explained. I'm an engineer; I'm a board-certified  
professional traffic operations engineer, and I explained how traffic impact analysis are  
expensive and sometimes they're very valuable, I agree, and sometimes they're not. If  
you have a small traffic generator in the middle of a big existing parking lot, having a  
traffic impact analysis for something like that is silly to me and is a waste of resources.  
It should be on a case-by-case basis, that the City staff can decide. The idea of  
screening drive-up facilities in commercial areas or along major streets, we disagree with.  
And the biggest impact is safety. We want the police officers to be able to see what is  
happening at the service window. We took a vote. Someone made a motion that, hey,  
our neighborhood supports everything you saw and highlighted, and they all raised their  
hands, and I took a picture of them, and they directed me to come tonight to their point of  
view from our neighborhood that we want to have these things incorporated into the  
zoning ordinance. And the question of, well, do you want nothing, or do you want to have  
the small improvements that we're talking about today, and I think that's a false choice. I  
want you all to vote no on this, and I want you to send a message to Council that for  
commercial areas, we should go back to the way it was -- protect the neighborhoods  
where the houses are, but we do not need to protect zoned property that's not developed  
in residential use. I'd be happy to answer any questions.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? No. And it does  
appear that your neighborhood association got the e-mail because you got the e-mail?  
MR. ROSS: Actually, no. I got it through REDI.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. All right. Thank you.  
MS. CARROLL: I have a question for staff.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Can it wait till we get to Commissioner comments?  
MS. CARROLL: Yes, it can.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: Yeah. I have a question for the speaker.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Please. Yes.  
MS. PLACIER: So in -- it may be that you misspoke there at the end, but it -- I  
thought it sounded like you told people how to vote, and I don't think you meant to say  
that.  
MR. ROSS: No. No. We showed these slides, we talked about these things.  
Someone in the neighborhood -- I said what should we do. I wanted to talk about it  
individually. And someone said I think we should support all this, and the neighbors  
agreed, and we had a vote and they raised their hands, and they voted to -- they  
endorsed this, the 100 -- well, there was 52 people, and they endorsed it, and you see --  
you see who's raising their hands. Almost everyone in the room was raising their hands.  
So my neighborhood, we use vehicles to go to get services. We don't want more  
expensive stuff where the cost is going to be pushed down to us. We want safety. The  
law enforcement said -- look at the other -- officers driving by cannot see a service window  
and it hurts public safety. There was other -- senior law enforcement people are my  
neighbors, and they -- they said the same thing. They voted for -- they voted for this  
yellow stuff. I think if you vote yes today, you're hurting public safety because putting up  
walls by ATMs is a bad idea. I want you to vote no tonight and I want you to ask City  
Council to change the zoning ordinance or the UDC back to the way it was before -- the  
UDC for commercial areas. Do not increase pardons in commercial areas but protect the  
R-1 and R-2 houses. That's -- that's their main point. Any other questions?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? No. Thank you.  
MR. ROSS: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else from the public wishing to speak?  
Going once, going twice. Thank you.  
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: I have a question for staff. Does this amendment regarding the  
porte cochere apply to a free-standing ATM?  
MR. SMITH: So we had that conversation, and I think -- I think our interpretation of  
that would be that, yes, I think it does meet the definition of a drive-through facility in that  
it -- there is a service rendered through the ATM.  
MR. ZENNER: It is -- an ATM is considered a financial institution. And given the  
way that the industry is changing, free-standing ATMs and ITMs take the place of a  
building. And so having your service window facing a public right-of-way and visible from  
the travel lanes of the right-of-way is what would be prohibited. We do not require a porte  
cochere to be built over an ATM machine that is turned in the opposite direction and still  
in the open. Case in point would be the ATM machine that is sitting in front of Eat Well,  
which has been screened because it is part of the M-DT. But that actual service window  
does not face Providence Road. And so that -- that -- there's a big difference here as to  
what would and what wouldn't be required, and I think to some of the questions that you  
had raised earlier, zoning has a lot to do with this, so many of the pictures that we have  
seen this evening have either been in M-C zoned areas that, yes, would allow the  
drive-through to occur without having to meet any additional conditional use requirements,  
but it still does have to meet drive-through design standards that exist. So adaptive reuse  
of existing structures such as the Harold's Donuts down on Nifong Boulevard, that was a  
redo of an existing facility that had a drive-through. And so change of uses may, in  
certain instances, require traffic study if we're going from a dry cleaner to a coffee shop,  
such as the Lakota off of Green Meadows. That has an impact from a circulation  
perspective. I don't know if anybody has driven out on Green Meadows on a Saturday  
morning before 9:00 a.m., and you will note that it is almost the way out into Green  
Meadows, if not stacking vehicles trying to make the left-hand turn. So asked if we have  
a problem or we've seen instances in where, yes, there are blockages for these facilities,  
there have been. The Starbuck's that is off the end of -- of the out parcel and the strip  
center at the Walmart at the corner of Fairview and Broadway was a slipped-in add-on  
that was not shown on the original development plans for that shopping center. And so  
we combat those, as well, where we have the placement of particular features that were  
never intended to be there. So to the primary question, no. ATM machines don't require  
a porte cochere to be built over them, they require that the face of the actual ATM  
machine be turned away from the public street facing front, which actually, I would think,  
would increase the amount of sign area that the bank has to advertise on. It would be a  
little bit more obvious then that it is an ATM and draw people to it.  
MS. CARROLL: So I'm having difficulty picturing an ATM arrangement that would  
require a porte cochere anyway, because the ones that I think of are all facing with the  
screens opposite and the drive path opposite the street or perpendicular and not adjacent  
to a street.  
MR. ZENNER: And many of the ATMs that existed and that have been removed, a  
lot of them had actual canopies over them initially to shield the user from the climate and  
the inclement weather. Many of those have been removed, interestingly enough. I don't  
know why. And the one I'm thinking of specifically is the one that was by the Dairy  
Queen that is on Forum and Stadium. There used to be one there for Landmark Bank, if I  
recall correctly. It no longer -- I don't believe the ATM is even there.  
MS. CARROLL: Would it be acceptable to state that ATMs are not subject to the  
porte cochere requirement just given that it's unlikely for it to be used in this scenario  
anyway? It would be okay with me to say they don't apply in this scenario just to cover  
any concern that it might come up to the development community, to banks.  
MR. SMITH: So the recommendation there, or your suggestion would be to remove  
that exception for ATMs, so they would adhere to the current restrictions on -- on no  
service windows facing the street; is that -- am I understanding that correctly?  
MS. BURNS: There's a lot of ATMS then --  
MR. SMITH: Or to allow it --  
MS. CARROLL: This puts me in the exact same sticky position. I see what you're  
saying here.  
MR. SMITH: The other -- the opposite of that would be to -- to allow it to face the  
street without exception -- without condition.  
MR. ZENNER: And I don't -- I think that the --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: We can consider that for a minute while we continue  
discussing.  
MS. CARROLL: I think we're good.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Commissioner Placer, and then Commissioner  
Wilson?  
MS. PLACIER: Well, just following up on that, I had never actually considered the  
ATMs because of the term service windows that is used throughout documents that we've  
seen. So a free-standing ATM did not -- I realize we have a photo of -- it’s not a free  
standing, it's next to the bank with -- that somebody provided with, say, four ATMs and  
maybe a service window. That does have a service window. I can't imagine that service  
window of the bank having to have a solid wall in front of it if it were facing a street. So I  
am confused by the ATM issue, obviously.  
MR. ZENNER: So if we -- if you think of the built environment, and if I'm not  
incorrect, it is a -- I believe it is the Simmons Bank that is on the corner of Ash -- is it  
Ash and Providence? It's the one that had the metal horses sitting out in front of it.  
MR. STADIUM: Stadium.  
MR. ZENNER: Or Stadium. Sorry. Stadium. Stadium and Ash. That is actually a  
four-bay drive through bank facility, and the outside drive-through lane closest to Stadium  
is an outward facing ATM, possibly an ITM. I don't bank at that facility, I just drive by it  
enough that I know it. And to your point, Ms. Placier, I think the issue here is is you  
have got a canopy that comes clearly across the bank drive-through lanes, as many  
banks that have drive-through facilities do. That canopy does not necessarily "meet" the  
purposes of screening that service window, which is on the bank, the actual physical  
building, from that public street to which it faces. Now, practically speaking, the  
drive-through canopy and the use of that -- that business type is -- is -- that architectural  
design is part of the built vernacular that we have in Columbia. I think many of us would  
probably say to screen the end of that does not make a whole lot of sense because really  
the business activity that's occurring in those drive-through lanes is occurring as it has  
always historically. Now is that the level of a drive-through business that we would like to  
have considered to have supplemental screening for? That may be a better question to  
be asking, because that goes, I think, to the point of intensity and also differentiating, as  
Mr. Ross has pointed out, when you have high volume drive-through facilities,  
drive-through restaurant facilities, they are generally along major roadway corridors,  
whereas you take a banking facility, it is possibly on the edge of a residential  
neighborhood. It may be on a high-volume corridor, but it also doesn't have the same  
volume of traffic generally that a drive-through restaurant facility may have. And so you --  
I think this issue is morphing more into the idea is -- is what's the objective of the  
screening. Is it to screen the massive volume potentially of vehicles that are coming and  
going through that type of business or is it truly from a full aesthetic perspective that we  
are trying to screen particularly what may be to some a less than desirable business view  
that they're seeing from the travel way. I don't think anybody would tell you that a bank  
that's got a canopy with three drive-through lanes underneath it is objectionable even if it's  
at the entrance to a neighborhood. But I think today we would require you, by the Code,  
to screen that end. And at that point, as the police have said, that does create a visibility  
issue for them, which is a concern. It may create a -- a perception of a loss of safety for  
the user, as well.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: So two things. The first thing is -- and I'm just being practical, I was  
imagining that the issue with the drive-through window facing the street was really not  
about the cars, but more so about I can see a person leaning out of a window giving you  
a sandwich. So that's problematic for me. Right? It's not necessarily the issue of the  
traffic because I can still see all the cars going through the lanes. It's pointless to think  
that it's about the traffic for me. But with an ATM, but that's the same height as your  
vehicle, so I cannot see that. So, for me, that's -- there's no -- there's no need to put up a  
porte cochere because I can't see that. I can't see through your car. I can't see that  
stuff. Right? One point. Second point, we're not talking about this. That is not the  
issue that is in front of us. So there's a lot of could of, would have, should haves, we wish  
it was like this. That is all fine and great. I appreciate the passion. That's just not what's  
on the table tonight, so we really need to focus on what's on the table. And then if people  
have issues with what's on the table after it's been voted upon, bring that back at another  
time and we can talk about it then.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner MacMann, did I see your hand down there?  
MR. MACMANN: You did. A couple of things.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: You need to get close to your mic, please?  
MR. MACMANN: I am so sorry, Madam Chair.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.  
MR. MACMANN: I just want to make a couple of comments, then I'm going to let  
you know where I'm leaning here.  
MS. BURNS: Can I ask a question? Did we close the public hearing?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh. I don't know that I officially said it. I did call three times,  
but I'm going to officially close --  
MS. BURNS: You’re right. I just wanted to make sure we --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: You’re right. You're right, Commissioner Burns.  
MR. MACMANN: You were just rather casual about it, I think.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I was very casual about it. It's hard when it's not a case case.  
We've closed public hearing and we are now in Commissioner comment, officially, for the  
record.  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: I just -- a couple -- a few things here. I appreciate any specialists,  
experts coming to us on the issues, and I would remind us and I would remind our guests  
this evening that we have 126,000 constituents, plus, and we have to listen to all of them,  
and I will second what Manager Zenner said. We have heard -- I have heard concerns.  
As to -- something was said this evening, and something was said several weeks ago  
when we were first pondering this amendment, that the use of a piece of property and not  
the zoning should determine what goes on there. I would remind this Commission and  
the community that if we make that kind of switch, that totally negates the entire UDC.  
As to why this now, I've been thinking about why this now, and our first speaker  
addressed that, said they didn't -- chose not to take a bite out of that apple or whatever  
phrase was used when it first came, because there are a lot of things under the UDC, and  
we know, we were up here, too. You know, we sat here till way late. I don't even  
remember, it was so late all the time. That's fantastic that you guys want to readdress  
things. I just will communicate a certain level of frustration where we're trying to make  
things better and easier and other folks are trying to turn back the clock. I find that  
frustrating. That said, and I'll be done in just a minute, I'm going to support this  
amendment as it is to send it back to Council.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Burns?  
MS. BURNS: Thank you. I appreciate everybody speaking on this. It certainly got  
me thinking more about it. I do have to look at the survey that was put out and the  
results that Mr. Smith presented to us, as well as his exhaustive work and the rest of the  
Planning Department on bringing this to us. I'd like to think that we want to do more and  
better aesthetically for our City, and I'd like to think our citizens would appreciate that. I  
also believe that some of these devices, whether it's a porte cochere -- I know I'm saying  
that wrong -- a little covering over a drive-through, or a fence and -- or screening aspect  
provides traffic calming, and I've encountered that personally at the new gas station on  
the corner of Elm and Providence, that those have -- I see people more cautiously coming  
out after filling up their car as they're trying to get onto Providence Road, and I appreciate  
that. So I think these things can help in a variety of ways, and I plan to support this.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Kimbell?  
MS. KIMBELL: I have a question -- I don't know if it's a question, but I just -- on the --  
in the report that was sent out on page 3, fourth paragraph down, it says, it is important  
to note that if passed, this amendment would not require businesses to build a porte  
cochere. Right now, businesses have no other alternatives available to them to design a  
building with a drive-through service window facing the street. This amendment proposes  
to provide an opportunity for businesses to decide if building a porte cochere is worth the  
cost of facing their window -- their service window toward the street. If it is not, they can  
still design the site as originally allowed, facing the interior of a lot or seek a Board of  
Adjustment variance. Now, with that last part, what does that mean, to seek a Board of  
Adjustment variance?  
MR. SMITH: Yes. That's an excellent question. So at -- at any point in time, if -- if  
an individual feels that the UDC requirements create some sort of unique hardship to the  
development of their site, they can submit an application to the -- to the Board of  
Adjustment for relief from that specific provision. So there are a certain amount of  
standards, very similar to standards that are reviewed here for, say, the conditional use,  
but specifically tailored for Board of Adjustment requests. And if the Board of Adjustment  
produces findings that they meet those criteria, they can grant that relief. So someone  
could, in theory, come before the Board and ask for a service window to face the street  
and if they meet those standards, the Board of Adjustment could grant that.  
MS. KIMBELL: Thank you.  
MR. ZENNER: And I think to add to that, part of this purpose, again, is to create  
the option to avoid an additional regulatory body and delay in being able to bring a project  
to completion or fruition. And often Board of Adjustment actions that are not directly tied  
to a unique issue associated to the property itself are often very difficult to be proven to  
the Board as being an actual hardship. They are more of a want. And the Board in its  
deliberations weighs heavily on that; and therefore, it is not -- the Board is not a body of  
yes. It is not a body of options. It is a body of looking at facts and evidence. And as  
such, if the evidence isn't there, as it was once said in a very famous trial, if the glove  
don't fit, you don't quit. And, therefore, you're not going to allow the variance to be  
granted. And what I could tell you after sitting and being the liaison to that body, that is a  
very, very frequent outcome. So the options created here are created with that intent.  
And so an applicant will be advised of what their rights are, and if they just can't live with  
not having it on the street front, and it won't work for their business model on the inside of  
the property, their last round and their last hope is a Board of Adjustment action, but it  
may not yield the results that they would like. And so we wanted to create that. Yeah.  
But you have that option. And this goes very much back to how we were looking at  
short-term rentals. We're not trying to put you out of business, we're trying to give you  
options as to give you time to be able to figure out what to do or how to rezone or do  
something else. This is the same philosophy.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Are you --  
MS. KIMBELL: I'm good.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: You're good? Okay. So before we go back around again, I --  
this is all great, whatever. Let's talk about porte cochere all night. The more important,  
bigger part of this that we discussed that we have the biggest problem with is the traffic  
impact analysis. Like, honestly, put it on the street, don't put it on the street, cover it,  
don't cover it, I am fine with staff's recommendation, and I will support it. The thing that I  
think will make the most impact in this City is stopping this nonsense of I'm inside a big  
development, and so I can put my drive-through lane wherever I want and block traffic 20  
hours a day. So, to me, the thing that we have to get done that really is the part that I  
think when I was going through our work sessions made me go yes, let's do this, is  
getting that traffic -- or, I'm sorry -- transportation impact analysis to a place where it's  
triggered anytime we think there's going to be an impediment, not just when a higher  
standard of 100 vehicle trips and close to a public right-of-way is the standard. Those  
internal intersections, the way we have built up a good portion of our City, are basically  
public right-of-ways. So I appreciate the -- the input that we've gotten, but it is interesting  
to me that it was all focused on what, to my mind, is a minor part of the amendment  
because the part that's going to have more impact, the part that's going to impact every  
drive-through application, whether it's by right or not, is going to be the traffic impact  
analysis. Everything else is if you can't get it by right and you have to be looking for a  
CUP and you have to be looking for exceptions, let's give you some additional  
exceptions. We're impacting a lot more people by looking at ways to prevent traffic  
impediments which are complaints that we hear regularly and frankly are often created  
because the pick-up window is on the street side. So I just -- I appreciate all the  
discussion that we've had, but I just want to put out there that the much larger part of this  
to me is that, is stopping the traffic problems that drive-throughs create, as they do intend  
to proliferate -- proliferate? I can say words -- throughout out City. So -- Commissioner  
Carroll, I saw your hand, and then we'll go on down.  
MS. CARROLL: There have been several calls tonight to return to pre-UDC  
standards, and that's something that I want to address. I don't think that it's responsible  
of us to return to pre-UDC standards in a sudden motion, especially not when that's not  
what's on the table for us tonight. My point here is that a smart approach, if you have a  
problem with the contents of the UDC, would be to walk things back a bit at a time. And  
I think what we have in front of us tonight is walking one of those standards back a bit at  
a time. And a responsible way to do that is to lighten up our standard a little bit, see how  
it impacts the neighborhoods, see how it impacts the traffic, see how it impacts the  
community as a whole, and then we can come back around and look at those results and  
see if we can support walking it back even more. So I would say that this amendment is  
putting you on the path to getting what you want, and -- and that's why I've been  
supporting it, and that's why I think that you should view it perhaps a bit more positively.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: -- (Inaudible.)  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, yeah. Yeah. We've got -- Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: Yeah. I was going to respond to your comment about the traffic  
impact. We did see some submitted comments that objected to that, but one thing that  
was not mentioned is that one of the responses from CPD was that they want to look at  
the traffic impacts, and that's one of their major concerns. So that supports the traffic  
impact study, especially in these crowded areas with now we're going to have three or  
four drive-throughs, and people -- and overflowing into -- into streets. But the other thing --  
that is, to me is a safety issue. The other thing that I didn't hear tonight is about  
pedestrian safety. That is one of my concerns about drive-throughs on any side of any  
restaurant, and I know we cannot go with the representatives of local motion and outlaw  
all drive-throughs, which somebody suggested, especially since during the pandemic,  
they kind of became a way for people to get access to a restaurant meal, but -- because  
there was no inside seating. But in whatever side that we have a drive-through, we have  
to look at how can pedestrians access the restaurant if they want to go inside, whether  
those are pedestrians from the neighborhood or pedestrians from parked cars, because I  
have been in that situation of being almost run down by people going through  
drive-throughs and not looking for walkers. So I don't know if that is included in the traffic  
impact, but it should be something we look at whenever we have a proposal for a  
drive-through.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: I’m okay.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Any further comment? Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Two things. Thank you, Madam Chair, for bringing it up, and  
Commissioner Placier, kind of a point of information. Planner Smith and I had the  
discussion in work session, and we teased out more protections in the use specific  
standards was it about -- because we talked about the pedestrian safety. It brings that to  
the fore more the way that says the same thing, but it specifically names pedestrians  
and pedestrian safety and lines of sight and stuff like that, which we've all received with  
the complaints over it.  
MS. PLACIER: Yeah. I think so. If Culver's, for instance, had pedestrian access  
from the Stadium side, which I don't -- it doesn't look like they do. You don't see that  
many pedestrians walking along there. That would be a real concern with the front facing,  
but it's going to be a problem on any side.  
MR. MACMANN: That said, Madam Chair?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Please?  
MR. MACMANN: In the matter of Case 262-2 -- remand -- 2022, I move to approve.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there a second?  
MS. BURNS: I'll second it.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by  
Commissioner Burns. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. Commissioner  
Carroll, when you're ready, could we have a roll call,  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.  
MacMann, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier, Ms. Kimbell, Ms. Wilson,  
Ms. Burns. Motion carries 7-0.  
MS. CARROLL: We have seven yes; the motion is carried.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Our unanimous approval will be forwarded to City Council.  
Thank you.  
In the matter of Case 262-2 -- remand -- 2022, move to approve  
7 - Burns, MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Kimbell, Placier and Wilson  
Yes:  
2 - Loe and Stanton  
Excused:  
VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS  
MS. GEUEA JONES: With no further cases coming before us, I will now open the  
floor to general public comments. Any general public comments? Seeing none.  
VIII. STAFF COMMENTS  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any staff comments?  
MR. ZENNER: Your next meeting will be March 9th. We do have several items on  
that agenda, and we will have a tantalizing work session to talk about the proposed new  
R-C zoning district, residential cottage. I want to refer to it as resort, but you could be  
building resort cottages in your residential neighborhood. But it is a -- it is a proposed --  
the topic that we are discussing. We will also be sending forward for Council's  
consideration, as has been previously talked about in work session, a request for  
research authorization and discussion with stakeholders as it relates to potential  
amendments to our existing zoning classifications with the potential intent of identifying  
new classes, as well as variations in the dimensional standards to encourage diversity in  
our housing type, as well as potentially better defining opportunities for housing  
affordability. And we will hopefully hear a response back for Monday, March 6th meeting.  
I will be able to report that out to you on the 9th. If not, stay tuned. You will be told. We  
also, for the public's purposes, we have released, as was discussed this evening, the  
survey request on BeHeardCoMo -- or BeHeard on our CoMo.gov website for the  
short-term rental survey. The survey has been updated to include one additional  
question, as well as a more direct description of how that survey is intended to be  
utilized. It is a six-question survey. It is not a survey intended to go deep dive into every  
provision of the proposed short-term rental ordinance. And apparently, it was our hope  
that the public, if they were interested in that ordinance, would click the ordinance link,  
review the ordinance, and provide comments back to either myself or Mr. Canton. The  
comments I have received were very negative, that the survey was a joke, that it wasn't  
allowing any opportunity for public engagement. I have responded back to each of those  
individuals that have responded to me in that fashion, indicating to them what the  
expectation of the survey was. It was intended to be quantitative, getting general  
attitudes, not qualitative, which is what the response and written comments were  
intended to do as we received during the first round of consideration of short-term rental,  
which I had 17 pages and an 11 by 17 spreadsheet that we summarized all of those  
written comments on. So for those 180 folks, 190 folks that had taken the survey before  
the end of last week, we would ask you to go back in, potentially retake the survey for us,  
as well as provide written comments if you have them through the questions button that is  
on the actual BeHeard website now. We do not do engagements of this nature,  
especially with this engagement software, so this is a learning curve for all of us, as we  
discussed this evening, with this particular survey on the drive-throughs. We will get  
better. It is -- the posting on BeHeard was specifically done because it is a much  
broader community issue, and as Mr. Smith pointed out, it was a purposeful decision that  
the drive-through survey was not put on BeHeard. We did not want to get it conflated or  
confused with other major topics, such as short-term rental. We also found through this  
process that we need to make sure that the communication with our allied departments,  
such as REDI, such as the Convention and Visitors Bureau, such as the Chamber of  
Commerce, need to be improved to ensure that we have the right contact individuals  
within those organizations to ensure that the message is being adequately put out . Mr.  
Canton and I are working on trying to devise a process that we will get better at that, as  
well as getting better at informing our own public information office as to what we have  
surveys out for so when they receive calls from the general public, they have the ability to  
appropriately redirect that caller to the individual on staff that can actually assist them.  
So we hope that people will be taking the survey for the short-term rental and will be  
providing substantive written comments as to what they dislike or what they like about  
the ordinance. Those comments will end -- we will close the comments at the end of  
March. It will be March 24th will be our last date to receive comments, so we can spend  
roughly a month analyzing them before they come back to the Commission. And then  
we will then try to schedule a meeting with City Council and the Commission again to be  
able to have a more hopefully informative discussion as to how they would like this body  
to proceed. In the interim, we'll be doing some other work. And that other work contains  
cases, because we just can't seem to stop getting them. With Mr. Smith departing for  
us at the middle of March, it should become a very interesting circus upstairs. Big Top  
musical play on a regular basis. Hopefully, not -- we'll hopefully have enough chairs for  
everybody to sit in. I think we do, because I'm down a number of staff. But -- and if any  
of you want to come and join me, we’d be more than happy. We have a couple of other  
items, a couple public hearings. Everything on this agenda is all twofers, so they're all  
related in some form or fashion. The first two basically are public hearing items. They  
are related, but they are independent public hearing items. One is the rezoning request  
for the same property that we have a CUP request on, and this is the parcel that is at the  
south -- that would be the southeast corner of the interchange of U.S. 63 and Paris Road  
that we have previously had brought before us, the Sapps' property, and they are  
requesting zoning for a portion of the acreage that was platted from agricultural from M-C,  
Mixed-use Corridor, and then they are also requesting that the CUP for a travel trailer  
park, which was part of their original request, the triad request that had come in several  
months ago, this is just solely for that one particular parcel, and that is why it is a CUP,  
because we do not allow commercial travel trailer parks in any other zoning district. And  
then the remaining four items, the first two are related to an annex -- permanent zoning  
that has an annexation associated with it. Two pieces involved in that property, one on  
the north end of the existing Fox Creek development and one on the south end of the Fox  
Creek development, so they are looking at expanding that residential project. And then  
the preliminary plat is, in essence, a revision to the second phase of what was previously  
approved under preliminary plat. We had a large preliminary. The first phase has been  
approved. It's under construction. The second phase is what will be modified by this  
revised preliminary plat, and it will incorporate the two areas that are sought to be  
permanently zoned and annexed into the City, all of which are served off of the existing  
pump station that was required for the subdivision when it originally came before the  
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, if I'm not incorrect, in 2019. And then  
the last two projects, I was informed earlier today, so we only actually have four. The last  
two projects will not show up on the agenda, but these are projects that are actually  
down at the southeast corner of Veterans United and Providence Road. This is the old  
former -- it's adjacent to the former State Farm property. It is the undeveloped 24 acres  
that has frontage along Providence. It is a request for a rezoning. It is currently zoned  
M-OF. They are requesting to rezone the bulk of the property M-C, with the lower portion  
to the southeast of the existing rear entry drive that comes off of Providence onto the  
campus to remain M-OF. And then there is a proposed subdivision plat that goes along  
with that. At this time, the delay is associated with the necessity to have a traffic impact  
study completed, as well as to draft a development agreement that will need to be  
presented in companion fashion with the Council action, to deal with impacts that will be  
created at the intersection of South Providence and Veterans United Drive. Location so  
we can get our bearings. Many of you know where this one is. This is our one up off of  
Paris and 63. Then the property that is out at -- this is the Fox Creek Subdivision. This  
is Route PP and Mexico Gravel, just to the east of Lake of the Woods and Mexico  
Gravel. And then the map on your right is the actual subdivision plat. It covers the entire  
second phase, in essence, of the existing Fox Creek development. And then, of course,  
our project that is down at the southeast corner of Providence and Veterans United Drive  
that will come to you -- should hopefully come to you at the end of March, so a month  
from today. With that, that is all we have to offer. We appreciate your attention this  
evening, and we will be forwarding the recommendation from tonight for consideration on  
Council's agenda for their March 6th meeting, which was what the requested direction  
was when the tabling occurred. And that project is actually at second reading. I am not  
quite sure, based on the recommendation and the public record here this evening, if it will  
stay at that or if they may want to start all over, so we will keep you informed.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I'm sorry. Can you say that date one more time?  
MR. ZENNER: March 6th. So --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Next week.  
MR. ZENNER: -- next week. And the report has already been -- the shell of the  
report was already uploaded. We were waiting for the recommendation from the  
Commission this evening to complete the report.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Do we have -- I'm sorry. Anything  
else?  
MR. ZENNER: No. That is it, ma'am.  
IX. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comments? Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: One thing real quick. I'd like to thank Planner Smith for years of  
tolerating us, and I wish him good fortune in his new endeavors.  
MS. KIMBALL: I second that. Thank you.  
MR. MACMANN: I have one more thing to add.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Is it something --  
X. NEXT MEETING DATE - March 9, 2023 @ 7 pm (tentative)  
XI. ADJOURNMENT  
MR. MACMANN: I move to adjourn.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: All right. We are adjourned.  
(The meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m.)  
(Off the record.)  
Move to adjourn