City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Council Chambers

Columbia City Hall

701 E. Broadway

Thursday, September 4, 2025

7:00 PM

Regular Meeting

I. CALL TO ORDER

MS. GEUEA JONES: Good evening. I will now call the Thursday, September 4th,

2025 regular session of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order.

II. INTRODUCTIONS

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

MR. STANTON: Yes, Madam Chair. Mr. Brodsky is absent. Mr. Darr?

MR. DARR: Here.

MR. STANTON: Ms. Geuea Jones?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Here.

MR. STANTON: Dr. Gray?

DR. GRAY: Here.

MR. STANTON: Ms. Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: Here.

MR. STANTON: I am here. Ms. Stockton?

MS. STOCKTON: Here. Here.

MR. STANTON: Mr. Walters?

MR. WALTERS: Here.

MR. STANTON: Ms. Wilson?

MS. WILSON: Here.

MR. STANTON: One, two, three, four, five, six, seven -- eight present; we have a

quorum, Madam Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much.

8 -

Present:

Anthony Stanton, Sharon Geuea Jones, Shannon Wilson, Robert Walters,

McKenzie Ortiz, Les Gray, Kate Stockton and Cody Darr

1 - David Brodsky

Excused:

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any changes or adjustments to our agenda this

evening, Mr. Zenner?

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

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

MS. WILSON: I so move.

DR. GRAY: Second.

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

Gray. Is there a thumbs-up approval on the agenda?

(Unanimous vote for approval)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Unanimous. Thank you.

So move

8 - Stanton, Geuea Jones, Wilson, Walters, Ortiz, Gray, Stockton and Darr

Yes:

1 - Brodsky

Excused:

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting

MS. GEUEA JONES: We all received a copy of the minutes of our August 7th and

our August 21st regular meetings, with corrections to the August 7th regular meeting.

Are there any further adjustments or corrections to the minutes? Seeing none. Is there a

motion to approve?

DR. GRAY: I move to approve.

MS. WILSON: Second.

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

Wilson. We got all rearranged up here. I don't -- it's going to be okay. Is there

thumbs-up approval on the minutes?

(August 7 meeting, 7 votes for approval; one abstention.)

(August 21 meeting, 7 votes for approval; one abstention.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Unanimous with abstention from Commissioner Geuea

Jones for her absence last week -- or last meeting.

MS. ORTIZ: I was absent on August 7th, so I would like to abstain from those

minutes, as well.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Commissioner Ortiz. Commissioner Ortiz

abstains from approval of the August 7th minutes. Very good.

Move to approve.

August 21, 2025 Regular Meeting

MS. GEUEA JONES: We all received a copy of the minutes of our August 7th and

our August 21st regular meetings, with corrections to the August 7th regular meeting.

Are there any further adjustments or corrections to the minutes? Seeing none. Is there a

motion to approve?

DR. GRAY: I move to approve.

MS. WILSON: Second.

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

Wilson. We got all rearranged up here. I don't -- it's going to be okay. Is there

thumbs-up approval on the minutes?

(August 7 meeting, 7 votes for approval; one abstention.)

(August 21 meeting, 7 votes for approval; one abstention.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Unanimous with abstention from Commissioner Geuea

Jones for her absence last week -- or last meeting.

MS. ORTIZ: I was absent on August 7th, so I would like to abstain from those

minutes, as well.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Commissioner Ortiz. Commissioner Ortiz

abstains from approval of the August 7th minutes. Very good.

Move to approve.

V. PUBLIC HEARINGS

Case # 231-2025

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

Properties LLC (owner), for approval of a site-specific PD plan & new

Statement of Intent (SOI) to be known as, "Ashford Place." The 24.13-acre

subject site is located directly north of the terminus of Sagemoor Drive, and

is currently zoned PD (Planned District). The rezoning establishes a

development plan for the parcel, inclusive of 77 single-family attached

dwelling units. Additional lots depicted on the plan are designated for

common areas. (This case was tabled at the July 10 and August 7,

2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meetings).

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 proposed PD plan, serving as a

preliminary plat, and the revised statement of intent, subject to a development agreement

satisfactory to the City and agreed to by the applicant prior to introduction of this case to

City Council. Furthermore, given the potential that the final negotiation of a

mutually-acceptable development agreement may result in required changes to the

proposed development plan, staff recommends approval of this request subject to

technical corrections resulting from finalization of anticipated development agreement.

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

fellow Commissioners have any -- have had any contact with parties to this case outside

of a public hearing, please disclose so now. Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: I will note that I was contacted; however, I did not have a conversation

with an individual.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Anyone else receive any outside contact? Thank

you. Folks, I don't mind that you have signs, but I'm going to need you to keep them

down. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. We're trying to have a -- as calm a

discussion as we can tonight. That would be great. Questions for staff? Commissioner

Darr?

MR. DARR: I'm looking at Figure 9 of the traffic impact study from 2017, and it just

is -- I'm looking at the north tract that they identify as having 85 homes, and then I'm

looking at the tract that we're looking at that's under consideration, and it's just like a

third of that.

MR. KUNZ: Uh-huh.

MR. DARR: So are we using up all of that allotment of traffic for just this

development? What about the two tracts to the east of that, or am I not seeing that

correctly?

MR. KUNZ: No. For -- you are seeing it correctly that the however many trips that

were considered in one scenario was comprehensively for all the -- or all the parcels that

hadn't been developed at that point. It also considered 276, so that would be greater than

the 80-something that was considered at that time, so that could be considered

appropriate or, I guess, a valid TIS still, but it also could be that we need to perform a new

TIS if these other two parcels do end up developing.

MR. ZENNER: Mr. Darr, if I may. The subdivision of the eastern tracts of which --

sorry, the western tracts that were outside of the Phase 1 of The Brooks --

MR. DARR: Uh-huh.

MR. ZENNER: -- occurred after 2017. And so what you see on parcel maps

today, those tracts were all part of what the study was considering. They were one tract

of land at that point. They have subsequently been further subdivided and connected with

the parcels that are to the north and have access off of Richland Road. And that is

probably why it only appears as though the traffic study is saying 85 trips for the entire

undeveloped acreage. And then as Mr. Kunz has indicated, they did the alternative of

276 for all of the remaining undeveloped acreage, which was at one point one leftover tract

from Tract 5.

MR. DARR: Okay. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Further questions for staff? Seeing none. We are going to

open the floor to public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: I'm going to do a little bit about our rules for the evening.

We're going to try to get through everybody. Part of that means that I have to put a time

limit on everybody. So we're going to do six minutes for the applicants, or if you are here

representing a group, three minutes if you are here as an individual. I've got my timer on

my phone. If you hear it going off, I'm not getting text messages. That means your time

is up. We're going to not use bad language. We're going to not disparage people based

on any of their inherent characteristics, and we're going to not be disruptive. We can get

through this and we will come to a decision at the end of it. We love hearing from the

public. I am so excited you all are here. Let's have a good meeting and come to a

conclusion that everybody feels okay about at the end of the day; all right? All right.

Whenever you're ready -- oh, also, name and address for the record. I'm sorry, we have

to have that because we're the Planning and Zoning Commission, so name and address

for the record before you start. Go ahead.

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

offices at 1000 West Nifong Boulevard, Building Number 1. I'm going to be requesting

only three minutes of your time tonight, and I will turn that over to Tim Crockett to follow

me up. Here to discuss the Ashford Place Development, which David did a great job

giving the staff report, I, myself, Andy Greene, Tim Crockett, Caleb Colbert here to

represent and talk a little bit about the project. Overview again, I won't go to an in-depth

of it, but roughly 24 acres on the west side of an existing PD zoned property. This is not

a rezoning request tonight, we are simply submitting a PD plan that conforms to the

existing zoning on the property. The current zoning even specifically calls out for the use

of a three-unit building, which is what our proposal includes. Our proposal will also

conform to the original Statement of Intent from 2010, with the original zoning as well as

all City of Columbia regulations moving forward. Again, just a picture shaded in green

where the project is located, and, again, a snip just showing you what the project looks

like as it relates to the network and layout of the property. So just to talk a little bit about

the history of the zoning in the area, as David previously covered, everything in blue back

in 2010 was annexed and zoned into the City of Columbia with a PD zoning. The shaded

green tract is referenced Tract 5 within that zoning, which got assigned a residential

density of PUD 4. That's four units per acre. In 2013, our client, Troy Miller Properties

purchased a 24-acre portion on the east side of the green property there shaded in blue,

which is the subject property we've got today. So in 2014, The Brooks Plat Number 1,

which is shaded in darker green on the east side of the Tract 5 in blue was approved from

a zoning and preliminary plat perspective. Following that in 2017, The Brooks Plat

Number 1 was constructed. After that, in 2017, to the south, Brooks Phase 2 was

annexed and zoned residential. That borders the south property here that we've got.

Following that, in 2018, The Brooks Plat Number 2 was constructed, and following that in

'22, The Brooks Plat Number 3 was constructed. I'm trying to paint the picture here that

the property was zoned in 2010. It's been there in place all while The Brooks developed

basically to the east and the south. All utilities are available and on site ready to serve

the development. They are appropriately sized and have the capacity including sewer,

water, electric, and stormwater. Here is a conceptual unit plan of the three-unit structure.

Just wanted to kind of show that of what -- what we're thinking for the unit, and then

here's a sample floor plan, again, with the three units and some elevations there on the

right. Phasing, as David talked about, will be done in three general phases, phase 1 on

the southwest, phase 2 there on the east, and then finally in green would be phase 3.

And with that, I'll turn it over to Tim Crockett. Thank you for your time.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Oh, any questions, or do you mind taking --

sorry. Sorry, Tim. We'll get back to you. Any questions for this speaker? All right.

Easy enough.

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

Crockett Engineering Consultants, 1000 West Nifong. As Andy indicated, I would like to

have the six minutes for my presentation. A lot to cover, so I'm going to go very quickly.

If you have questions, please feel free to ask them. I'm going to cover density, traffic,

parking, green space, and the Statement of Intent. First of all, the density. The density,

as indicated by staff, is a PUD 4, four units per acre, and we're asking for 3.2 units per

acre. You're going to hear some correspondence tonight that talks about that's

high-density apartments. Honestly, 3.2, that's -- that's in the range of single-family

densities all over Columbia. Most of our densities that we have in Columbia for single

family are 1.5 to 4 units per acre. Moderate density, at best, is at six to ten, and high

density for apartments that this project has been claimed to be is 12 to 20. We're

nowhere near that. So in comparison, you can see where The Brooks is. The Brooks,

as a whole, the entire development of The Brooks is about 2.1 units per acre. The

Brooks Plat 3, which is the plat that we directly abut, is 2.6. There is not much

difference between 2.6 and the 3.2 that we're looking at tonight. Eastport Gardens,

you've got some correspondence in -- in your staff report, or, excuse me, in your staff

correspondence that had pictures of cars parked all over the streets. That was in

Eastport Gardens with a density of 5.3. Other densities are similar -- of similar

developments, the residence at Old Hawthorne is 5.0, Amberton, which this Commission

approved not long ago, was at seven and a half. It was a much denser development, and

it didn't have any parking issues. No one had concerns with the parking that we had at

Amberton at a higher density. Vintage Falls and, of course, those at Old Hawthorne are

similar densities that we're proposing. The traffic, is that going to be a concern? A lot of

folks have issues with the traffic. The major roadways in this area have been vetted by

CATSO. If you're not familiar with CATSO, it's the major roadway plan for the City of

Columbia. There's a Technical Committee and a Coordinating Committee. Both of those

have representatives, engineers, and planners from both the City, the County, and

MoDOT, so they determine where the major roads to throughout the -- throughout the

City. The traffic from Ashford Place was accounted for when The Brooks was developed.

So when The Brooks went in, to answer your question, Mr. Darr, that piece of property to

the north, the Tract 5, took into account 267 or whatever the number it was, that number,

it took the numbers of acres available by four units per acre, and that's the density that it

-- that it assigned. That's how many units was assigned to that. So there's plenty of

density left for those remaining two tracts of land. Streets in The Brooks were built to

accommodate the proposed traffic, so while there is additional traffic coming from this

project, Sagemoor and Hoylake were expanded or grew to neighborhood and major

collector standards to account for that -- wider pavements, wider right-of-ways. And, of

course, there's not just the streets themselves, but there are also some other off-site

improvements, turn lanes and signals, to be exact. Here's the traffic -- a snippet from

that 2017 report. It's hard to read. You can see Sagemoor, the green on the left, and

Hoylake, the blue on the right. It says that's the proposed roadways within The Brooks

Phase 2 development would adequately serve the proposed subdivision in addition to the

future development of the north tract, which refers to Tract 5 and portion of this

development. So the traffic was all vetted through MoDOT, as well as City of Columbia.

Parking has been questioned, as well. We are looking at two spaces per unit. The

original Statement of Intent says the total number of parking spaces proposed is 1,184.

That's based on the maximum number of units you can get four units per acre over the

entire Tract 5. However, the actual number may be more or less, so as long as it

complies with the City of Columbia regulations. The City of Columbia regulations require

two spaces per dwelling. There is additional on-street parking that is available. Here's an

exhibit that shows our available spaces that we can have. I believe Mr. Kunz talked

about having 60, we come up with 68, so there is adequate parking if we needed it on the

street themselves. However, if it became a problem, we have two locations that we can

add small parking lots, so we can add some additional parking if that ever becomes an

issue. So we can have upwards of 20 additional parking spaces, off-street parking if

needed. The green space, of the total 24 acres that we have on site, about 43 percent or

over ten acres is going to be in common lots. Then we add in the landscaping and yards,

that's another 27 percent or so, six and a half acres. Total open space is about 70

percent on this site. You don't see that very often when you're talking about to have

single family. So, you know, that's single-family density. Statement of Intent, we're

going to hear a lot about where we're just doing the minimums. We're doing just the

minimum. But here's a comparison of the two Statements of Intent. The original

Statement of Intent said one family and one family attached. We're doing single family

attached. The maximum number of units on the original Statement of Intent was 96, and

we're proposing 77, a reduction in that total density. Building heights stay the same.

Parking ratio we talked about. We're increasing the front yard setback to give it that

more single-family feel. Landscaping is staying the same and our open space is

increasing greatly. So we're not hitting the minimums, we're doing more than that. The

Statement of Intent, I believe, from the original -- from the very original zoning out here,

this is specifically what it states. The plan for Tract 5 is generally described as a plan

containing one family and one family attached units, and any combination of same. Units

may be contained on a single zero lot line lot, a single-family lot, or in a large lot

containing several units. In addition, there may be up to three units in a single building.

We're proposing one-family attached on zero lot line lots with up to three units in a single

building. We're complying with that original Statement of Intent. The proposed plan not

only complies with the original statement of intent, but we believe that the original

Statement of Intent intended for this exact type of development. And so with that, I'm

happy to answer any questions that you may have.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Crockett? Commissioner

Walters?

MR. WALTERS: I'm just interested in this for context. So when this began in 2010,

has there been a single developer in charge or supervising or orchestrating the entire

development, these various phases we've had -- we've seen here?

MR. CROCKETT: In 2010, there was a single developer that was in charge of all

that. However, during the recession, he lost the property. It went through bank

foreclosure. That bank went under, and therefore, it went to the FDIC, and so then it was

divvied up and then it was kind of dispersed at that point. So it's had a -- it's had a tough

past.

MR. WALTERS: So as the previous speaker illustrated at the various phases, those

phases were done by different entities?

MR. CROCKETT: Yeah. And so let's go back to that, Mr. Walters. Okay. Yes. So

let's go to this slide right here. So all of that right there in blue, that comprises the five

tracts of land. That was the original 2010 rezoning. That included some commercial,

some other PUD up along Richland, and then this was Tract 5. And so what happened is

somewhere along the way when it went through the bank foreclosure, it went to several

investment bankers who bought it from the FDIC, it got so divided into multiple tracts of

land. One tract of land was purchased by my client. The next two properties were

purchased by another individual and then another developer purchased what's shaded in

green, and so that was The Brooks Plat 1.

MR. WALTERS: All right. Thank you.

MR. CROCKETT: Yes.

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

MR. CROCKETT: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Seeing none.

MR. CROCKETT: Back to -- okay. Perfect. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Next person to speak on this case?

Please come forward. Yeah. I don't have a list, so work it out amongst yourselves.

Name and address for the record, and then start when you're ready.

MS. DELLA VECCHIA: Tracy Della Vecchia, 600 Sahalee Court, Columbia, Missouri

65201. Sahalee Court is in Phase 1 of The Brooks Subdivision. It's not just numbers and

engineering on paper. While it's true -- I'm going to read this very fast. While it's true that

Sagemoor Drive will serve as the sole ingress for 77 families in the tri-plexes, a situation

that alone should halt this proposed development, I'd like to draw attention to a more

fundamental issue. The plan contradicts the Planning and Zoning Commission's own

strategies for safe neighborhood streets, a fact that should prompt a reconsideration of

the developer’s plan. When I first set my sights on buying a home in The Brooks, the

entrance was only off of Rolling Hills onto to Hoylake Drive. Hoylake Drive was half the

size that is now. Hoylake Drive culminated at a barricade next to the resident of 5054

Hoylake Drive. There's four homes on Hoylake Drive in that section that their driveways

point to the streets, and you have to be on that busy street now to get in and out of the

driveway. You guys approved that with a nod to the developer even -- because at that

time, it wasn't a through street, and it was the Planning and Zoning Commission had

already approved that those driveways be open to Hoylake Drive. When I went back to

buy my home in the fall of 2019, the transformation of Hoylake into a connecting street

and a bustling thoroughfare was shocking. We bought our home in 2019 during the years

of constructions of Phases 2 and 3 of The Brooks. I traversed every nook and cranny in

my morning four-mile walks. I couldn't help -- help but notice that none of the driveways

in Phases 2 and 3 of The Brooks open onto Hoylake, for which I am deeply grateful. The

Planning and Zoning Commission would not have sanctioned additional driveways

opening directly onto a now connecting street. During my morning walks, I had -- I have

had several close calls with speeding traffic rushing from Rolling Hills to WW using it as

their own personal shortcut around high traffic areas. Hoylake in its current state poses a

significant danger to joggers, walkers, children, dogs, and families with strollers. It's a

throughfare street right down the middle of a family neighborhood. I've lived here for nearly

six years, and the City is only now taking action to address the safety issues. It can

take five or more years to construct speed bumps, apparently we’re 34 on the list. Fast

forward to 2020, and by the time they get to it, it will be 11 years before they address the

issue. Fast forward to 2025, and deja vu. We have Sagemoor Drive in The Brooks Phase

3, with homeowners' driveways opening into it, approved by the Planning and Zoning

Commission. It's closed off with a barricade at the end of the street. The Planning and

Zoning Commission rightly approved those driveways opening onto the street because it's

not a connecting road and not a busy thoroughfare. If this development is approved, the

situation with Sagemoor Drive will be no different from that of Hoylake Drive. The potential

dangers of Sagemoor Drive being a connecting street cannot be overlooked. This is a

concern for all of you and all of us. We don't need a crystal ball to predict what the

outcome of this will be. It will be more than a decade since opening up Hoylake as a

major connecting street for the City to put something in place to address the safety

hazards -- very real safety hazards, not just numbers and not just an engineering report.

The same thing is going to happen on Sagemoor.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, ma’am. Could you wrap up? Sorry.

MS. DELLA VECCHIA: We need a solution to this before the development can be

approved, and the problem that we all know will happen, and indeed it's the responsibility

of the Commission to do everything in its power to prevent unsafe streets. The bottom

line is the developer is the one that needs to create the streets that go in and out of it,

and it's not Sagemoor that is the street that goes in and out of his complex.

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

folks. Next person to speak on this case, please come forward.

MS. HAUSWIRTH: Good evening.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Pull that down to you, ma'am.

MS. HAUSWIRTH: Good evening.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Pull that down to you, ma’am. Thank you.

MS. HAUSWIRTH: Good evening. My name is Gail Hauswirth, and I live at 5338

Harbor Town Drive adjacent to Hoylake Drive. My husband and I moved to The Brooks in

2018 seeking a quiet place to age in place, trusting that Planning and Zoning would

protect our homeowners’ peace and safety, and if we had known Hoylake was going to be

a major collector, we would have never purchased the home. Today, even simple tasks

like crossing Hoylake Drive to get my mail are dangerous. There are no crosswalks or

speed bumps, and speeding traffic often wakes us at night. Adding a large new

development will only worsen these problems. Supporters of Ashford Place point to a

2017 traffic study by CBB based on the ITE Trip Generation Model. In my professional

career with data analysis, I learned that all models have blind spots. This one predicts

traffic only from new driveways. It does not capture cut-through traffic when drivers

re-route through neighborhoods as a shortcut. In other words, the exact traffic we already

struggle with is invisible to this model. The model used to justify that there's adequate

capacity on these streets doesn't see the cut-through traffic at all. This limitation is

acknowledged by the ITE manual, itself, as well as transportation authorities in Boston,

Portland, Austin, and Seattle, which require real world follow-up studies and mitigation

before approving new projects. Columbia has not taken those steps. If Planning and

Zoning relies on the 2017 study, it will result in a misleading analysis of the new

development's impacts, inadequate mitigation measures, and long-term harm to the

safety and livability of our neighborhood. We are not anti-growth. We are simply asking

Planning and Zoning to balance new development with protections for existing residents.

Without major mitigation, Ashford Place will bring long-term safety and livability problems

for The Brooks. Good growth should not leave us feeling victimized. Thank you.

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

MS. HAUSWIRTH: Yes, sir.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Great presentation. So let's talk about your data.

MS. HAUSWIRTH: Yes, sir.

MR. STANTON: If traffic is an issue and we're assuming that this is going to

increase through not only the invisible traffic that you discussed but the increase in the

development, what is your alternative to what is on the table right now? If you were in

their shoes, what is your -- what is your alternative to this?

MS. HAUSWIRTH: Well, I think there are several things that would mitigate.

Obviously, traffic calming measures within the existing subdivision. But more

importantly, if this is to be approved, he needs to have the roads to accommodate the

development, and it's a matter of are we getting the cart ahead of the horse? Are we

putting something in that we don't really have the capacity or the finances, if we can't

afford the roads, maybe it's not yet time for this development.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any other questions for this speaker? Seeing

none. Thank you for being here tonight, ma’am. Next?

MS. MCCOY: My name is Holly McCoy, and I live on 809 Sagemoor Drive. My

issue, as a resident of The Brooks, and specifically as a homeowner on Sagemoor, is the

increase in traffic, like she spoke. Already the street in front of our home has collapsed

and had to have been replaced. That was done in October of 2024. So I just understand

that Troy Miller owns this, and he should be allowed to develop it as he sees fit, but a

new development that leeches into an existing neighborhood when it benefits from you or

negatively impacts the adjacent area without providing reciprocal benefits, it's a parasite.

The Ashford Place development would be an example of this. And so the appropriate

action that I would respectfully request is that Mr. Miller take this development and build

his own roads into it the same way that the developers of The Brooks had to build their

own roads to develop this. They didn't cut through another subdivision to create this.

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

-- oh, sorry. Commissioner Walters, go ahead.

MR. WALTERS: What do you mean by this -- Mr. Miller should build his own roads?

MS. MCCOY: Well, just like you said, El Chaparral could go through. Can a road be

built from Richland? You have Richland and Rolling Hills. You have lots of other ways to

access this, than to use Sagemoor, the street that I live on, as their only means to get

into their development, which is going to increase the traffic dramatically.

MR. WALTERS: Okay. Thank you.

MS. MCCOY: Uh-huh.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any other questions for this speaker? Seeing

none. Thank you very much, ma'am. Next?

MR. DUKE: I was here before, so I've been here. My name is Jon Duke. I live in

phase 1 of The Brooks Development, 5317 Harbor Town Drive. I moved in 2018, and I

have seen The Brooks being developed. I have reviewed this proposal and it's apparently

a high-density proposal. It appears to me that there are three units attached in each lot.

The lots are developed that are basically a little oversized lot. They're about 96 feet wide

at the street. Generally, city lots are 60 by 90. They can be larger. County lots are

generally 70 wide by 110 to 120, and they can be larger. These lots are designed for a

single home. Each lot will have three units that have common walls between them. The

units are 28 feet wide, 66 feet long, which is a little larger than a double-wide mobile

home. Each unit will have a single car garage within the unit which will reduce the square

footage of that unit by 200 square feet. The proposal does not indicate if the units would

be two-story, and what the time that I got the information, I wasn't aware of that. The

backyard of each unit will be 28 feet wide and 25 feet deep, about the same size as a

double-car garage, so it is high density.

The Brooks is a nice neighborhood with great neighbors. It is with quiet, and with few

exceptions, well maintained. In talking to the neighbors, we would like to keep it this

way. Most of us have seen neighbors with rentals in high-density units, and do not wish

to have the same general issues in our neighborhood. In regard to traffic issues, currently

we have a problem with speeders on Hoylake and it's been addressed several times.

Some of the vehicles may be traveling 45 to 50 miles an hour. I've actually seen them go

faster than that. I generally drive about 25 to 29 miles per hour on Hoylake and the cars

pass me on the curves and on the hills and blow their horns at me and do all kinds of

things. It's a major issue. And if you want to know why I can tell what the speed of the

cars, I'll give that information later. Many of the families that presently live in The Brooks

have young children. They ride bikes, scooters, roller blades, and most of them don't

look at the street before they roll into it with their bikes. The proposed states that

vehicles will not be allowed to park on the street. That was the original proposal.

Apparently, they've changed that. And number two is who is going to enforce it, unless

the City goes out and violates it. I have concerns about the width of the streets. The

streets are basically 28 feet wide, and with a fire truck, they probably won't be able to go

down there because if there's a vehicle that is a monstrous pickup truck parked on each

side of the street, that's going to be nine feet and nine feet, that's 18 feet. The fire truck

is going to be nine feet wide. They would only leaves a foot and a half for that vehicle to

go through if everybody is parked the way they're supposed to be parked.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, sir. If you could wrap up, that would be great.

MR. DUKE: Okay. The amount of traffic is basically the issue. The national average

is 1.83 vehicles per household. With 26 lots and only one house on each lot, that would

be 47.58 vehicles. With the proposed of 77 units on 26 lots, that would mean there would

be 141 vehicles. That's a monstrous -- a lot. So apparently we're going to have a parking

problem, and the problem is musical vehicles, one car garage and a driveway. Who goes

to work first? Do they come home first?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, sir.

MR. DUKE: Who goes to work second, who comes home second?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.

MR. DUKE: So how are they going to keep parking those cars off the street?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any questions for this speaker? Commissioner

Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I'm going to ask the same question I asked the previous speaker.

Thank you for your data. So let's talk data. If you do not like 77, it sounds like you

would like single-family 44. Right?

MR. DUKE: Yes. Twenty-six lots.

MR. STANTON: It's still an increase of traffic.

MR. DUKE: Yes. But it's 40 vehicles and not 140 vehicles.

MR. STANTON: And I guess my next question would be, if you were in their shoes,

that's what you were proposes more of that single-family.

MR. DUKE: If I had anything to do with the development, it would be single-family

homes.

MR. STANTON: All right. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any other questions for this speaker? Seeing -- oh,

Commissioner Walters, go ahead.

MR. WALTERS: I may not have remembered correctly, but when the proponents

spoke, they spoke about the density of the adjoining one -- existing density, was that 2.6

per acre? Two point six times twenty-four is 62 units as a comparison versus 87 that are

being proposed, just as a joint of information.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.

MR. DUKE: Well, I -- my understanding has always been it's been four houses per

acre, so --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much, sir. Any other questions. Seeing

none. Next? Go ahead and start, please.

MS. KIRKPATRICK: Good evening. My name is Peggy Kirkpatrick; I live at 713

Sagemoor. I am four houses up from the proposed development. First of all, I want to

say thank you to all of you for volunteering and putting up with all of us every month. I am

a little bit confused on one thing that I think Tim, you said it wasn't a rezoning issue, and

yet it says here in your own minutes the rezoning establishes a development plan for the

parcel. I'm a little -- is this a rezoning issue or not? So that's question number one.

Question number 2, Mr. Stanton, you brought up an excellent point of -- you asked Holly,

who is my neighbor, how should these -- the traffic come in? Mr. Miller owns the property

all the way to Richland Road. He -- part of the land has not been zoned into the City. It's

-- it's still County zoned, and I think there's a creek and he would have to build a bridge.

When he met with the neighborhood, which we really appreciate, Mr. Miller, that you met

with us, he was asked about building the bridge or extending to Richland Road, and he

said it was too expensive. That's -- that's a good point, but he is basically building a

subdivision without investing at all in the infrastructure of the roads except for what he's

going to build with his subdivision. And then the last thing I'd like you to consider is that

that whole plot is densely wooded, and it's absolutely gorgeous. We expected it to be

developed and naively, we didn't do our due diligence. Naively, we thought it was going to

be an extension Phase 4 of The Brooks. What I am asking you to consider, if it's in your

power, to require the developer to put a minimum of a 50-foot buffer leaving those beautiful

trees in place and acting as -- as a change of landscape, if you will, from single-family

dwellings to a more dense development. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

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

none. Thank you for being here tonight.

MS. KIRKPATRICK: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: The next person to speak on this case, please come forward.

MS. ESOCHAGHI: Hi, everybody. May name is Sonrochi Esochaghi; I live at 4505

Royal County Road in Columbia, Missouri. So I just purchased a home a few months

ago. So my comment will be very simplistic compared to other people who have spoken

here. I think when I heard about this development, I was just very confused about how it's

possible to go through one neighborhood to go to another neighborhood. It's just very

weird to me. So to get to my house, so Royal County Road intersects Sagemoor, and

you come in from Broadway to get to Sagemoor. And so, when I found out that the

development would be at the end of Sagemoor Drive, it just seems very weird that you

can come in our neighborhood, and that's the only way to get into the neighborhood is to

come into our neighborhood to then get another development that's inside the

neighborhood. So I know that there are engineering people and people who can do all

kinds of -- it just seems really weird to have another neighborhood inside a neighborhood.

So I'm not opposed to more apartments, single-family homes, but why can't they have

their own entrance instead of coming into our neighborhood to build another neighborhood

-- (inaudible). Thank you.

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

none. Thank you for being here tonight. Next person to speak?

MR. STEPHENSON: Hi. My name is Caleb Stephenson; I live at 905 Sagemoor

Drive, Columbia, Missouri 65201. Thank you for considering my input this evening on this

proposed development. I would like to echo a few key reasons why this development

ignores neighborhood context, and is poor City planning. Proper City planning dictates

that higher-density developments are located near primary arterials, in this case

Broadway Avenue or WW, or have dedicated access to not overburden existing

infrastructure. However, this higher-density development is located behind lower density

developments and exposes current Columbia citizens to increased safety concerns

related to traffic and speeding. This dangerous situation exists despite -- excuse me.

This dangerous situation will exist despite traffic-calming measures of curved streets and

enhanced speed limit signage. Given this higher density development will use a single

existing neighborhood street, Sagemoor Avenue, without any traffic-calming measures,

our neighborhood has real valid concerns related to increased traffic and speeding. It’s

poor City planning. Second, this higher-density development provides little to no green

space for residents outside of the floodplain land, and little to no buffer between itself and

current Columbia neighbors. While this development falls under PUD 4 zoning, the

arrangement of 77 units on only 12 acres is actually much denser than what zoning

allows. Only by stretching the definition of PUD 4 zoning to include undeveloped

floodplain and forest preserve as part of this development, does the zoning actually meet

guidelines? Finally, reviewing the tree survey, only the minimum number of trees are

being retained. The survey even shows five fully mature trees delineating our boundary

between The Brooks and Ashford Place on the west side of Sagemoor are slated to be

removed even though there's no structure planned there. Green space should be

prioritized, especially as part of the higher-density development. And this zoning request

severely lacks it. This fell short of community expectations, neighborhood compatibility,

and it's poor City planning. These are just a few of the many reasons of why I mentioned

here this evening of why this development lacks neighborhood compatibility and

community expectations. It lacks a primary collector street and taxes existing

infrastructure of current neighbors. It falls materially short on traffic safety. It abuses

PUD 4 zoning by incorporating a floodplain into density calculations and completely lacks

green buffers between existing neighbors. It's poor City planning. Thank you.

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

none. Thank you for being here tonight. The next person to speak on this case, please

come forward.

MR. GERDING: Good evening. My name is Tim Gerding; I'm an attorney, I

represent John and Tatyana Shinn at 408 and 412 Kingston Heath Drive, Columbia,

Missouri. Very near the intersection of Sagemoor Drive, they own two properties there.

Thank you for allowing me to address the Commission this evening on behalf of my

clients. We respectfully oppose the proposed Ashford Place development on a number of

grounds. As the Commission has heard, this development lacks appropriate

infrastructure. We have a purpose to ensure land use decisions implement the City's

Comprehensive Plan, preserve neighborhoods stability and safety, and coordinate

infrastructure in a safe and orderly manner. A planned development should align with

these fundamental objectives. The current proposal disregards these guiding principles

by offering no substantive improvements to traffic safety or infrastructure. There is no

credible or enforceable proposal for improvements to ensure safe ingress or egress, road

enhancements, or pedestrian accommodation, and without any such commitments, the

plan undermines both public safety and orderly growth. Where will all the parking be?

As I understand it, there can be up to four unrelated residents in each unit of the tri-plex.

That's up to -- if I'm understanding this correctly, 12 people or up to maybe 12 or more

cars per physical structure versus a single family home of maybe only two or three cars.

We understand that the street parking would be low, but maybe one space or three

spaces per residence would be appropriate. But as many cars as 12 per structure would

be -- would be far in excess. We have an incompatibility with established neighborhood

character. We should be protecting stable residential neighborhoods. That proposal is

incompatible in scale, intensity and design with the adjacent single-family residences.

The closer this development sits to existing homes, the greater the need in transitions in

scale and dedicated buffers, none of which appear to be provided here. With this

proposal, The Brooks neighborhood residents can look forward to being worried about

having their children playing near the street as folks speed through Sagemoor to cut

through the neighborhood. Why did Brooks members invest in their HOA organization to

pay for the improvements only to have the system stressed by would-be renters of these

tri-plex units? The HOA, at least for residents near Sagemoor, might as well not have

existed. This is a simply incompatible land use to this established single-family

neighborhood. Citizens that purchased housing invested in this subdivision with the

specific understanding that it would be low-density, single-family homes. This type of

development is completely unexpected, not planned for, and detrimental to virtually

Columbia citizen who -- with an actual stake in this issue. This proposal by the

developer, we would suggest is a development afterthought of sorts. We have an

absence of any legitimate community benefit and we have residents of The Brooks

invested in their properties here in The Brooks relied upon an understanding that this area

would be -- was that the end of the three minutes? Thank you, Commissioner.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much, sir. Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none. Thank you -- and I assume that you have -- I don't remember seeing what

you submitted.

MR. GERDING: I did not submit anything in writing.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, okay. Thank you very much.

MR. GERDING: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And, also, while you're coming up, come on, you're fine. I

forgot to say after you asked your question, the zoning is not changing, but they are

completing their planned district zoning by providing us the plan.

MS. KIRKPATRICK: Then why wasn’t it stated --

MS. GEUEA JONES: It's just -- it's a technicality of how it's stated, but the

zoning was PD and will be PD in the future.

MS. KIRKPATRICK: Okay. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. I forgot -- I meant to answer that question before

you walked away. I apologize. Please go ahead and name and address when you're

ready.

MR. MAHER: Good evening. Jack Maher; I'm at 809 Brockton Drive. So a lot of my

neighbors have addressed some concerns. Overall, I want to come at this from more of a

master plan perspective. Currently, Mr. Miller and another multi-family developer

individual by the name of Garry Lewis own over 150 acres in between the northern parcel

in The Brooks and going to Richland Road. So it is more than likely that most of the land

all the way to Richland in the future is going to be some kind of a high-density or

multi-family use. So the question for P & Z and the Council moving forward is when is El

Chaparral going to be developed? Is it going to be developed prior to all this happening,

or is it going to be developed after all of the traffic flow -- all the traffic patterns have

already been, you know, congested onto Sagemoor and Bethpage, and out through

Richland? So -- and that being said, there is no connector to Richland right now planned.

So that's -- that's a question for the City to review over time that, more than likely, all of

this land stretching to Richland is going to be multi-family because why would a

single-family developer come in or why would somebody want to purchase and build a

new home next to a higher-density development? It just doesn't make sense. That's why

all of my neighbors are here today because we've -- we've got HOA values that we're

trying to preserve and, you know, this -- this type of development isn't something that is

conforming to our neighborhood. It's just that simple. You know, I thought being

somebody that's in real estate to begin with and who works with developers all the time, I

was very surprised when I saw this come to P & Z, even before our neighbors were

approached. I'm assuming that we weren't approached because it's such an outlandish

idea to put tri-plexes on this parcel, that he'd get the backlash that he's seeing here

today. But I just want to reiterate to you all that in my mind there is zero percent

neighborhood support here for this development, and, you know, it's -- it's very surprising

to me that, you know, P & Z is passing this through to the Council, given the bare

minimums that are being met here, especially the preservation of the 25 percent trees

that are on the northeast corner, and nothing is essentially allowed for a buffer zone here

to The Brooks neighborhood that has an HOA. None of this is conforming. We really

shouldn't be acting like this is Phase 4 of The Brooks. This is a completely different

development, and, you know, at this point, the City can't take El Chaparral as anything

that's going to be extended in the next 20 to 30 years. You've got two landowners that

own that parcel that haven't developed the land in 20 years. So when is El Chaparral

going to get developed? It's -- the developer currently is not putting any funds aside to

stretch El Chaparral from WW to Ashford Place.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Thanks.

MR. MAHER: Thank you. Any questions?

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

MR. WALTERS: Well, I'd like to make a statement. You and several other speakers

have acted like you were surprised and so forth.

MR. MAHER: Yeah.

MR. WALTERS: And I don't blame many people for being surprised, but this is of

record. I mean, it's been -- it's been specified that this land could accommodate

tri-plexes at this density from the get-go. Now I understand it's not part of every

homeowner's typical process to go through and read this. I get that, and I'm not blaming

them for that. But I think it's kind of a misstatement or mis-- it's surprising in that you're

aware of it, but it's not surprising that this is new.

MR. MAHER: No. I think the surprise is that the City would allow a planned zoning

on landlocked parcels and then develop -- and then have an R-1 development to the south

allowed, and then not provide any other ingress/egress from these parcels here. That's

what doesn't make sense to me. I mean, if the intent was to zone this R-2 or R-MF, then

that should have been done to begin with. Then we would have known for certain what we

were buying when we went there.

MR. WALTERS: Yeah. But it was known. I mean it says -- from the get-go, it says

there would be tri-plexes here.

MR. MAHER: No. No. No. No. No. No.

MS. GEUEA JONES: We'll ask staff to restate the Statement of Intent.

MR. MAHER: No. Planned development, this could be single-family homes --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah.

MR. MAHER: Yeah. So that's not --

MR. WALTERS: If you could clarify?

MR. ZENNER: I'll clarify when we get to the point --

MS. GEUEA JONES: When you get to Commissioner comment. Yeah.

MR. WALTERS: Yeah. How about any comment about the expectation for when

Chaparral may be extended? Is that on --

MS. GEUEA JONES: We'll have them look into that for when we get to discussion.

MR. ZENNER: We will provide you that information during the appropriate time.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. Thank you.

MR. WALTERS: All right. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further questions for this speaker? Seeing none. Thank

you. And, folks, it makes it real hard to hear what they're saying when you start

applauding in the middle of their statements. Just saying. Next person? Next person?

MR. LEVINSON: Good evening. My name is Rob Levinson, 4909 Ballyneal Court.

I'm here not only as a member of the neighborhood, but also as a licensed architect for

30 years. I've worked with planning departments, hundreds of planning departments in

over 35 states. And we're just now kind of getting into the good part of the conversation

tonight. The last two speakers have really hit on what everyone is talking about the

symptoms and let's talk about the problem. The problem is that you annexed these

parcels into the City as PUD in the first place. They should be -- they should be R-1.

And I'm urging you to solve that problem so that developers and all of yourselves don't

waste your time and the whole community's time by repeatedly -- this won’t be the first

one of these meetings that you have. You're going to have a lot more of these meetings

because it's just the problem is it's zoned wrong. It's -- it should be not nearly as dense

as allowing R-4, essentially. It should be all R-1. It's in the middle. It's a doughnut hole

that's surrounded by a doughnut of R-1. What kind of sense does that make to have a

super dense neighborhood that's surrounded by low density neighborhood? I just -- as

somebody who has served on a planning board, thank you for your time. Appreciate it.

It's a thankless task. It's not a very well paid job, I know, so thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? Seeing none.

Thank you. Next person?

MR. BECKETT: Good evening. Chris Beckett, 1130 Shore Acres Loop. I just have

about four items here. The first one is I agree and uphold with a lot of the concerns that

our neighbors have said here, especially about the speeding on the -- on Hoylake. I had

to stop a young lady the other day who was passing people on the curve. Number 2, Mr.

Miller could access this property from his development on Wellington Place. He owns

that development, so that -- there is his access that he could access it from there.

Number 3, the houses in The Brooks average $350,000 to $700,000 to $800,000. When

you have that dollar amount of housing and you're going to be putting in apartments that

are $100,000 to $125,000 tri-plexes, that's not going to be bringing in the same amount of

clientele. A lot of those types of clientele are going to also need mass transportation,

which we do not have out there. There are no bus routes out there, no access to city

trails or any way to get into town. One other question I have, what about the roads as

they tear them up during the construction? If you would look at Veteran's Parkway out

south of town, as they're building those apartments out there from Grindstone to the

Circle Drive, that road has -- was a very good road. It is terrible right now. From the

roundabout to South Providence is perfect. I wonder what kind of power Veteran's United

has to keep the traffic off of that section. So my one question is, does the City or

Planning and Zoning, can we require a cash bond to replace that street, Sagemoor, after

they destroy it because of the large trucks? I drove large trucks for 45 years. Large

trucks destroy residential streets. You cannot patch and repair a street like that. When

you get that kind of big trucks, it's going to destroy the street. Someone is going to have

to replace it. The City is not going to want to replace it. So someone is going to have to

put up the money for that. Or in the past, all the developers had to merge with the City

and to build El Chaparral before they built their own subdivisions. I don't understand why

that is not par for the course. Let Mr. Miller and the City build that El Chaparral. Let him

find the money to come up with that, if he wants to do it from that standpoint rather than

Wellington. That's all I have to say.

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

none. Thank you for being here tonight.

MR. BECKETT: Thank you, all.

MS. GEUEA JONES: The next person to speak, please come forward. Next?

MR. HAUPT: My name is Terry Haupt, I live at 1224 Shore Acres Loop in The

Brooks. The intended use of this property is a total falsehood from the way that it is

being presented to this Committee, City Council members, as well as the public.

Nothing could be further from the truth and the way it's being built. This is as a

single-family attached dwelling unit that can be individually owned. Mr. Miller has no

intention of selling any of his units. He has no intention of building a road across his

property. He owns the property up to Richland. He has no intention of building that road.

He has no intention of doing any -- building any amenities or using open space for any

recreation. His only intention is to build as many units as he can to get as much money

as he can. I say this whole thing is about greed.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Sir, I'm sorry. I'm going to have you speak into the

microphone so they have the transcript.

MR. HAUPT: All right. I'm sorry.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you so much.

MR. HAUPT: As far as the density, I've been told by staff members they're only

using about eight acres to build on. If you divide 77 units by eight acres, we're up to

almost eight or nine units per acre, not the two or three -- not the two or three that are

being discussed here. So there's a bunch of falsehoods here. Mr. Miller needs to provide

for and build his own ingress and egress road. At a minimum, he needs to provide

entrance either to Ashford Place by connecting it to El Chaparral, which has been

discussed, or building it across his property that he owns over to Ashland -- Richmond.

This project is also unprecedented as is the desires and fabrications. This presentation

is so mirrored in legalese that even one of our own City Council members, City Council

members had to write this about -- had wrote this about it. From the description of the

development, this is a town home development with three residents per building. Each

town home can be purchased individually and the land is included. So this is not an

apartment complex. I'm sure some will be purchased for rental, but in my experience,

these are an alternative for homeowners that don't want the yard work or perhaps would

like smaller homes. Let's look at a few comparables. Kelly Farms over on Stadium and

63. Access road was built by the developer. They didn't require a bicycle -- they required

bicycles. This project does not.

They had -- also had to have ten single-family homes built between individual single family

homes and the apartments that were being built. This project is asking nothing like that

to be built. There's Legacy Farms out on Sinclair. Over there, you've got apartments,

you've got Sinclair, you've got apartments, you've got a 55-plus complex, and then you've

got homes 500 yards away from the road. Okay? Springbrook Apartments, brand-new,

same thing. In other words, these projects are nowhere near to what's being presented to

you tonight. Finally, several Planning and Zoning staff members tried to compare what is

being proposed here at Ashford Place with the tri-plex units at Old Hawthorne. Please

don't insult my intelligence, trying to compare tri-plex ownership in Old Hawthorne with

this 77-unit Ashford Place apartment complex. That's what it's called -- it has to be

called an apartment complex. I strongly urge you to turn down this proposal or require

major changes before approving it and passing it on to City Council. Thank you. Any

questions?

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

Commissioner Darr?

MR. HAUPT: Yes, Mr. Darr.

MR. DARR: Why -- what makes you think it's not comparable to the tri-plexes or

attached town homes in Old Hawthorne? I mean, you --

MR. HAUPT: Oh, no. No. No. No. Wait. Wait. Wait.

MR. DARR: -- they haven't been built yet.

MR. HAUPT: No, they're not. Have you been --

MR. DARR: I think these Ashford Place hasn't been built yet, so, I mean --

MR. HAUPT: Okay. Okay. Here. Have you been to -- what's the name of it --

(Multiple audience members speaking simultaneously.)

MR. HAUPT: Wellington Manor.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Folks --

MR. HAUPT: Have you seen Wellington Manor? Wellington Manor is an apartment

complex with tri-plexes that Mr. Miller manages -- owns and manages. I urge you, sir, to

go take a look at Wellington Manor, and I defy you to come up with any comparison

whatsoever to Old Hawthorne tri-plexes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Folks, no. We're going to keep the level low so we can all

hear each other. Commissioner Darr, are you finished?

MR. HAUPT: Mr. Darr, there's a huge difference. That's what I'm trying to say. And

there would be a huge difference between what Mr. Miller is proposing, and what is in

place now at The Brooks.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further questions for this speaker? Seeing none. Thank

you very much.

MR. HAUPT: Thank you, Mr. Darr.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Next person? Next person to speak? Jump on up here.

Come on.

MR. HALLEY: My name is Dale Halley; I live at 5250 Harbor Town Drive. I'm the

retired mining engineer that's been pestering Mr. Kunz here, and he's been very gracious

and put up with me.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Can you get a little closer to that? I'm sorry.

MR. HALLIE: Oh, I'm sorry.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.

MR. HALLIE: I've been pestering Mr. Kunz and he's been very gracious in answering

numerous questions for me. Mr. Crockett this week has answered a lot of questions, and

I think both of those gentlemen.

MS. GEUEA JONES: You're --

MR. HALLIE: Oh, I'm sorry. Normally, I'm really loud. Okay. So, Mr. Stanton, you

asked a question about what is an alternative solution to this, and I've looked at the

CATSO maps and El Chaparral should eventually be built from WW up to Richland. And

if that could -- it could be developed from both ends to middle with the bridge done last,

and then that would connect the whole thing, and at which point Ashland -- or Ashford

could be completed. My concern is that it may never have a bridge across the creek.

And I've looked at the CATSO maps. There is a major connector that goes through the

middle of Hawthorne on the maps. There are several million dollars’ worth of homes

where that road is located on those maps, so it will never be built. That's my concern

here is that El Chaparral will never be built. I hope it will because I know for a fact that

everything to the north of us and to the west of us is going to be full of homes, and there's

going to be a lot of traffic, And putting in El Chaparral first is the best thing for the entire

community, the whole area, not just our neighborhood. And I personally don't have a

problem with mixed use. I encourage it, so that's all I have to say.

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

none. Thank you for being here tonight. Next person to speak on this case? I'm looking

for somebody to stand up. Okay. I see you.

MS. THOMPSON: Good evening. My name is Tina Thompson, and I love at 1223

Shore Acres, Columbia, Missouri 65201. I wasn't prepared to speak tonight. I wasn't

going to speak tonight. I have nothing prepared. This is my first meeting I've ever come

to. I don't know a lot of my neighbors. I don't have children. I live -- I don't have children

who still live at home, but I do care deeply about my neighbors who I don't even know. I

watch their children go up and down Hoylake on their bicycles. I watch them walk. I see

families walking with strollers, and I sit out on my porch and I watch the traffic that's

already on Hoylake. It's out of control already. People speed down there at night. I'm

out on my back porch and I can see them go really fast. I see them go fast during the

day. The reason I came up here to speak tonight with nothing prepared is because the

speakers before me really touched me. And from what I heard, there is a way to build

another access road, but apparently it's too expensive. That really disturbs me. Does it

disturb you? Because this decision is in your hands. So I just have one question.

What's the price of one life? And more importantly what's the price of one -- the life of

one child? Because it could happen, and I really truly believe that it will happen. There's

going to be an accident. There will be, and it's going to be a child of one of my

neighbors. So that's my question to you. What's the price of one life? Thank you.

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

none. Thank you for being here tonight, ma'am. Anyone else to speak, please come

forward.

MS. HOFMAN: Good evening. My name is Ashley Hofman; I live at 905 Sagemoor

Drive. I don't have any prepared remarks either, but I did want to make a comment just of

the observations on the conversation earlier. One, I think, Mr. Walters, you had asked

about why the neighborhood didn't really expect, or especially me personally, buying a

house on Sagemoor last summer, we didn't kind of anticipate that this was going in, and

that's not true. We knew that those parcels were for sale and eventually would be

developed. Columbia is a growing city. It needs housing. Those are ten minutes to

downtown, so we knew that those would be developed to the north of us. What we did

not expect was to be a connector, and the reason is at the end of Sagemoor and the end

of Bethpage, I also believe Margate (ph) are cul-de-sacs. Those are rounded ends of

streets. They don't just go and cut off. The sidewalks are curved. The curving goes all

the way around. It's a cul-de-sac. We thought that those were dead-end roads, and that

The Brooks was not going to expand anymore. The other observation I had, I think Mr.

Darr you had asked kind of why we think that the Ashford Place is not on par with

Linkside, and the materials that were shared by Troy Miller's team, the rental price was

going to be around $1,300 to $1,800 per month for, I think, two and three bedrooms. If

you go onto the internet and search for that price range, you can see that those homes

have a lot of siding. Kitchens are not solid-surface countertops. It's not the same or

comparable to Old Hawthorne of what people are buying there. And I will also just echo

what Dale said, that I think that mixed use is a good thing for Columbia, that we do need

more affordable housing, but that putting this Ashford Place higher density, lower -- it's

more affordable than The Brooks, putting that behind The Brooks just doesn't make

sense, that it needs to be closer to more thoroughfares and not attached to this

neighborhood. And that is all. Thank you.

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

none. Thank you very much. Next person to speak on this case? I'm looking for

someone to stand up. Okay. Here we go. You can come -- we've got a couple of chairs

up here, sir, if you want to come up and go next. You're good.

DR. KELLER: Hello. Dr. Brian Keller, I'm at 913 Brockton Drive. I just want to

address some things that haven't really been brought up is one, being on Brockton, that I

would also serve --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Can you -- I'm sorry. You're very tall. Can you bend it up?

DR. KELLER: I am. Being on Brockton, that road would also serve as a

thoroughfare to Hoylake -- I can't say that word. But it -- like so part of that would go

through not Sagemoor, but the other road, and you could take across that to go towards

Hoylake, which is, as we talked about, very busy, so people would us that, in essence,

to -- like, as one way to get on more access. And that road is not really designed for

traffic. It's not bigger or anything like that. And, again, another thing to consider is the

impact on WW. It's already an overcrowded two-lane road. There is no sidewalks

because it's partly County land. You see people walking along it. There's -- like, even

right now, there's not any places to walk. There's -- you know, you drive by the cross of

someone who passed away. I don't -- before I even came here. So -- and just something

to think about is also the impact that there's not really infrastructure there to support so

much. You know, it needs to be built up before we add to much more because -- and

Phase 3, we're not even complete. That's all I have.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none. Thank you for being here. Next?

MS. BRYAN: (Inaudible.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: I don't think so. No. I'm sorry. Because we had some

issues, you have to e-mail them in advance.

MS. BRYAN: (Inaudible.)

MR. ZENNER: That would have been in advance of the meeting, ma'am.

MS. BRYAN: I did upload them. I have a code.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh.

MR. ZENNER: Okay. Then they should be prepared for you here this evening.

MS. BRYAN: Okay. I’ll go after --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Go ahead.

MR. SHINN: My name is John Shinn; I live at 4408 Kingston Heath Drive. I also own

the house at 4412 Kingston Heath Drive.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Can you get as close to that microphone as possible? I think

they're having trouble hearing you in the back. Thank you.

MR. SHINN: Okay. So I'm a landscape architect by training, licensed in two states,

retired. Former DOD, traveled all over the world. I've worked for the City of Austin, and

I've been various multiple cities in this country and other countries. Nowhere does

development get proposed that is, in fact, high density. They're proposing to put three

units in the space of my house on the same lot size. That's three times the traffic

regardless of what the traffic control studies say, I've never found one that's accurate.

There is always more traffic than what they predict, bar none. The other problem I have,

in reading a lot of the documentation originally proposed in 2010, 2017, and 2014, this

should have never been approved in the first place. Even though it was one parcel, as

you cited, there was also in that discussion and promises of a ten-acre park. There is no

ten-acre park. When do we get a ten-acre park? There is also a connectivity tied into

the MK Trail that was mentioned and is part of the requirements for these parcels, Parcel

5, that's now been broken up. So what happens to all that? When do we get that?

Never. Money is going into coffers. He's giving the City money saying no, it's going to be

built later. That diagonal road across the creek, Dale is right, it's never going to be built

that way. You can't. If you've been down and take a look at it, you would know. You're

not going to do that, but I can tell you for a fact, oh, it can be built that way, but you're

going to spend a lot more money going at a diagonal. I'm sorry. I'm very irate about this,

and I do have letters into you regarding this matter. But nowhere do you put, and what is,

in fact, I don't care how many they tell me it's not high density, it is higher density than a

single-family lot versus three units on the same amount of space and three times the

traffic. You have four cars per unit. That's going to be 277 times 4, times two times in

and out, plus all the associated traffic with services and everything else. This -- all the

previous designs for this conceptually show Hoylake connecting as an alternate.

Hoylake was the alternate. The primary traffic was supposed to go over to El Chaparral.

However, it got bought out, Brooks was developed, and then Hoylake was forced upon the

developer to be built. Then Sagemoor was built. When they built Sagemoor, they should

put the Sagemoor on the property line behind the fire station, with houses on one side of

it, if the intent was to actually make it whatever classification you want to make it. City

planners can recommend and the engineering staff can recommend all they want. The

City decides things haphazardly on their own how they are going to classify a street. Per

Ashford - or, excuse me, per Ash [sic] Street is an example. Barbara Buffaloe is on

record saying, hey, let's just change it, going against what the City engineers are

recommending. Okay? I'm against this. Thank you for your time.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much, sir. Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none. Thank you. Thank you. Next person? And I don't know how they do the

magic, but Mr. Zenner can help you. And are you speaking as an individual or --

MS. BRYAN: Yes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MS. BRYAN: I just really like PowerPoint.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I made one on all of the stuff I've done to my house, so I'm

with you.

MS. BRYAN: I made one convincing my parents we should get a dog when I was ten

and it worked.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Nice.

MS. BRYAN: Awesome. Thank you so much. So my name is Jen Bryan; I live

at 901 Sagemoor Drive. First, P & Z Commission, thank you for your time and your

service to our community. So I specifically want to speak about the precedent this

development sets. I know a lot of people have covered this tonight. Just in a quest to

better understand what was going on, I did reach out to David because I'm a CPA. I hope

to be an engineer in my second life, and in my third life, I probably would not be

volunteering in P & Z. So, you know, as I look at this, I wanted to see if -- they’re

proposing this in our neighborhood, where does this exist? And I was given these

examples which are Amberton Place received density near the main road, Bristol Ridge

and Bristol Lake Villas, again, density near the main road, Bristol Lake Parkway. And

then Old Hawthorne and Linksides, people have covered this one already today. I want to

focus on the proximity to the arterial. Density is best located near a main roadway.

Development, that being said, is eminent. I live on a -- I live in Phase 3 of The Brooks. It

is underdevelopment. I'm on a stubbed out street. I understand all of that. If we look at

the broader context of our neighborhood, we see the land is owned by Garry Lewis, a

mature developer in our city, and then there's also 240 units proposed at East Richland

and Rolling Hills. So the need for Chaparral and these arterials that can carry all of this

traffic that will happen as this side of town develops, it's so necessary. Right now, we

believe this is unsupported density. There's concerns of traffic, the two spaces per unit

minimum, you know, what happens if people have guests, service people come over.

They use their garage for storage. There's persistent speeding issues on Hoylake.

Sagemoor is a straightaway with a hill that crests. As mentioned, landscaping is

minimum, climax forest, and undeveloped floodplain -- is that meaningful green space for

a resident? A postage stamp lot by definition squeezes the maximum density in the

possible lot. Less than 50 percent of the land is truly developable, and I'm going to look

at that, 3.2 units per acre, it will feel like seven units per acre when we consider the way

that the land is graded. Consistency builds trust. Within The Brooks we paid to have the

Hoylake major collector become the CATSO major collector via the cost of our property.

We're asking for similar treatment that the developer of this property also be held to

similar standards to develop out, you know, the main arterials and roadways that exist in

the area. Here's some ideas for a path forward. Again, many neighbors came up here

and offered solutions. I'm not opposed to density in the right context. I'm not opposed to

development, but we just ask that it be thoughtful. At a minimum, I would say right now,

that is building those parking spaces, meaningful buffers, and maybe considering

something that is a big more dense, but reduced into, like, R-2 cottage style, something

that could let people attain homeownership at a lower price point. Thank you for your

time.

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

-- oh, sorry. Did you -- no, you're good. Thank you.

MS. BRYAN: Okay. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Next speaker. Next speaker. I'm looking for someone to

stand up. Go ahead, Mr. Colbert.

MR. COLBERT: Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Commission. Caleb

Colbert, attorney at 827 East Broadway, here tonight on behalf of the applicant. And I

want the Commission to ask themselves one question. Did any speaker come to the

microphone and say that the plan that has been proposed is inconsistent with the

Statement of Intent approved by the City Council in 2010? That is what this Commission

is evaluating this evening. Does the development plan that's been proposed comply with

the Statement of Intent approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City

Council in 2010. As staff noted, the plan does comply. The plan is -- Mr. Crockett noted

the plan actually improves upon the standards that are set forth in that 2010 Statement of

Intent. I also want to respond to some of the comments that were made by some of the

speakers. There were some comments or some suggestions that these were not

single-family homes, and that's not true. That is just flat not true. Each of these units

will house one family, and that family, whether they're a renter --

((Multiple audience members speaking simultaneously.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Hey. They were very polite to you. Be polite.

MR. COLBERT: Single family attached is still single family. As a matter of law,

single family attached can only accommodate one family in each unit, and that unit will

be on its own lot. And that means in the future, that lot can be sold and it can be

owner-occupied. But in any event, this Commission does not evaluate land use

decisions based on whether the occupant of the building is a tenant or an owner. We

have never made that distinction. Single family is single family whether the person living

under that roof is a renter or an owner, period. That -- it is cut and dry. With respect to

the density, we've gone over this. I feel like we beat this horse to death, but 3.2 density

is an R-1 density. Mr. Crockett put the calculations in his slide show that show 3.2 is

comparable to the Phase 3, Plat 3 of The Brooks, which Mr. Crockett was involved with.

If you look at the plat that's attached to the development agreement, he signed and

sealed it. So if anybody could talk about the density and the intent to connect Sagemoor

to this development, it's Mr. Crockett. And you heard him say that it was always

intended to serve this northern tract. You know, Mr. Crockett and I have to stand before

this Commission over and over again. So when we talk about density, we have to back it

up. We have to be truthful in what we say. Just because someone stands at this

microphone and says that this is a high-density development does not make it true. Do

the math. We've done the math. This is not a high-density development, and it comes in

under the PUD 4 that was approved in 2010. I hope this Commission will consider the

testimony tonight. I mean, really what's -- what the neighbors would like to do is relitigate

the decision from 2010. I think when you consider that Columbia Imagined contemplates

encourages a diversity of housing uses -- a diversity of housing styles in close proximity.

It encourages a clustered subdivision where you have large sections preserved for green

space. This meets that intention of Columbia Imagined.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Caleb.

MR. COLBERT: You can look at the Columbia Imagined, and this plat is an

example of the type of development we should approve. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I have -- I have a question for you.

MR. COLBERT: Yes, ma'am.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I thought I saw in here somewhere and then I realized that I

was looking at minimum lot size. What are we looking at for each of these units -- 1,700

square feet, 1,500 square feet?

MR. COLBERT: These are 1,500 square feet.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I know someone said it. I just --

MR. COLBERT: Thirteen to fifteen hundred --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thirteen to fifteen hundred square feet?

MR. COLBERT: Yes, ma'am.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Thank you. I -- yeah. Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: Thank you. What is the distance between the subdivision and East

Broadway.

MR. COLBERT: And -- pardon? And --

MS. WILSON: To get to the main road, what's that distance?

MR. COLBERT: I'll let Mr. Crockett come up here and address that, if you don't

mind. Lawyers are not good at math, so --

MS. GEUEA JONES: If we can wait, I don't want to start a precedent of having

people come up more than once, if that's okay, but I'm sure that someone can slip

someone a note.

MR. ZENNER: Yeah. I can get it.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else, questions for Mr. Colbert? Thank you very

much.

MR. COLBERT: Thank you very much for your time.

UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: That's out of order. I'm sorry, sir. Next speaker for the

members of the public to come up.

MR. ZENNER: And, Ms. Chairman, to answer Ms. Wilson's question, we're looking

at roughly about 1,375 or so feet.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thirteen hundred feet?

MR. ZENNER: So just a little bit over -- a little bit -- a little less than -- a little over a

quarter of a mile, if I'm not incorrect.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Are you coming forward, sir? Oh, yeah, please don't --

MR. WALLS: What was Ms. Wilson's question?

MS. GEUEA JONES: The question was how long is Sagemoor. Oh, that wasn't -- I

thought it was from Broadway to --

MS. WILSON: That was my question.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. But that's Sagemoor; right? Isn't that Sagemoor?

MS. WILSON: I'm not asking specifically about the street.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I see.

MS. WILSON: But we'll get there when we get to Commissioner comments.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Apologies, Commissioner. Go ahead, sir, whenever you're

ready.

MR. WALLS: Jim Walls, 4757 Stayton Ferry Loop, Columbia, 65201. You see I'm

walking with a cane because I just had a stroke, and I appreciate MU Healthcare saving

my life. Appreciate that, and I'm originally from Missouri, but just came here from Texas,

so we've played these games before. I kind of stand here confused as I, excuse me,

following an attorney after I've heard the words from Mr. Miller himself say that these

homes that they're building are rentals. They are rentals, and he is going to have them

only for professional and semi-professional people. He's not going to make them

available for college students or for Section 8, or anybody else. He's going to be very

restrictive on who he gets there. And so as a safety and occupational health specialist

retired DOD, and retired military member FMS, Navy, is he's confusing me when I say

this because I went over to Wellington Place to see what he currently had. And as a

sanitarian, I wasn't impressed, and I told that to Mr. Miller the other day when we had a

meeting, that he doesn't comply with Columbia standards in the -- for the disposal of solid

waste. He has an open dumpster where you get a cat in the face or a raccoon or

whatever, and we are complying because I have a trash can sitting outside my home that

I can only put out there at a certain time and bring it in at a certain time. Now is he going

to have an open dumpster over there, because I think the standards we're trying to

maintain are good standards.

We want the whole neighborhood to be good. But I'm a fear that this Ashford Place is

going to turn -- excuse me, I hate to say this word -- it's going to be -- targets, it's going

to be -- it's going to turn into a ghetto seriously, and you're going to have a crime --

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

MR. WALLS: Well -- so one last thing I wanted to mention.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah.

MR. WALLS: Seriously, I think Columbia, as a -- as a safety person, I think

we're going to have a real bad traffic problem on WW at Sagemoor and on El Chaparral. I

don't know if we're going to put a roundabout in there or you're going to put traffic lights in

there or not, but we're going to have traffic fatalities at that place at -- on WW.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, sir. Yeah.

MR. WALLS: Thank you so much, people. I appreciate it. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Next person to speak on this case?

MR. WAHEED: Shahid Waheed; I live in 60 --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Can you restate your name? I'm sorry.

MR. WAHEED: Shahid Waheed, S-H-A-H-I-D - W-A-H-E-E-D.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. You're going to have to pull this real close to you.

You've got a soft voice. Thank you.

MR. WAHEED: Okay. Thank you. The -- (inaudible) -- behind my house. We felt --

build the house in 2019. There is a creek and there is a wildlife and all that, so it's

against -- now, I appreciate the lawyer talking about it about 2010, but this is 2025. So --

and I know I respect the lawyers. They were the -- historically, they were the richest

known royals in the Roman Empire. So -- and I have benefitted from this many a time.

But 2010 and 2025 are two different things. They can build a road, and I think somebody

said that the City -- I mean, I know we have rural America. The East and West Coasts

calls us flyover country, but we should be more smarter than that. So let's prove it.

Thank you.

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

none. Next person to speak?

MS. RHINEHART: Good evening. My name is Aleece Rhinehart; I live at 501

Bandon Dunes Court. Thank you for letting us take your time this evening. We all want

to go home soon, I hope. I am here as a mother and a neighbor. I have two beautiful

children, and I have instilled in my oldest child since she was two to look both ways

before she crosses the street. Hoylake Drive is the only thing that Columbia Public

Schools can utilize for bus stops in our neighborhood. They cannot go anywhere else but

Hoylake Drive. So no matter what, my daughter has to cross the street. And when she

crosses the street, God love her, she just kind of does one of those I'm in the street, and

then I'm looking both ways. And I'm looking the wrong way because I don't know the

direction of traffic. And so, it's too late, you know, for her. So I have to make sure -- I

work from home. I'm a disabled veteran. I work from home. I have to make sure I'm at

that bus stop with her morning and afternoon. And let me tell you, that traffic doesn't

stop right now, and I understand that we are going to grow, and I want our community to

grow. And when I say our community, I mean Columbia. I see homelessness all over

the city and that is a concern to me, so I do want housing to improve for everyone. I'm a

nurse by trade, and I do try to help people when I can. I just want to make sure my kids

are safe from traffic and it's impossible. Right? No parent can keep their kids safe from

traffic. But traffic-calming measures could help tremendously throughout our

neighborhood. If we're going to propose, like -- I'm sorry. I don't know all the terms --

different -- like different types of developments in the different areas, I would appreciate,

like, traffic-calming measures and different access roads before just utilizing everything

through our neighborhood as it already -- Hoylake Drive is -- I wish you guys would just

walk with me to the bus stop in the morning and the afternoon. Like, it's just constant

traffic, and they're definitely going more than 45 miles an hour, even though it's a 25. And

we can see that because we have those little traffic cameras or whatever that measure

the speed, and I can take my kids for a walk and I'll look back and I'll just watch

somebody drive right by one and they're going 55 miles an hour. And I'm, like, oh, my

gosh. Yeah. Anyway, I'm sorry. I don't like speaking in front of people, so I'm just going

to end with please consider other egresses out of the neighborhood, maybe doing, like,

Phase 3 of the Ashford development with -- you know, first, and having it all go through El

Chaparral and just, you know, maybe that would be better as opposed -- anyway. I don't

have any solutions. I just want to make sure we try to work together as a community.

Thank you very much.

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

Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: I -- hi. I -- okay. So I saw and I know that David talked about this

earlier, that you all are on the traffic calming list right now.

MS. RHINEHART: Yeah.

MS. ORTIZ: And I'm curious, have you lived there since 2022, or before?

MS. RHINEHART: No. So I lived in The Vineyards for, like, the last ten years, and

then my disability came through the VA and I was able to move into a bigger house in

The Brooks, which is a very nice neighborhood. But we noticed the congestion on WW

getting a lot more dense because I used to live on -- in Andreti Circle, which butts up right

up -- like, I was on the end of the cul-de-sac, like, I could see WW, and I watched The

Brooks go in and I watched the development. And it almost got to the point, you know,

when the roundabout was placed down at the end of WW, past The Vineyards -- I'm

sorry. I really -- I can't remember. Yeah. On Rolling Hills Road, it's almost impossible

for residents to get out of The Vineyards because there's no traffic light or anything, so

sometimes when I would be going to work or something -- now I work from home, but it

would be really hard to turn left or turn right, you know, on -- even getting out of The

Vineyards subdivision. So anyway, I was grateful to be moving into a subdivision where

there was a traffic light there, you know, at the end of Hoylake, because it was, like,

making it so much easier to turn right. But I'm sorry. What was the question.

MS. ORTIZ: Yeah. Okay.

MS. RHINEHART: So my point is, I've lived in this area for a long time. Right?

MS. ORTIZ: Yeah.

MS. RHINEHART: Was that what -- okay. But I moved into The Brooks in June,

and then -- I now regret my decision, not because I don't like The Brooks or just because

I -- I -- Hoylake Drive scares me to death. I mean, I watch other people's kids walk -- like,

riding their bikes right down the middle of the street, and I'm, like, Oh, my God. If I knew

that family right away, I would probably tattle on those children because I would worry

that that would be my kid. And, I mean, my child is afraid to go outside by herself right

now because we have construction going on around our house and there's dumpster

divers. And I'm sorry, I don't know the right term for them. People that like to salvage

and recycle maybe, and they go into the dumpster to get items. I don't mean any

negative or derogatory. I believe in recycling. But it makes her nervous, you know, when

she sees a stranger that we don't know, because we don't know everybody in our

community yet, and I have to reassure her when she goes to bed at night that she's safe,

that mommy is, you know, across the way, and that I will be there in a heartbeat, you

know, to -- to protect, but I do wear a CPAP, so that might be really hard to get off in time

to get over there. I'm sorry. Any more questions?

MS. ORTIZ: Okay. I’ll just -- I’ll just wrap up what I was trying to get out.

MS. RHINEHART: Please.

MS. ORTIZ: So it looks like your neighborhood or specifically Hoylake petitioned

for traffic calming in 2022.

MS. RHINEHART: Okay.

MS. ORTIZ: I think that based on -- so the matrix for traffic-calming is available

online, and everyone can access it.

MS. RHINEHART: Okay.

MS. ORTIZ: It's not the most up to date. Based on what David said, I believe he said

it was 34 on the list. Online, it says it's 29. So that implies -- that implies probably that

more projects have been placed ahead of yours based on -- there's a number of factors

that go into it. But I think that based on the things that you and your neighbors have

said, I think it would be worth, like, petitioning the City to say, hey, let's take another look

at scoring this because the pedestrian score is very low. And based on everyone's input,

I think the pedestrian score could be higher, which could move you up in the traffic

management score sheet. I say that -- I care about traffic-calming a lot, so I just wanted

to make you aware.

MS. RHINEHART: I appreciate the advice. I really do. Thank you so much, guys,

for everything you guys do.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions from -- Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Commissioner Ortiz, what is that website so that these people can

look it up and don't have to just listen to you, they can look it up themselves.

MS. ORTIZ: Oh, God. I’m so -- I like --

MR. STANTON: Did you just look at them?

MS. ORTIZ: Yes, I am here. So it's under Public Works, Street Division, Traffic

Management slash Neighborhood Traffic Management. And then you scroll down and

you go to Neighborhood Traffic Management Score Sheet 2023, last updated 2024, but I

look at this a lot. So it's, like, kind of, like, muscle memory for me, but you can play this

back later if you need to, but essentially, Neighborhood Traffic Management.

MS. RHINEHART: Okay.

MS. ORTIZ: Under COMO.gov.

MS. RHINEHART: I appreciate you. Thank you. I also just want to throw a question

out there. What about schools for the future, like, middle schools and high schools, and

elementary schools? I just want to throw it out there. Like, if we're going to add all this

development, which we probably are, if we could just consider, you know, I don't want my

second child, who is only two right now, to be in her elementary school and then, you

know, because we're never going to be able to move now that we've bought into The

Brooks. I'm sorry, we're not. So, yeah. But the -- you know, how they have to add, like,

special housing -- not housing, extra groupings outside of the building, you know, that

kids have to go outside the school to get to their classrooms.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. That will all come when it comes.

MS. RHINEHART: It comes when it comes. Okay. That's what I was afraid of.

Thank you. All right.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Next person to speak on this case, please come forward. I'm

looking for someone -- there we go.

MR. STEWART: Jeff Stewart, Ballyneal Court, 4912. It's the street with the

swimming pool. She mentioned Hoylake in the traffic. If you're going to allow one

ingress into this new neighborhood, Sagemoor is going to have the same issue and it's

going to be tripled or quadrupled. There's going to be people, once that -- once it's built,

and I have -- I'm really sorry that it's expensive for you to have to build an access onto

East Richland Road, but you bought the property, and now you're trying to come through

our neighborhood and increase traffic. And whatever the traffic surveys say, do one in

your head. You know, you're adding all these units, and now all you're going to -- you're

going to have all these people coming down this residential street. You could have one

ingress for fire, police, so that's what I have to say. I don't know if you all had any

questions about that or have thought about that.

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

speaker? Commissioner Darr?

MR. DARR: If we're not to trust the traffic studies, we're just supposed to each

individually do calculations and come up with capacities, or to go out there and live out

there and drive. Or how do you -- how are we supposed to measure the impact if we

can't rely on the traffic studies to tell us what --

MR. STEWART: Well just -- just look at -- just look at common sense. You've got --

you've got one road.

(Multiple people from the audience talking simultaneously.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Folks, if --

MR. STEWART: You've got one road going in there with driveways coming in,

you've got the 77 unit thing which is going to have three times as many people in there in

these units, and they're going to all have to go out this one road, and all these people are

trying to get out of their driveways. Where are these people -- I mean, I don't care what

the traffic study says. Look at -- think about -- use your head. Use a little common

sense.

MR. DARR: I understand what you're saying, but it's not a unique situation. I mean,

every situation is unique in one way or another, but there are a lot of roads like Louisville.

I mean, there's just a lot of roads that are neighborhood collectors that serve way more

houses than Sagemoor serves or even will serve with 77 additional units on it.

MR. STEWART: Where?

MR. DARR: Louisville.

MR. STEWART: In Louisville?

MR. DARR: Louisville Drive in -- off of Scott Boulevard.

MR. STEWART: Off of Scott?

MR. DARR: That is the first one that came in my mind, but Thornbrook probably has

a road that has as many.

MR. STEWART: Yeah. But Thornbrook -- Thornbrook has one road, and it's one

neighborhood. What's the -- what's the adjoining 77 units --

MR. DARR: Well, so it's not the traffic, it's the type of development, it sounds like,

you don't like.

MR. STEWART: No, I don't have any -- I don't -- I don't -- they can build whatever

they want to back there. It's their property. They built it. But if they're not going to have

-- if they're not going to have an access road, other than coming through a neighborhood

and increasing traffic by fourfold, probably, then they ought to have another entry and exit.

And I'm sorry it costs a lot of money, but you should have thought about that before you

bought it. Well, obviously, you did, because you thought you could convince these

people to --

MS. GEUEA JONES: All right. I think we're done. Thank you very much. All right.

Folks, here's the thing. We've been at this for two hours, and there's still a lot of you who

want to speak. If you keep making outbursts while other people are speaking, we're

going to have to cut it off, and I don't want to do that because I want hear from all of you,

but I can't hear the person who is speaking if you all are yelling stuff from the back.

Okay? I'm trying to hear from everybody tonight. Okay. Who wants to speak next,

please come forward.

MR. BIVENS: Nathan Bivens, 4900 Glide Cove, Columbia, Missouri. My wife and I

moved into The Brooks in 2020, but I think I have unique experience in this area because

before that, we lived for 21 years in El Chaparral. So I am very familiar with how much

traffic has grown on WW, and I've sat in meetings with that neighborhood association and

city planners in the past, and we've raised similar concerns about traffic, being able to

pull out onto WW from El Chaparral, and those are minimum requirements for line of sight

on that road. And it's very hard to be able to get into traffic even just, you know, five

years ago. But I've noticed in the last year, as we have more homes there, the driving

and the congestion is getting, you know, much higher and the driving itself is getting

more aggressive because of the amount of traffic traveling on that road. And I just don't

feel that Sagemoor should be the only in and out for this development because right

across the street is Rosetta Drive. And so you're going to have two roads coming out at

the same point onto a very busy two-lane highway. And just this morning, I saw

somebody coming out of Rosetta Drive who failed to stop at the stop sign, because if

they did, they were not going to be able to get into traffic, and they did not want to wait.

And I see this more and more, people being more aggressive. And so, for that reason, I

just don't think it makes a good argument or a safe argument to consider that being the

only in and out to this development. I think there has to be something else planned and

put into place before all these units could go in. Thank you for listening to my

comments.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? Seeing none.

Next person to speak, please come forward.

MS. WEBBER: I'm Pat Webber; I live at 801 Sagemoor, just moving in.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Can you pull up a little closer?

MS. WEBBER: Yes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.

MS. WEBBER: 801 Sagemoor. New resident, watching all this come down. And I -

- we all knew that there would be development. Those roads were going to go

somewhere. We knew that. You asked for suggestions. I would suggest an updated

traffic study because it's a lot different from 2017. This is 2025. And all the traffic

concerns do not correspond with the traffic that existed more than ten years ago. And

the other thing that, you know, this whole high-density business, you know, this is not

high density and all of that. Well, are they figuring it on the whole tract, but they aren't

going to be building on that floodplain, so they're using the floodplain acreage to say this

is not high density. They're -- they're cramming, and if you look, they're putting all the

development just on that one area of this tract that they're developing. But they can't

build on the floodplain, but yet they're using the floodplain; is this correct? Am I -- am I

right in this, that they're using the whole floodplain acreage to justify the density? Okay.

I mean, so they're building on X number of acres, but they're basing the density on X plus

Y. So, once again, an updated traffic study, all this Hoylake business. And so we see

what's going on at Hoylake, and we know that all those people who live in the new

development, they're just going to get from here to there. So Sagemoor is a straight

shot. It doesn't even have the curves or Hoylake. It's just a straight shot. So if, at the

very minimum, I would like a stop sign at Sage-- and, oh, what the heck is that street.

I’m new. We need to slow folks down because all they want to do is get from here to

there. They aren't residential in our stretch of the road. They just zoot, want to go, and

there's nothing to stop them, nothing to slow them down. And those are my concerns. I

really appreciate your time and your efforts because I know this is pretty tricky, but it's

very important to us homeowners that we continue to have a safe, livable neighborhood. I

wish -- I wish Mr. Miller well, but, once again, if you're going to have a development, you

need to build your own road into it. Don't just lean -- I mean, is it -- is it normal to have

that kind of an apartment complex cut through and use a residential neighborhood,

single-family to get there? I mean, it's the only way in and out. So I worry about that.

Thank you so much for your time.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, ma'am. Any questions for this speaker?

MS. WEBBER: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Seeing none. Thank you. The next person to speak, please

come forward. I'm looking for someone to stand up. There you are.

MR. FUDGE: My name is Carl Fudge. I live at 1107 Shore Acres Loop, Columbia,

Missouri 65201. To me, this is nothing more than an infrastructure issue to where the

infrastructure is not in place to support this. When you come down WW and you turn on

Sagemoor, there's basically a spot for one car to line up to turn or traffic is going to be

backed up all the way to El Chaparral, which is already a problem, and that's not more

than maybe 50 yards. So when you come in -- this thing to turn left on Sagemoor, we're

going to have a problem -- we're going to have traffic problems there. You're going to have

issues with people trying to back out of their driveways, and like she said, they're going

to get down that street and they're either going 35, 40 miles an hour to reach this. And

then with the density, just like she pointed out, you can manipulate numbers. If you're

going to build on five acres, but you've got another 15 acres of unusable land, you can

claim my density is not as high because I'm not using that land. Well, you've still got --

the density is still there, you just conveniently use land that's really not being used to

create a density number that's not what it really is, which means that the infrastructure

really isn't the place. Then you talk about 77 units, or those other two tracts, what's

going to go in there? This same type of properties that were in the 77 units, because

that's what's there and people are not -- developers, and no one is going to want to buy a

home near these apartments, so they'll develop more apartments there, which maybe we

need them, but that's fine, we can have them. However, the developers that do these

things need to come to the bat and put in the infrastructure in place to support the

developments that they want to create, and not piggyback on somebody else's

infrastructure to cause harm and undue safety issues to another community just because

they didn’t want to invest in the infrastructure for their community. That's all I have.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? Seeing none.

Next person to speak on this case? I'm looking for someone to stand up or move.

Moving works.

MS. DEHART: Hi. Christy Dehart, 4821 Stayton Ferry Loop. I just want to go on

record the same as what they just said. The Sagemoor is going to be a problem. And

when that's all backed up, where people can't get out of the neighborhood, they're going

to start perusing through the whole entire neighborhood to try to get to Hoylake where

this stop sign is -- or the stoplight. So there's only one stoplight, and Sagemoor only has

a stop sign. So that's going to be another issue. And so, I just wanted to bring that up.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none. Next person. Sir, I saw you in the back.

MR. STEVENSON: Bartley Stevenson, 7100 I-70 Drive Southeast. Thanks for

everybody being here. Appreciate it. I think when the development was bought, there

was likely floodplain in 2010, maybe when it was purchased, so they knew that would be

utilized somehow, not for development. And I think if it's equal to or less or comparable

to single-family homes, why not put single-family homes? If it's the same density, why

not do that? It seems like it would be better fitting. When they knew that -- they knew

there was the creek, they knew there was a floodplain, let's expand the subdivision,

single-family homes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? Seeing none.

Thank you for being here tonight. Next person to speak? Anyone else? Last call.

MR. GRIMES: My name is Greg Grimes; I live at 4816 Kenora Drive. So during the

informational meeting a couple of weeks ago with Mr. Miller, he did state that he was

going to be the sole leasing agent for all of these units. After the meeting, I asked him

what is to keep you from selling your interest at some point in time in the future? He had

no answer for me. He might have all the good intentions of the world right now, but as we

all know, homeownership and the pride of home ownership is very different than people

who rent. There is a need for affordable housing in this community. I happen to know of

one low-cost project which is going to be going in I think about a block and a half away

from Hickman High School. That will be owner occupied. These are the types of home

entry ownership that we need in this community. There's lots of rentals already available.

Everybody here agrees that everyone should have the opportunity to own their own home.

But what are going to be the controls on these rental properties? They may say there's

only going to be one family per unit. How are you going to control that? The best

intentions often don't work. In fact, there's an old saying the path to hell is paved with

good intentions. So while we acknowledge that there is a need for affordable housing in

this community, pride of ownership should take precedence. Given the opportunity, I

would like the Planning and Zoning Commission to go back to the drawing board with Mr.

Miller and say, hey, is there any other possibility of developing this same property with

actual home ownership. There's been a lot of concerns about -- which are legitimate. I

walk in the neighborhood every day, and I yell at people. I'm one of those old guys who

yells at people to slow down. Every day it’s only going to get worse. We are on Hoylake

a connector between two sides, between Rolling Hills and WW. Think about this.

Someone earlier asked what is the price of a human life, of a child. Before we jump to

the end of this road, which is all good intended, let's think about this very long and hard.

Thank you for your time.

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

Commissioner Ortiz?

MR. GRIMES: Yeah.

MS. ORTIZ: So if the -- okay. My question is, if these units were owner-occupied,

the traffic would not be as bad?

MR. GRIMES: No. The traffic is going to be there one way or another if you're using

the same amount of density. The numbers, based on the land usage right now, which

has been established, that a larger plot is being taken into consideration to justify the

amount of density. Okay? Lies, damn lies, and statistics. All right? We're fudging the

numbers. However, the folks that own homes tend to take better care of them. They

tend to have pride in ownership. We all understand there's a need there. God bless

those people that can't afford a $400,000 home like mine, but let's think about this, really

and truly think about this. Is this what we want to do to set up a potential safety hazard

within a neighborhood because I do not believe, and I could be wrong, but I do not believe

that there are any other divisions where they are putting this type of housing unit

development inside of an existing subdivision. Sagemoor is a narrow street. Hoylake, it's

bad enough, and it's a fairly wide street. Sagemoor is a narrow street. You're going to be

having trucks driving up and down for years. You're going to have additional people that

really don't care because they're transient coming in and out. They're not going to be

there. They have no pride of ownership. They're going to be moving in and moving out.

They don't care as much. Okay? It's a safety issue, it's a development issue, and I think

that we -- you -- it's incumbent upon you, as the Planning and Zoning Commission, to

think about these things, what's best for all the citizens of the community. Does that

answer your question?

MS. ORTIZ: Yes.

MR. GRIMES: Okay. Any other questions.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further questions for this speaker? Seeing none. Thank

you for being here tonight, sir.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you for your time.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else to speak? Anyone else? Last call. All right.

We're going to close Public Comment, and go to Commissioner Comment.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Where shall we start? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got a couple of questions for staff.

Number one, the neighborhoods that most of our testimonies came from, they were part

of a PUD plan. Correct?

MR. KUNZ: The Brooks is R-1, with the exception of the portion on Tract 5, so the

northernmost portion of The Brooks would be the same zoning, the entitlements is this

property, everything south of that which led to the extension of Hoylake is R-1.

MR. STANTON: So the Sagemoor is R-1. All that was R-1?

MR. KUNZ: That's correct.

MR. STANTON: Okay.

MR. ZENNER: The choice of the developer to not seek greater intensity of

development as a part of the annexation of the property. They saw that they wanted to

do single family. At that point, we were making a transition with the UDC to avoid

planned district projects, and, hence, R-1 was the more compatible land use given what

was surrounding it at that time, and that is why this is not zoned to a more intense

zoning classification, or sought to be developed as a planned district.

MR. STANTON: Right. Okay. I say that to say this. Okay. So as I was listening

to this testimony and I don't know, I've got some kind of old map or something. But I'm

just listening to all this and I'm looking at -- this map I've got is old, like, the Sagemoor

development isn't even on my maps.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Uh-huh.

MR. STANTON: So I'm, like, okay, that was farmland, I see some crops, I see

apex forest. So I'm, like, somebody probably thought the same way you guys did when

they built your guys' stuff, because what I'm looking at is farmland. Were you ever a --

Sagemoor development, all of that was farmland is what I'm seeing. All of it. So the

developments where you guys read it, all this is farmland. So I say that to say this.

Developments happen. I have the same kind of angst about the developer. I don't know

him. I've got him -- you know, I don't like to trust the human condition too much, so I'm

kind of worried about that. But the mixed-use thing is also in the -- is also in the

Columbia Imagined. I lived in a mixed-use environment. I'm an Army brat. My dad was a

field officer, so we may have lived in a single-family home right by a whole bunch of

duplexes, four-plexes, three-plexes, and that made me the heck of a man I am right now

because I was raised around different income levels and different textures of

neighborhoods and housing. Just because something is dense doesn't make it cheap

because I'm very big on affordable housing, very, very big on it, and I didn't hear that word

come out. And I think people that know me well did not say that, because they knew I

was going to be on their behind if they did. So I don't think that these places are going to

be much -- they're not going to be affordable housing. If you're thinking that you're going

to get some kind of section, you know, I hate to use Section 8 type homes, all that,

that's not what's going to go out there. It's not. I doubt it. Yes?

MS. GEUEA JONES: (Inaudible.)

MR. STANTON: I'll retract my time.

MS. GEUEA JONES: No. You’re fine.

MR. STANTON: I'll develop -- I'll develop my thoughts more. Go ahead.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. I appreciate it. The way that they did this is in

combined lots, but they would be sold potentially as condos because they're

single-family attached. They're not -- they're not -- they're not designed as multi-family.

They're single-family attached homes.

MR. ZENNER: These will be platted as individual lots.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Right.

MR. ZENNER: As A, B, C, D lots. The D lot is the common lot.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. That's what I was missing on the plat map.

MR. ZENNER: But then the A, B, C will have interest in the common lot, so as an

individual is sold an A, B, or a C lot, they would then have that interest. It would be

similar to a condominium, but it is not a condominium.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. That's what I was missing on the plat map is -- is how

that worked with the --

MR. STANTON: Like a row house.

MR. ZENNER: And then the land that lies outside of the D lot is the common land

that would be the responsibility of the developer or a future established neighborhood

association that would have to manage that at that point should the property be decided

to be conveyed to individual owners.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And then Sagemoor is a private street or is it a public street?

It's a public street.

MR. ZENNER: Sagemoor is a public street, publicly dedicated street as is -- are all

the streets within The Brooks.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MR. ZENNER: They have been accepted for City maintenance. So as a course

of approval of construction plans, the concerns that have been expressed about who is

responsible for improving or repairing Sagemoor, that will be addressed as a part of

issuance of permitting. It may very well be addressed as a part of the development

agreement that will be being -- that will accompany this project such that there is a set

aside so the City is not holding the bag individually to repair damages that are done.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Right. But it's not -- the HOA isn't paying for snow removal?

MR. ZENNER: No. It is a public street.

MS. GEUEA JONES: They -- really, they shouldn’t be.

MR. ZENNER: Unless they've chosen to pay for that on their own. The cul-de-sacs

at the end, if I can get to that while we're on the street's topic, those are offset

cul-de-sacs. Yes, the sidewalk does go around them. That is an option in lieu of putting

a temporary turnaround on property that was not owned by the developer, so they chose

to put in the what would be referred to as an eyebrow that's not separated from the main

line of the roadway, so that is not a non-traditional type of way of approaching the

termination of a street intended to be continued. We have seen many developments

where they have actually continued and blown through the end of a traditional cul-de-sac,

which is even more frustrating to the adjoining property owners because that is a clear

indication generally for folks that it was an intended terminal street. This was not

intended to be a terminal street. Furthermore, pursuant to our development requirements,

the applicant of the -- the developer of The Brooks was required, did not have a choice,

was required to provide the stubs that are shown on the plat and shown within the public

records. That was not an option. Our staff was insistent that those provisions be

provided. That was the only way the subdivision would have been approved. I am one of

the only members of our staff that was here when this project was approved. I am the

only member of our staff that was here when Tract 5 was annexed into the City of

Columbia. I actually was the staff planner that managed that. So comments that were

made this evening are somewhat disappointing to hear. Staff was extremely

conscientious in what was required based on the then circumstances that surrounded

this development. We took great pains in ensuring that we had a master development

plan with a very detailed for that time development agreement.

MS. GEUEA JONES: To that --

MR. ZENNER: Hoylake -- Hoylake was not originally intended to be developed in

the direction that it was developed, and the development agreement applying to Tract 5

and the Richland Road annexation actually had Hoylake continuing through Tract 5 to

connect with an extension of Hoylake or El Chaparral, and it also included particular

provisions that specifically precluded development of the backside of Tract 5 until such

connection to El Chaparral existed with the approval of The Brooks, Phase 2. The

completion of the traffic study, the development agreement that went with that, the road

was formerly realigned by CATSO Coordinating Committee to ensure that the integrity of

the road network plan was maintained. So this was not done haphazardly. There was a

significant amount of effort taken to ensure that the road infrastructure was going to be

taken into account, and based on the traffic studies that were performed at that time, and

the regulations that we have in place, there was a requirement. It was -- the number that

were provided, the assessments that were made, and the requirements of the Code

indicated that the development of the upper tract that we are talking about this evening

excludes the existing first phase was sufficient. And so as we make our decisions, we

make those decisions based upon the information at hand, and that that we know. Now

the connection between Hoylake or between WW to Richland Road, the installation of a

roundabout, which was not originally contemplated. It was originally going to be a traffic

signal at WW and Rolling Hills, that was replaced to a roundabout, and therefore, folks

that are averse to those find a way to be able to avoid that. And that, unfortunately, goes

through Hoylake. And with most traffic studies that are performed by the City's, there is

background historical traffic incorporated into them.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Zenner --

MR. ZENNER: So that addresses, I believe, many of the questions as to the lack of

our consideration of other factors, but we do have -- we have a variety of different things

that we have done in order to ensure that the development of the overall area was

accounted for before this project was brought in.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Zenner, no one on this Commission is doubting your

staff's diligence.

MR. ZENNER: No. I -- the public -- however, the public is unaware of the efforts that

have been done because most of them have not been here since 2010. And I think it is

important that the public understands that we, as professionals, take our duties very

seriously and we do our analysis very thoroughly. So that is -- that is the purpose for the

explanation, and that is what I am trying to answer here for these folks. We have not just

willy-nilly made haphazard decisions, and that's a term that was used this evening.

MS. GEUEA JONES: But to my question, Sagemoor is public?

MR. ZENNER: Sagemoor is a public street, as is Hoylake.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And the original SOI, as I'm looking at it for this lot was one

family and one family attached units or any combination of the same.

MR. ZENNER: That is correct.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Those were the questions I had. While we have staff's

attention, any other questions for staff? Commissioner Walters, and then --

MR. WALTERS: Just a quick clarification. So Sagemoor, is it currently a 32-foot

wide street?

MR. KUNZ: Correct. Yeah. Thirty-two feet of pavement, but -- 34 feet of paving,

excuse me. Yeah.

MR. WALTERS: Thirty-four feet. So it's classified as a neighborhood collector?

MR. KUNZ: It was constructed to neighborhood collector standards, but is not

classified as such on the CATSO major roadway plan.

MR. WALTERS: And the extension would be 34 feet, as well?

MR. KUNZ: That's correct.

MR. WALTERS: Okay. Thank you.

MR. KUNZ: Yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: I need several pieces of clarification, the first one being what is the

practical result of a negative vote?

MR. ZENNER: I can't answer that question for you, Ms. Wilson. This project is

otherwise compliant with the underlying zoning. The development of this property was

restricted because it did not have access, and the access that was to be provided was

lawfully authorized to be constructed in a different location and the connecting streets

that provide access to this parcel were built by somebody else. Scott Boulevard was

built by somebody else in order to gain access to the property that's now commercially

developed at the corner of Smith Boulevard or Smith Drive, and Scott. There were

millions of dollars poured into that that allowed that property to be developed with no

developer contributions to the improvements to Scott. This developer could not get

access to this property at this point because he would have had to have gone through two

others. He does not have the right, or he has the right, he can go ask, but he's not under

any obligation to build the extension of El Chaparral. He is not, by the Code, required to

build a major drainage structure over the creek to get to his property on the north side of

the creek so he could get to Richland Road. And he is not required as a result of this

development to build a road on his own property. I mean, the regulations are very clear. I

have Chapter 22 of our Municipal Code open, which clearly indicates that a developer is

not required to construct a major drainage structure. A major drainage structure is what

would be required to be built over the creek in order to support a bridge. What the

developer is showing on his plan and what he is entering into a development agreement

for is to assure that we have dedication of public road right-of-way, and we have funds by

which to build the roadway when that roadway is planned on or incorporated into a capital

improvement project that we do. We do our capital projects through a bond referendum

every ten years. The ten-year bond referendum that we have -- presently in was

improved, if I'm not incorrect, in 2023 or '24. So this particular roadway will not be

included in that. It would be potentially included in another. And as the comments have

been made this evening with -- with full understanding and full agreement of those that

have spoken tonight, the development impacts of this particular area are going to

necessitate that the City take action in order to facilitate development of El Chaparral,

back out to WW, and back out to Richland. Ultimately, that is going to be coordinated

through development of the adjoining properties, which, as properties are brought in, as

land becomes scarcer and development needs are made, that is how we build our

roadway network. We do not, like most people would like us to do, build roads in

advance of development. We unfortunately are reactive to that. We oversize or we will

work with a developer to build roadways or at least prepare roadways for construction

beyond what their development requires, and that is partially what is proposed for the

extension of El Chaparral. The developer will build his local residential portion, and then

we will come back in and we will complete the rest of that roadway with a capital project.

And the whole idea is is the developer's demands are initially addressed by his

contributions, but he is also paying up front by dedicating all of the road right-of-way,

which we will have and secure. Location of the bridge crossing to get to the north side of

the creek, to get to Richland, has not yet been determined, so there is some flexibility in

that, and that -- that's just the nature of how we have to do road planning. Our CATSO

major roadway plan has conceptual alignments, and they do move occasionally, but

normally, when those major roadways are required to be moved as a result of

development, it does go through a very formal process. It's just not something that we

decide in the office and say, well, today's the day we're going to move a major road. We

have to look at the impacts of that. And Gans Road on the south end of town -- not Gans

-- Phillips Farm Road on the south end of town is a very prime example of that. We went

through multiple public hearings as it relates to how to run that road from Ponderosa

Street all the way to the west to Rock Quarry Road. And so we've gone through a

number of iterations, and I would imagine that we may go through a number of iterations

with the other roadways that traverse the surrounding area in order to ensure, again, that

we are going to be able to have capacity to handle the traffic moving from WW to

Richland. So timing is everything. Development pressure results in that, not that this

project will not create additional traffic in the short term. It will. However, we also realize

that we do have plans and we have available developable land that is going to, at one

point, be developed and have to build the infrastructure that is not presently there. And

that is -- that's how all development occurs within our communities. Scott Boulevard

existed for 15 years without being improved to where it is today, and we have an entire

community built on the west side of town without a major roadway. We -- we had to deal

with that. We had Vawter School Road existing the same way, and we have corrected

that now, as well, and we are in the final stages of correcting that as you're west of

Sinclair to Scott. So, I mean, it does take time. The public has opportunities for traffic

calming, and I think the street that the one lady was speaking of as it relates to

Sagemoor, given that it is not curved or doesn't have great deflection, as we refer to it, is

the street that is at Royal Country is where the stop sign, there is a stub street that goes

to the western property line, again a requirement, and that would be probably a location

that would be advised in a recommendation, if that is your choosing, that Public Works

consider traffic-control measures there temporarily until maybe something else is

addressed, but Rural Country is the name on that cross street that is about mid-point in

Sagemoor. That would be the appropriate location.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I'll go to Commissioner Gray, unless you've got more. Got

more?

MS. WILSON: I did have more.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, please go on.

MS. WILSON: So the prior traffic study is 2017. It's almost ten years ago. What

would trigger another traffic study?

MR. KUNZ: So any development that is proposed at point blank period was in Tract

5. We can -- there is a stipulation in the development agreement that states that we can

request a traffic study be performed again. So it could be done. The traffic engineer with

the City did not determine it was necessary for this project. However, it is any

development that's proposed in Tract 5 ultimately had a discretionary clause to allow the

City to request a traffic impact study be performed.

MS. WILSON: And is that something that we can add?

MR. ZENNER: It's already in the -- so it's already -- the discretion of a traffic study,

requiring a traffic study is already embedded in the development code, the UDC. It is

also part of the 2010 Statement of Intent and development agreement that goes with the

Tract 5 property, so there's not really a need for that.

(Multiple audience members speaking simultaneously.)

MS GEUEA JONES: Folks.

MR. ZENNER: What I would offer -- what I would offer as an explanation as to what

may trigger a traffic study is if Mr. Lewis develops one -- develops the middle tract, so Mr.

Lewis has the two tracts to the east, as Mr. Maher pointed out. If he decides to develop

the middle tract that he has, and would want to use the extension that is being in Phase

2 of this project of Ashford Place to drive his traffic out through Bethpage, which is the

street that it would connect to after he comes into the property for Ashford Place, that,

potentially, would be a precipitating factor depending on what the density is. Ultimately,

however, the connection back to, unfortunately, Hoylake, which is to where the

connection is to the east, is what's going to be necessary in order for Mr. Lewis to

actually be able to develop his property to any density, any level of improvement,

because it's going to need two points of ingress and egress. And so we do have -- there

are limitations that are going to probably create traffic impacts on the existing roadway

network if other mitigating factors aren't taken into account. So crossing over from west

to east to get back to Hoylake in order to distribute traffic at least out of the existing

roadway network that is there again is part of a process of future development. And with

each development, the traffic engineer is involved. We evaluate the impacts that that

development will be bringing in relationship to the background traffic that is already within

the development. Given we are ten years out, I would probably tell you that the numbers

are probably stale, as many people have said this evening, and I think the next

development that is coming in, I would probably, if I were a betting man, tell you that

we're going to require an update because the volumes of traffic that are now crossing

Hoylake to get to WW have increased greatly, and that is from multiple different folded

sources. Rolling Hills now runs all the way down to 63, runs from 63 all the way to

Richland Road Grace Lane. That did not exist, and so as those traffic volumes have

increased, that background traffic potentially and how it's distributed off of Rolling Hills

between Richland to WW probably has not been adequately analyzed. So to what the

public has said this evening, that is something that, yes, probably would -- would warrant

something to be looked at, but again, the traffic volumes generated out of the 77 lots that

are being created was not viewed as an issue specific given the development capacity of

what Sagemoor has to it, and Sagemoor would be the direct ingress and egress out of

this project, not necessarily Hoylake. And Hoylake is being addressed at least within the

traffic management program, maybe not as expediently as the public would like, but it is

being addressed. And that priority, as Ms. Ortiz brought up, may be able to be elevated

given the impacts currently that are being felt, and I think that that is probably again an

avenue that the public has to explore with our Public Works staff.

MS. WILSON: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anything else, Commissioner Wilson? Commissioner Gray?

DR. GRAY: Thank you. I hopefully have --

UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: What was that question earlier because I

never heard the answer.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I'm sorry, sir. She can speak for herself. Thank you.

Commissioner Gray?

DR. GRAY: I have a clarification -- I have a clarification question for counsel about

the criteria considerations for this decision. I know this is not a zoning decision. I just

want to make sure that I have the list correct of what I am taking into consideration for

this PD plan and preliminary plat.

MR. CRAIG: Well, as -- as staff noted, it's compliant. The criteria before this

Commission is whether it is -- it comports with the Comprehensive Plan, and there's

adequate infrastructure to support the development, and that's -- that's it.

DR. GRAY: That's it. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: That was my exact question. Where can I find that so I can just pull it

up?

MR. CRAIG: That is Chapter 29, UDC, Article 6, Section 4, subsection N1.

MS. ORTIZ: Thank you very much.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Walters, go ahead.

MR. WALTERS: I had a quick question about, you know, the time delay for getting a

traffic calming versus a four-way stop. Is that super complicated too if they -- I don't know

-- as a substitute or a temporary substitute to have a four-way stop somewhere along

Hoylake -- or more, one or two?

MR. ZENNER: I would imagine that is. What I will tell you is is four-way stops, after

the adoption of the UDC, are discouraged just because of the -- because of other issues,

they're discouraged.

And we do not normally -- in new subdivisions, you generally do not see four-way

intersections. I'm not sure that we would have full stop control at the intersection, but on

-- given the circumstances, I think, again, that is an issue that needs to be brought up

with Public Works. We really do not have a -- we do not have control over that. You

couldn't, you know, as it relates to comporting with the traffic management requirements,

if the Commission -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Craig. If the Commission wanted to

make that as a considerable recommendation of the -- of the approval of this project, I

don't think you can make it a condition that the applicant install stop signs on an existing

accepted public street. That has to be approved by Public Works, and that's the

problem. This is not something that -- Public Works in the City of Columbia own and

maintain all of the streets within The Brooks. The process by which you get traffic

controls or traffic calming is through our Public Works Department. It is not through this

body. If it was something that was interior to the development that was being proposed,

possibly, as a condition that you were going to do that subject to the approval of Public

Works. But Public Works controls our public rights-of-way, and that's part of where the

public needs to go and express their concerns, which I think this record will clearly

encapsulate them, and we could share that with our Public Works traffic engineer and our

director to find out how they would like to approach this. But we have to -- they're having

to balance a lot of other factors, as you all are probably well aware.

MR. WALTERS: But is there -- is there a way or -- that their HOA could contact the

Public Works and say we would like to discuss this with you further or --

MR. ZENNER: They're more than welcome to contact Jake Ray, who is our City's

traffic engineer.

MR. WALTERS: Jay Ray?

MR. ZENNER: Jake Ray, and he could be contacted in the Public Works

Department and Jake will take the phone call. Jake is one that knows, if I'm not

incorrect, the evaluations, as well, for neighborhood traffic calming, and he oversees that

program.

MR. WALTERS: All right. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I'm just throwing out a head -- it seems like the Commissioners up

here are trying to give you weapons to use. I hope somebody is taking notes. Ms. Ortiz

gave you a website. Mr. Walters has given you the engineer. Play chess. We've given

you the weapons to use to get traffic calming down to present those things to Public

Works. Play chess. Play chess.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other Commissioner comments? Are we getting close to

making some kind of motion maybe?

MR. WALTERS: I would make a motion.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Walters, go ahead.

MR. WALTERS: And I think, to inform the public, all motions are made as a --

MS. GEUEA JONES: In the affirmative.

MR. WALTERS: -- in favor of, regardless of what you want. It's just the way we do

things. So regarding Case Number 231-2025, the Ashford Place PD plan Statement of

Intention revision and preliminary plat, I move the approval of the request of a planned

development plan, revised Statement of Intent, and preliminary plat to be known as

Ashford Place subject to technical corrections and subject to an agreed upon

development agreement prior to introduction to City Council.

MS. ORTIZ: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion for approval made by Commissioner Walters,

seconded by Commissioner Ortiz. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay.

Seeing none, Commissioner Stanton, when you're ready, could we have a roll call?

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

Darr,

Ms. Geuea Jones, Dr. Gray, Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Stockton, Mr. Walters.

Voting No: Ms. Wilson. The motion carries 7 to 1.

MR. STANTON: Seven to one, Madam Chair.

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

Council. Before we go on to the next case, I want to put on the record so that it is in the

transcript that we, as a Commission, recognize that there is a problem on Hoylake. We

have taken our time on this case to talk a lot about that problem, and about solutions that

the community has tried to get for that problem, and I would hope that City Council and

the Public Works Department will expedite that, as well as potentially a stop sign at

Royal Country and Sagemoor as we move forward. Just wanted to get that on the

transcript outside of the case. Moving on to our next case.

Move the approval of the request of a planned development plan, revised

Statement of Intent, and preliminary plat to be known as Ashford Place subject to

technical corrections and subject to an agreed upon development agreement

prior to introduction to City Council.

7 - Stanton, Geuea Jones, Walters, Ortiz, Gray, Stockton and Darr

Yes:

No:

1 - Wilson

1 - Brodsky

Excused:

Case # 274-2025

A request by Amber and Mark Weigel (owners) to allow 11 S. Heather

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 3-bedroom, 2-bath

home has an attached 2-car garage and sufficient driveway capacity to

support 2 UDC-compliant parking spaces. The driveway and garage

spaces are to be used when the dwelling is in use as an STR. The

0.21-acre subject site is located on the west side of S. Heather Lane,

approximately 300 feet south of the intersection of W. Broadway and S.

Heather 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 11 South

Heather Lane to be operated as an STR subject to:

1. The maximum occupancy shall not exceed eight transient guests regardless

of occupancy allowed by the most recently adopted edition of the

International Property Maintenance Code (IPME);

2. A maximum of 210 nights of annual usage;

3. The two garage spaces shall be made available while the dwelling is in STR use.

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

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

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

Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: So someone reported this as illegal?

MR. HALLIGAN: The way that it works is the Housing Neighborhood Services

identified -- was sent just a list of all the potential short-term rental properties, and if

they're identified as being one. If they were non-compliant, they're just kind of marked by

our Housing Neighborhood Services as operating as a short -- illegal short-term rental

until they gain compliance.

MR. ZENNER: They were also provided that all of our operators that are not

registered short-term rentals have been provided two notices at this point of violation. The

first notice was sent June 5th, the second notice was sent at the beginning of August.

And so we are now preparing for the next phase of enforcement, and that will be to start

to collect case information in order to have legal action pursued with the municipal judge.

They took two stages. One was all of the short-term rentals that were not already a

long-term rental -- registered long-term rental. They broke it into two, so they focused on

those that were not long-term rentals, and those were obviously operating illegally.

Long-term rentals, on the other hand, required a little bit more delicate action because

they may have been operating as a greater than 30 day long-term situation. So that is

how the -- that is how our Neighborhood Services staff is triaged. All of our identified

short-term rentals that we have provided them, and then when our vendor is finally

acquired, a monitoring of our short-term rental pool within the City of Columbia will be

done through that vendor contract, and that will be done on a monthly basis by sweeping

roughly 100 to 110 different sites.

MS. ORTIZ: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: So no one called and complained. This was just found in a

sweep?

MR. ZENNER: That is correct.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Important distinction there in my mind. Commissioner

Wilson?

MS. WILSON: But there was a call to ask how violations could be reported?

MR. HALLIGAN: Yes. That is correct.

MS. WILSON: Which is good because that means the system is working. Okay.

Excellent.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for staff? Seeing none. We will go to

public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any members of the public who wish to speak on this case,

please come forward.

MS. WEIGEL: Hello. I am Amber Weigel, and this is my -- we own this home, my

husband and I. Our son went to Mizzou in 2022. We live in San Diego. I came out for I

think it was like a summer orientation weekend. I stayed in a hotel and realized there

wasn't a lot of options for parents coming from distance with their college kids. We were

referred to a local realtor. We purchased this home as a place to come visit with our son,

have a place where he could come. We could cook with him. He could stay with us --

better than a hotel room. We called the City at that time. We asked if there was

anything required. We were told, no, absolutely not. The only thing that was required at

that time was if we were going to do a long-term lease, like a 12-month lease, there was,

I believe, a certificate of occupancy was required, and they assured us over and over that

for what we were doing, there was no regulations in place. We would have certainly

complied with those. We were not aware that anything was going to be put in place until

we received the letter in June that said we were out of compliance, and we were surprised

by it. We called, we -- my husband called, spoke with Patrick, and we've been going

through the process since and we've provided everything that's been requested. I manage

the home personally. I take a ton of pride in it. I stay in it myself a few times a year.

We have, as mentioned, our neighbors across the street who help me with any random

odds and ends. Smart Lock doesn't work, someone is having an issue, he runs over.

The neighbors have been very in favor of it. We had one issue when we listed on Vrbo,

and we immediately pulled it after that issue. We had some kids throw a party, which,

obviously, is against the house rules, but Vrbo doesn't allow as many -- it doesn't allow

you to put as many screening checkmarks in place as Airbnb does with regards to must

verify identity, you must be of a certain age, et cetera. So we pulled it from there. We've

been with only Airbnb ever since. I will say it's rented every football weekend, many

weekends from April through the end of the year, and then the first three months are kind

of busy. It's not really booked in the first quarter of the year. But we've really had no

issues. We've improved the house. We've improved, I think, the neighborhood. We've

probably invested $25,000 into improving, like I said -- we put in a fence, we've painted,

we've done flooring, and we've got nothing but positive remarks on Airbnb. We're a super

host on there. When you search Como rentals, we're the first one that comes up as

guest favorite. So, yeah. We're happy to comply with whatever the fees or rules are, and

-- but we just weren't aware, obviously.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Did I see that the person, the contact person lives across the

street?

MS. WEIGEL: Yes.

MR. STANTON: And you have been operating this since '22?

MS. WEIGEL: Correct.

MR. STANTON: This has been the hottest topic in Columbia, Missouri for four years.

MS. WEIGEL: It's news to --

MR. STANTON: Like the hottest -- hottest thing. Like, we have been battling

short-term rentals for, like, four years. So to hear like you didn't know anything about it,

it's kind of like --

MS. WEIGEL: So we're from California.

MR. STANTON: Do you live in California or something?

MS. WEIGEL: Yes.

MR. STANTON: What I'm saying -- what --so -- so I say that to say this. I need to

know that the person is watching your property is in the know, like, because for that

person not to know that this is the hot -- like, this is on the news, like, every week, like,

for four years.

MS. WEIBEL: Yeah. I mean, certainly --

MR. STANTON: So, you know, like, you know listen -- is that person really going to

be on top of things and, like, for them not to tell you that this had been the hottest topic --

MS. WEIBEL: I understand. So, I don't -- maybe there's other short-term rentals

that have issues or parties or cause disturbances in the neighborhood, but, I mean, I was

asked for letters of recommendation from our neighbors. They were all, like, sure, we'll

be happy to write you a letter of recommendation. I've had no issues, except for that one

which I mentioned, which was, I think, two years ago now.

MR. STANTON: No. I'm talking about the regulations thing.

MS. WEIGEL: No, I understand. And we're -- we live in San Diego. We don't live

here. In California, they're much more stringent restrictions for short-term rentals. So

when we were in escrow, that's why I called the City, because I -- my realtor said there is

no -- there is nothing you need to do, and I was shocked. And so I said I want to call in

here for myself, if that's the case. So, obviously, I don't watch the Columbia news, but as

soon as received something from the City, we responded to it. I mean, that's the best

that I can do. My understanding in terms of an agent in place, or, I think, the registered

agent. I don't know what the term it is for our person across the street. But my

understanding of his responsibility to me when he's agreeing to be that person is that he's

within the county, which, obviously, he's one minute away. That he's within the county,

that he's available 24/7, that it provides some protection for either neighbors or guests if

something were to go awry. I don't think that I have an ability, obviously, to make him

pay attention to the City Council meetings or otherwise. I don't know. The only way that

I knew about this, again, was, like, the letter, which I responded to. I did the best that I

could in terms of the information that I had when we purchased, you know. And if I

receive anything in future years that something changes, we'll certainly comply with that,

as well. Yeah. I don't know how -- what further I can do.

MR. STANTON: No. I'm just -- this is just crazy to hear that.

MS. WEIGEL: Yeah. I do have a 21-year-old who lives here, and I'm sure that he's

not aware of it, either. And it'll be that there's been an ability for me to maybe get that

kind of news without being informed.

MR. STANTON: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for this -- Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: Well, I just -- maybe it's more of a comment, but you have an

investment in our community.

MS. WEIGEL: Yes.

MS. ORTIZ: You have this home.

MS. WEIGEL: Yes.

MS. ORTIZ: So I think that having that investment, you should be invested in what's

happening in our community, too. So I know that you're doing the right thing; you're here

right now.

MS. WEIGEL: Oh, of course.

MS. ORTIZ: And -- yeah. No. And it's great. And, you know, not everyone is doing

that, so I commend you for that. But you are, whether or not you live here, you have an

investment here, and I would just recommend you pay a little attention outside of the mail

with peace and love to you.

MS. WEIGEL: Thank you so much.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for this speaker? You sure picked a

night to show up, all the way from San Diego.

MS. WEIGEL: I was thinking that all of you would be like pretty tired after that at this

late hour. So maybe it was a good thing. I don't know.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I appreciate you traveling to be here. It is very important to us

that the owners show up. And thank you very much. Any other final questions? Thank

you very much.

MS. WEIGEL: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other member of the public to speak on this case?

Seeing none. We will close public comment and go to Commissioner comment.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there any Commissioner comment on this case? I will just

make the comment that I commend our staff on catching this. It is a good sign to me

that we're going to be able to catch these folks that are -- you know, that maybe didn't

know or are trying to do something malicious. Either way, I'm glad the first one that

came forward was someone who went thank you for the letter, please, can I file my

application, but good job to you all for catching them. If there's no other Commissioner

comment, would someone like to make a motion? Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: I'll give it a go.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, Commissioner comment or motion?

MS. WILSON: Motion.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Please, yes. Go ahead.

MS. WILSON: In the matter of Case Number 274-2025, I recommend approval of the

requested STR CUP subject to a maximum occupancy of eight transient guests, a

maximum 210 days of annual rental usage, the two-car garage spaces shall be made

available while the dwelling is in STR use. Is that it? I thought there was another thing.

All right.

DR. GRAY: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion made by Commissioner Wilson and seconded by

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

Commissioner Stanton, may we have a roll call.

MR. STANTON: Yes, you may, Madam Chair.

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

Darr,

Ms. Geuea Jones, Dr. Gray, Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Stockton, Mr. Walters, Ms.

Wilson. Motion carries 8-0.

MR. STANTON: Unanimous, Madam Chair.

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

Council.

Move to approve the requested STR CUP subject to a maximum occupancy of

eight transient guests, a maximum 210 days of annual rental usage, the two-car

garage spaces shall be made available while the dwelling is in STR use.

8 - Stanton, Geuea Jones, Wilson, Walters, Ortiz, Gray, Stockton and Darr

Yes:

1 - Brodsky

Excused:

Case # 277-2025

A request by Colin Freeman (agent), on behalf of Black Dog Enterprises,

LLC (owner), to allow 1501 Paris Road 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 Sec. 29-6.4(m)(2) of the Unified Development

Code. The 2-bedroom, 1-bath home has sufficient driveway capacity to

support 4 UDC-compliant on-site/off-street parking spaces. The 0.15-acre

subject site is located at the northwest corner of Paris Road and Wilkes

Boulevard.

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

Staff report was given by Ross Halligan of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow 1501

Paris Road to be operated as an STR subject to:

1. The maximum occupancy 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,

3. Condition that two UDC compliant parking spaces be added to the site on a

parking pad be within the rear yard of the subject site prior to the

issuance of an STR Certificate of Compliance or Business License

allowing the dwelling to be used as an STR.

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. Are there any questions for staff?

Seeing none. We will open the floor to public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any members of the public here to speak tonight,

please come forward.

MR. ADAMS: Good evening. My name is Taylor Adams, and I live at 302 West

Broadway Avenue and --

MS. GEUEA JONES: We're going to have to have you come one at a time. I'm

sorry. You're fine. You can sit right there.

MR. ADAMS: Okay. Okay. Sorry. I'm -- yeah. My name is Taylor Adams, and I

own part of that house with that guy and that lady and my wife. It's right adjacent to his

house and it came up for sale and it was one of those things where it was, like, oh,

you've got to buy the house next to you, and so we purchased it, I think, two years ago

from Muzzy Properties, and we have had it since. We've put about $30,000 worth of work

into it. We shored up the basement, we redid the deck, we fixed the kitchen and the

bathroom, and just kind of gone through and just made the house -- you know, updated it

to today's standards and just -- but we've been operating and we want to be in -- we want

to be in compliance, so that's kind of why we're here today.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Wonderful. Any questions for this speaker? No? Oh,

Commissioner Ortiz, go ahead.

MR. ADAMS: Yes, ma’am.

MS. ORTIZ: So you are, along with your wife and the other two, you are Black Dog

Enterprise, LLC?

MR. ADAMS: Yeah. Me and that guy really are. Like -- and that's my partner

during the day. That's my husband. So we spend most days together unless, you know,

something comes up. And been kind of going through a little bit of an influx. Colin -- you

don't mind if I tell them? Colin had a stroke a couple of months ago, and sometimes he

has seizures, and so that's kind of -- he was laid up for a long time, so yeah. So we just

-- we've been kind of working on this and so -- but he's my partner.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Potentially an easier question. What's the dog's name?

MR. ADAMS: There’s a lot of them. Yeah. So we’ve been having a lot of trouble

with them, too. We’ve been losing dogs this year.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, no.

MR. ADAMS: So it's been a rough year. So we got -- the dog that kicked off for

me was Dee, and he had a dog named Eleanor and Esther, and so we had all these

black dogs running around -- Charlie and Luna, so yeah. So that's -- those were the

black dogs

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any further questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Gray?

DR. GRAY: Do you plan on adding the two spaces?

MR. ADAMS: Absolutely. I just called Doug this morning. Colin came in and we

went up -- I guess don't want to sin anymore, so that's kind of weird. So I called Doug

and talked to him. I got the number for the guy to cut the curb, and Dave, I've got it, like,

started on the -- I don't know what to call that -- it's the program where you pull permits,

And so I've got a permit started for us and I'm, like, we're -- I mean, we -- this is what,

you know, we do construction work, so we -- we build decks around the, you know,

county and the city and all that, so this is something we're going to tackle -- our pad, at

least. And then the curb, we're going to have the approach poured by Dozer Dave.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Very good. Any further questions? If not, next?

MR. ADAMS: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Flip a coin. You don't all three have to come up if you don't

to, but you can if you want to.

MS. FREEMAN: I'm going to come up. I didn't think I was going to. So I -

MR. STANTON: Name and address.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Name and address, sorry. Yeah.

MS. FREEMAN: What was that?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Your name and address.

MS. FREEMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot. I've been here a long time, so if you --

MS. GEUEA JONES: I know.

MS. FREEMAN: Ali Freeman. Allison Freeman, that's my name, but I go by

Ali. I live at 1415 Wilkes Boulevard. And we -- we've created a really special place. And

with this Airbnb, I kind of manage it. I clean, I do all of that, and the scheduling and it's

been wonderful. We've had -- the guests that we've had have been great, positive

feedback, been a super host, which is kind of fun to see, like this little badge and stuff,

which is kind of fun. So -- but what I've noticed is that a lot of it is parents that have

come to visit their kids, and it's just a great place that's close to downtown. It's -- so

we're getting families that come in and want just a place to call their home and they call it

a cozy place to be and we've created that. And we also -- it's a place for our family to

come and be there and visit. Can I keep -- sorry.

MS. GEUEA JONES: No, go ahead, yeah.

MS. FREEMAN: Okay. So I just wanted to say we built a little home there and

we've met a lot of the people that stayed with us, and we're there in close proximity. And

we also have a son, and so it just feels like we've had really great success with it, and

kind of proud of what we've built. And just so you know, we're -- we're ready to be

compliant and do those things that need to be done. And that driveway before, that was

something that was previous to us, so just so you know this is kind of where we're at, but

we're ready to tackle it. So that's all. I could probably ramble on, but I know we want --

we all want to go to bed. So, I'm done.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further questions for this speaker? Seeing none. Thank

you so much for being here. Did you want to come up, sir? You don't have to if you don't

want to. No. Okay. Very good. Any other member of the public who wishes to speak

on this case? Seeing none. We will close public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

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

this case? Seeing none. Would anyone like to make a motion? Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: Why me?

MS. GEUEA JONES: You made eye contact.

MS. ORTIZ: Oh, okay. I actually don't make motions very often, so let's -- let's do it.

MR. STANTON: Practice makes perfect.

MS. GEUEA JONES: You can do it.

MS. ORTIZ: Okay. I move to approve -- or in the Case of 277-2025, 1501 Paris

Road, I move to approve the requested short-term rental conditional use permit subject to

a maximum occupancy of four transient guests, maximum of 210 nights of annual rental

usage, and two Unified Development Code compliant parking spaces to be added to the

site on a parking pad within the rear yard of the subject site prior to the issuance of the

short-term rental Certificate of Compliance or Business License, allowing the dwelling to

be used as a short-term rental.

DR. GRAY: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Very good. The motion made by Commissioner Ortiz,

seconded by Commissioner Gray. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none,

may we have a roll call, Mr. Stanton.

MR. STANTON: Sure thing, Madam Chair.

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

Darr,

Ms. Geuea Jones, Dr. Gray, Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Stockton, Mr. Walters, Ms.

Wilson. Motion carries 8-0.

MR. STANTON: Unanimous, Madam Chair.

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

City Council.

MR. CRAIG: Madam Chair, if I may, real quick before you move on to the next case.

Just a point for staff. I was looking on the Secretary of State's website as we were going

through this hearing, and as -- on the agenda, it's Black Dog Enterprises, plural, which

shows an address of Kansas City and organized in 2002. I assume that's not you guys.

There is Black Dog Enterprise. Yes, which is, I believe to be correct. So there might

need to be corrections --

MR. ZENNER: With or without the S?

MR. CRAIG: Without the S.

MR. ZENNER: Without the S. Thank you. No S. I will -- we will make that change

accordingly.

MR. CRAIG: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Next case.

Move to approve the requested short-term rental conditional use permit subject

to a maximum occupancy of four transient guests, maximum of 210 nights of

annual rental usage, and two Unified Development Code compliant parking

spaces to be added to the site on a parking pad within the rear yard of the

subject site prior to the issuance of the short-term rental Certificate of

Compliance or Business License, allowing the dwelling to be used as a

short-term rental. Subject to technical corrections.

8 - Stanton, Geuea Jones, Wilson, Walters, Ortiz, Gray, Stockton and Darr

Yes:

1 - Brodsky

Excused:

Case # 280-2025

A request by Michaela Hayes (agent), on behalf of Matthew and Michaela

Hayes (owners), to allow 103 Parkview Drive 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 Sec. 29-6.4(m)(2) of the Unified

Development Code. The 3-bedroom, 1-bath portion of a home has an

attached 1-car garage and sufficient driveway capacity to support 1

UDC-compliant parking space. This request, if approved, would allow the

home's main level to be used as a short-term rental. The 0.40-acre subject

site is located at the northwest corner of E. Walnut Street and Parkview

Drive.

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 103

Parkview Drive to be operated as an STR subject to:

1. The maximum occupancy 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,

3. The one-car garage shall be made available while the dwelling is in STR use.

MS. GEUEA JONES: 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. Are there any questions for staff?

Seeing none. We will go to public comment. Are there any members of the public who

wish to speak on this case tonight?

MS. HALL: Good evening. I'm Terri Hall; I'm at 2509 Brookside Court, which abuts

to Parkview. I'm a long-time resident there. I've been there for 30 years. I bought the

home because it's a beautiful quiet neighborhood. We have a golf course right behind our

house and, as you know, the park is a block or two away from us. It was mostly

homeowners at that point. Obviously, in 30 years, it's changed quite a bit. We've seen

more long-term rentals come in. We've seen an Airbnb happen. We've seen a house

two, three houses down from me that's now owned by a church, and they rotate drug

addicts in so that they can give them a chance to rehab, which is very admirable, but

there have been many problems associated with that. I've seen these revolving door of

people that come in and live in these different places I mentioned have shot fireworks in

the middle of the street over the holiday, preventing cars from coming through. We had to

sit there and wait while they moved their children and their fireworks out of the street. We

had noise issues and parking issues with Airbnb, and so on and so forth. And we have --

already have indigents that live in Stephens Park. The unhoused people are frequently

around. There have been break-ins. I don't know that much about the new owners. They

haven't had the place that long, but I'm just not really a fan of a revolving door of people I

don't know coming in and it also makes it hard to tell who is a suspicious person in your

neighborhood versus who is there renting. Yeah. That's pretty much it.

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

MS. HALL: I'm sorry. I have one comment to add, if I could.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. Go ahead.

MS. HALL: To something one of the Council members said about the lawn issue.

And you are correct. The previous owner did have a big lawn issue of letting it get all

overgrown, but I have seen with these new owners, they have also had at least one

incident of that, and they did eventually come in and clean it up, but just so you know, it

has happened with the present owners, as well. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions? Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: You referred to an Airbnb in your neighborhood, so I'm assuming that is

not on your street, nor is it on Parkview. What -- what Airbnb are you referring to?

MS. HALL: The Airbnb I referred to was on Parkview, but it's no longer. Those

people have moved and it's a single homeowner now, which is lovely.

MS. ORTIZ: Okay. Thank you.

MS. HALL: You're welcome. Is that it?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions?

MS. HALL: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Seeing none. Thank you. Next person to speak on this case,

please come forward.

MR. HAYES: Good evening. Matt Hayes, 103 Parkview, the owner. I’ll be brief. We

did struggle to find somebody to mow the yard this spring. We got that taken care of. I

think all that is addressed. We've been very happy with the people we have it now. If

there's any issues, we'll get that taken care of. All of this is true. It's what we're going to

do. The biggest thing I want to point out is ten nights last year, and our intention is not to

be anywhere near 210 nights. That's not the use of the property for us. We bought it for

us. We bought it for some folks that used it the same way we intend to use it, which is

to come and visit. They just had a long-term renter upstairs. We just thought this was a

better use for us, that way we didn't have to worry about bad tenants or whatever. If

they're a bad tenant, they're gone after the weekend, and we'll make sure they never

come back. So that's our intended use of the property. We'll maintain it the best we can

to the standards we would maintain our own home down south. So that's all I have.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. And thank you for traveling. Any questions for

this speaker? Seeing none. Oh, sorry. Commissioner Stanton, go ahead.

MR. STANTON: Make sure you're communicating with your neighbors.

MR. HAYES: Yeah. Will do.

MR. STANTON: You're nothing but a complaint away from losing it all.

MR. HAYES: Oh, yeah. No, that's fair. And we have with the -- with the folks on the

street, we didn't go too far backwards, so that's a mistake on our part, but yeah.

MR. STANTON: Okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Anything else? Seeing none. Thank you very

much.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other members of the public to speak, please come

forward.

MS. ROBERTS: Hello. My name is Christina Roberts; I live at 2508 Brookside

Court, Columbia, Missouri 65201, which is a neighborhood that we have to pass through

to get into -- we have to pass Parkview to get into Brookside Court because it's at the end

of a dead-end that's at the end of a dead-end, that's at the end of a dead-end. I am here

to oppose -- first, I actually have a question. This -- the letter that I received said

maximum occupancy of four transient guests, and this says eight transient guests. And

so I am wondering about that discrepancy. And I can -- I have a photo of the letter as

well.

MR. HALLIGAN: It's four. I just made a mistake in the recommendation.

MS. GEUEA JONES: The slide is wrong, it is four.

MR. HALLIGAN: It is four.

MS. ROBERTS: It is four. Okay. I am here to oppose the use of this family home

as a short-term rental. I moved into the neighborhood as a teenager in the late '90s, and I

moved out, went -- to go to college, and I came back and repurchased the house from my

mother's estate when she passed away ten years ago. I have seen the neighborhood

grow from being in between two golf courses to being in between a golf course and a --

and a park. I'm sorry. I'm not a very good public speaker.

MS. GEUEA JONES: You're doing great.

MS. ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. And at the time that Stephens Lake Park was

purchased from Stephens College to become the park, there was a discussion of whether

or not it should be turned into rental property -- as zoned for a rental property instead of a

house -- or instead of a park. And I believe that the City and the community all agreed

that it should not be zoned for rentals, it should be -- stay as a park and single-family

homes. And I also am strongly -- I strongly believe that the purchase of all these

single-family homes by non-residential owners to rent out to -- to rent out is what is

driving up the homelessness that we see -- the problem of homelessness and the

problem of young families not being able to afford housing because they are busy paying

rent at high prices for these same family homes that are not available on the -- on the

market for purchase because they are being rented out. And I do agree that -- I also

question how non-residential owners will make sure that the house is being kept in order,

and how it is -- like, how the renters are being respectful to the neighborhood and not --

and not causing trouble as they may -- they have previously said.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Thank you for being here tonight. Are there any

questions for this speaker? Seeing none. Thank you.

MS. ROBERTS: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further members of the public to speak in this case,

please come forward. Seeing none. We will close public comment and go to

Commissioner comment.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any Commissioner comments on this case? Seeing none.

Would anyone like to make a motion? Oh, Commissioner Walters, go ahead.

MR. WALTERS: Here, I'll -- just to make a comment for the last speaker. In case

you're not aware, the reason we're going through this process of registering STRs as

opposed to the Wild West we had before was to create some oversight, and to give

property owners like you the option or the process to lodge a complaint if there is a

legitimate infraction. And if the party -- the owner of the house receives two bona fide

complaints, then they can lose their ability to have an Airbnb. So anyway, it's just -- it

may be a small solace to you, but at least there is opportunity for you to be a watchdog,

as well, and if things don't work out, you have -- you have recourse.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other comments or motions?

MR. WALTERS: I'll make a motion.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Go ahead, Commissioner Walters?

MR. WALTERS: In the matter of Case Number 280-2025, I move to approve the

requested STR CUP for 103 Parkview Drive subject to maximum occupancy of four

transient guests, maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage, and the one-car garage

shall be made available while the dwelling is in STR use.

DR. GRAY: Second.

MS. ORTIZ: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Who wants it? Motion made by Commissioner Walters,

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

May we please have a roll call, Commissioner Stanton.

MR. STANTON: Yes, Madam Chair.

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

Darr,

Ms. Geuea Jones, Dr. Gray, Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Stockton, Mr. Walters, Ms.

Wilson. Motion carries 8-0.

MR. STANTON: Madam Chair, it is unanimous. .

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

Council.

Move to approve the requested STR CUP for 103 Parkview Drive subject to

maximum occupancy of four transient guests, maximum of 210 nights of annual

rental usage, and the one-car garage shall be made available while the dwelling

is in STR use.

8 - Stanton, Geuea Jones, Wilson, Walters, Ortiz, Gray, Stockton and Darr

1 - Brodsky

Yes:

Excused:

VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS

MS. GEUEA JONES: That concludes our business for the evening. We do allow for

public comments of a general nature. If any member of the public would like to speak on

something of a general nature, please come forward at this time.

MS. DOKKEN: Dee Dokken, 804 Again. I just think this was useful, these three

STR cases, and I'm wondering if the changes are made, then none of these conversations

would have happened, I'm thinking.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Dee. Any further public comment? Seeing -- oh,

yes. Please come forward. You're okay. You're going to have to say your name and

address again. I'm sorry.

MS. ROBERTS: Okay. Christina Roberts, 2508 Brookside Court, Columbia,

Missouri 65201. I -- we recently got -- I'm not sure if you're aware, but the East Walnut

recently received five or six speed bumps and -- six. And two of them have not been

marked, and so they're very difficult to see. I was wondering, what is the proper way to

go about getting those marked with the white lines that the other five have?

MS. GEUEA JONES: If you will allow us, we will have someone from staff get in

touch with you. We don't do that.

MS. ROBERTS: Okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: But we'll make sure someone from the City gives you that

information, unless, Mr. Zenner, you've got it handy.

MR. ZENNER: It would be our -- it would be Public Works, and it would most likely

be our street maintenance division. Richard Stone, who is the division manager, is

probably the point of contact, or Jake Ray, our City's Traffic Engineer.

MS. ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any other public comments? Seeing none.

VII. STAFF COMMENTS

MS. GEUEA JONES: We will go to staff comments. Mr. Zenner?

MR. ZENNER: So your next meeting is two weeks from today, September 18th,

that's -- we start at 5:30 p.m. with our work session, and we will convene just before 7:00

for our regularly scheduled meeting which is a little bit shorter than tonight's. It has three

topics on it, a design adjustment and a final plat at the end of North Seventh Street

behind the Boone Electric Cooperative Building. This is Public Water Supply District

Number 4's or 9's, I can't remember, maintenance building, and they're looking at doing

an expansion and some construction on it. Therefore, sidewalks would be triggered, and

that is what the design adjustment is about, and that the property has not been formally

final platted. Therefore, that is the purpose of the final plat. We have a drive-up facility

CUP for a new bank at 310 West Nifong. This is the corner of West Nifong and Bethel

Street. And then we have one short-term rental at 1506 Windsor Street, and this is in the

Benton-Stephens Community, R-MF zoned. It is for, if I am not incorrect, two transient

guests. It will have a condition associated with the installation of necessary parking,

because again, like this evening's request, the development of the dwelling unit relied on

on-street parking, and, therefore, there is not a driveway. So you know where we're

talking about, here are the maps, and that is your agenda for our September 18th

meeting. We are gearing up with more in October, so -- and do not anticipate this to be a

repetitive pattern where we only have three. We do have a number in the queue right now

for our first meeting in October, if I'm not incorrect.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.

VIII. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

MS. GEUEA JONES: With that, we'll go to Commissioner comments.

Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I would like to commend staff and the system. It seems like the

STR process is working. We're rounding up these desperados and bringing them to

justice and compliance. I love it. And I think we just have to keep the faith in the

system. It seems like it's working so far.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: I will not be at the next meeting, so I would have -- I would plug this at

the next meeting because I know it's a little early, but at the end of the month,

September 29th through October 5th, Local Motion and other places across the country

are participating in a week without driving, which is a challenge that was started by a

disability rights advocate to challenge folks to experience life without being a driver in a

vehicle. There are many of us out there -- I am one of them -- who do not drive due to

either medical issues, age, aging out, or being too young to drive. And then -- and there's

a lot of other reasons, as well. And I just wanted to challenge my fellow Commissioners

and those out there who are always driving maybe, or maybe you don't, to kind of get the

perspective of a non-driver, and also think about the infrastructure that we have in this

City, and how it accommodates drivers versus non-drivers or pedestrians, so that is all.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none.

IX. NEXT MEETING DATE - September 18, 2025 @ 7 pm (tentative)

X. ADJOURNMENT

MS. GEUEA JONES: Would anyone like to move to adjourn?

MR. STANTON: I move to adjourn, Madam Chair.

DR. GRAY: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: The motion to adjourn made by Commissioner Stanton,

seconded by Commissioner Gray. Without objection, we stand adjourned.

(Off the record.)

(The meeting adjourned at 10:32 p.m.)

Move to adjourn.