City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Council Chambers

Columbia City Hall

701 E. Broadway

Thursday, January 19, 2023

7:00 PM

Regular Meeting

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. INTRODUCTIONS

MS. GEUEA JONES: I will bring this meeting of the Planning and Zoning

Commission regular session to order.

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

MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Present.

MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Burns?

MS. BURNS: Here.

MS. CARROLL: Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Present.

MS. CARROLL: I am here. Commissioner Geuea Jones?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Here.

MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Here.

MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Kimbell?

MS. KIMBELL: Here.

MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: Here.

MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Loe? We have eight; we have a quorum.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Excellent.

8 -

Present:

Tootie Burns, Anthony Stanton, Michael MacMann, Valerie Carroll, Sharon Geuea

Jones, Robbin Kimbell, Peggy Placier and Shannon Wilson

1 - Sara Loe

Excused:

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Zenner, are there any changes to our agenda?

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

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. May I have a motion to approve?

MR. MACMANN: Move to approve.

MR. STANTON: Second.

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

Commissioner Stanton. Thumbs up approval on the agenda?

(Unanimous vote for approval.)

MS. GEUEA JONES:

Move to approve

Unanimous. Thank you.

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting

MS. GEUEA JONES: The copy of the January 5th, 2023 regular meeting minutes

were attached to the agenda. Are there any changes or adjustments to the minutes?

MR. MACMANN: Move to approve.

MR. STANTON: Second.

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

Commissioner Stanton. May I have a thumbs up approval of the minutes?

(Seven votes for approval; on abstention.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: How many are there? Seven? Seven to approve and one

abstained. Thank you very much.

MR. ZENNER: And the abstention was?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Kimbell abstained. Thank you.

Move to approve

V. TABLING REQUESTS

Case # 49-2023 & Case # 50-2023

A request by A Civil Group (agent), on behalf of Kanco, LLC (owner),

seeking approval of a multi-tract zoning map amendment (Case #

49-2023) and 14-lot preliminary plat (Case # 50-2023). The 30.7-acre

property is unimproved and currently zoned R-MF (Multi-family Dwelling)

and M-OF (Mixed-use Office). The proposed rezoning seeks approval to

rezone the acreage into M-C (Mixed-use Corridor), M-N (Mixed-use

Neighborhood), and M-OF (Mixed-use Office) designations. A concurrent

14-lot preliminary plat is also sought to be approved that would

accommodate future commercial, office, and residential uses. The site is

located on the south side of New Haven Road, east of Lenoir Street. (A

request to table these cases to the February 23, 2023 meeting has

been received).

MS. GEUEA JONES: Do we have a staff report?

MR. ZENNER: You do. The graphic in front of you, we've got two graphics, one for

each case, but it's the exact same property, so we're just going to show you this one. I

think that the case number says 49-2023 and 50-2023. Same location, rezoning action,

and then a 14-lot subdivision action. Both are being requested to be tabled to the 23rd to

allow for additional staff review comments and the development of a development

agreement to be prepared. And this tabling to the 23rd is time sufficient to allow for that

action to be completed. We are supportive of it, and if you have questions, the zoning

action was advertised as a public hearing for this evening, so any discussion that you

desire to receive on that would be on the topic of tabling only.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for staff about the tabling motion?

No. This is not a vote on the merits of this case. This is merely going to be a vote

tonight on whether or not to delay action until February 23rd.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Does anyone have comments on the motion to delay action?

Come forward. State your name and address for the record, et cetera.

MR. GEBHARDT: Thank you, Sharon. My name is Jay Gebhardt. I'm a civil

engineer and land surveyor for the Civil Group. And as Pat explained, this is primarily so

that there -- give staff time to develop a development agreement that we are all on board

with. So if you have any questions for me, I'm here, but if you would, I would appreciate

you tabling the -- till the 23rd.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Mr. Gebhardt. Any questions for this speaker

about the delay? Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Mr. Gebhardt, just real quick. Mr. Zenner, you said it was -- it's

fine for staff. Is the 23rd fine for you?

MR. GEBHARDT: That was the first option that we had, so we are on a tight time

frame here because this is a key to a MODOT project for the interchange. So, you know,

trying to balance what MODOT needs and -- and this, the 23rd is -- or we're trying to

make that work.

MR. MACMANN: All right. Thank you, Mr. Gebhardt.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Anyone else to speak about the

tabling issue? Seeing none.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner discussion? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: If my colleagues have no further questions, I propose a motion.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Please?

MR. STANTON: As it relates to Case 49-2023 -- do I need to -- can I do both of them

at the same time, Counselor?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Legal -- okay. Legal says yes, we may do them both at the

same time. We don't have to take two votes.

MR. STANTON: Okay. As it relates to Case 49-2023 and Case 50-2023, I move to

table to said date, February 23rd, 2023.

MR. MACMANN: Second.

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

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

Commissioner Carroll, may we have a roll call.

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

Stanton, Ms. Burns, Mr. MacMann, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier, Ms.

Wilson, Ms. Kimbell. Motion carries 8-0.

MS. CARROLL: We have seven votes to approve; the motion carries.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That case will be tabled till February 23rd.

MS. CARROLL: We have eight votes to approve; the motion carries.

MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Commissioner Carroll. I was about to raise a point of

order there. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Commissioner.

MS. CARROLL: My counting abilities are not working.

As it relates to Case 49-2023 and Case 50-2023, move to table to said date,

February 23rd, 2023.

8 - Burns, Stanton, MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Kimbell, Placier and Wilson

1 - Loe

Yes:

Excused:

VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

Case # 16-2023

A request by A Civil Group (agent), on behalf of RB34LLC (owner),

seeking approval of a rezoning from R-MF (Multi-family Dwelling) to PD

(Planned Development), a PD Plan, and various statements of intent

containing multi-family and office uses. The approximately 2.76-acre

property is located at the southeast corner of Balboa Lane and Sieville

Avenue, approximately 500 feet south of El Cortez Drive, and includes the

addresses 3416 & 3418 Balboa Lane and 202 Sieville Avenue. (This

request was previously tabled at the December 22, 2022 public

hearing)

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

Staff report was given by Mr. Brad Kelley of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends approval of the requested zoning, statements of intent,

and PD Plan to be known as Rockbridge Condominiums, and the associated design

exceptions with the following condition:

Should any building on an individual lot be removed, all design exceptions

shall expire with new development on that lot.

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

members of the Commission have had outside conversations with parties related to this

case, we would ask that you disclose it now so that we can all benefit from the same

information. Seeing none. Questions for staff? Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Madam Chair. A couple questions, Planner Kelley. In your notes,

you make reference to this unimproved street and the potentiality for improvements to

said street. Could you help me understand what conditions might trigger that traffic study

and/or the improvement of that street?

MR. KELLEY: Are you thinking of this or another case in here? The only thing I can

think of --

MR. MACMANN: I'm reading your notes right now.

MR. KELLEY: Hmm.

MR. MACMANN: I'm asking you what you're referring to.

MR. KELLEY: I -- that may be a clerical error on my part from a -- I don't see that

being an issue here. I don't think anything they're proposing would require a traffic study

based on the uses that -- that we're seeing. Now it's -- I don't foresee any impact -- any

significant impacts.

MR. MACMANN: All right. That's -- well, I ask those questions because it didn't

seem to fit and I was wondering what you were talking about.

MR. KELLEY: Could you let me know what page it's on and I could maybe look at it,

as well.

MR. MACMANN: I'm on your staff report, and I am on the end, criterion supporting

denial.

MR. KELLEY: Are you -- are you sure you're not on case 23-2023? That is a factor

there.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. I think you're on the wrong case.

MR. MACMANN: I will look again. It is my error. My second question. You

referenced this parking several times. Would fixing the parking require more asphalt or

just repainting it?

MR. KELLEY: It would require removal of existing asphalt.

MR. MACMANN: Okay. That gives me concern. I'll hold those -- the question for a

moment. Thank you.

MR. KELLEY: Thank you.

MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair, for pointing that out to me.

MS. GEUEA JONES: You are fine, Commissioner. I was similarly confused but

thank you. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none. Let's move on to public

comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

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

record, and -- yeah. Get that microphone tall for you. Thank you.

MR. GEBHARDT: Good evening. My name is Jay Gebhardt. I'm a civil engineer and

land surveyor for A Civil Group at 3401 Broadway Business Park Court, Suite 105, and I

have something I would like to read into the record, but I also -- just to address Mr.

MacMann's question about the parking, especially on Lot 101. We have -- the UDC

would require 53 parking spaces, and it also requires eight bicycle spaces. And if we

add the eight to the 53 vehicle spaces, we have more than what we are required. But the

tenants and the landlords and owners have all said that these are two-bedroom units,

rented by two people with two cars, and that is what they wanted to try to preserve. So

on Lot 104, we were able to remove pavement and create so we could meet that

requirement, but on Lot 101, it would remove a lot of vehicle parking spaces in order to do

that.

MR. MACMANN: All right. I was just kind of wondering. I'm thinking ahead because

we're always thinking about parking, and I'm -- this is an in-fill, so we're trying to meet old

with new. Can I ask --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner MacMann, I'm sorry. Can you -- can you wait

until he's done?

MR. MACMANN: I'm sorry. My apologies.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.

MR. GEBHARDT: So I'd like to thank Brad and Pat for their very thorough report and

the guidance to help us create a project in the spirit of the intent written into the UDC.

This is a rezoning request to address the existing conditions for this property. One of the

reasons was to correct lot lines that run through the buildings making them legal

non-conforming uses. There are currently five lots owned by my client, and all three

buildings on the side have a lot line that runs through the buildings. We are creating four

lots in place of the five existing lots. Two of these lots are for the two existing apartment

buildings, one is creating a new lot for six new apartments, and the last is a lot for the

existing storage building on the site. Another reason for the request is to reuse and

repurpose the existing storage facility. Currently, the owners' mothers store items in the

structure, and it's not used by the tenants of the apartments. We recognize this building

needs to be repurposed, and so are proposing severing the parking connection and

building a new entrance to the outer road. We are currently requesting an office use with

accessory storage as the parking for this can be accommodated on the site. As you can

imagine, due to all -- the existing condition, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to meet all

the requirements of the UDC on this property, and due to this, we are proposing several

design exceptions to allow them in the planned district. We have taken steps to provide

as much toward the intent of the design exceptions as we can, and still keep functioning

apartments and create a new role for the existing building on Lot 103. So with that, you

know, with the staff report, and -- and then I'd like to answer any questions you have on

this proposal.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Mr. Gebhardt. Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: I'm good. That's you.

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

Seeing none, thank you very much for coming forward.

MR. GEBHARDT: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else to speak on this case? Seeing none.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any Commission discussion? Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: I still do have the concern about the -- I think the term "excessive"

was used somewhere, but the extra amount of parking and impervious surface on this. I

realize that these are existing conditions and we cannot say change them and add more

green space, I guess. But we've already seen in this total area, there was a tennis court

that became a building. On Lot 102, there is -- are currently trees and a gazebo that will

be eliminated with the building of the six new units sometime. So it does seem that this

area as an entirety is missing some green space that could benefit the residents. The

interesting thing is if they say, no, we don't want to lose our parking, I don't know if there

are any observations of how -- whether all those lots are in use, but I just have those

questions of -- of the quality of the environment being created here.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Anyone else, discussion? I would entertain a

motion on this case if anyone wanted to make one. Commissioner Burns?

MS. BURNS: Sure. In the matter of Case 16-2023, 3146 [sic] and 3418 Balboa

Lane zoning map amendment, I move to recommend approval of the requested rezoning,

statements of intent, PD Plan, and associated design exceptions with the following

condition: Should any building on an individual lot be removed, all design exceptions

shall expire with new development on that lot.

MR. STANTON: Second.

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

Stanton. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. Commissioner Carroll, may we

have a roll call.

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

Stanton, Ms. Burns, Mr. MacMann, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Kimbell, Ms.

Wilson. Voting No: Ms. Placier. Motion carries 7-1.

MS. CARROLL: We have seven yes, one no. The motion carries.

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

Thank you very much.

In the matter of Case 16-2023, 3416 and 3418 Balboa Lane zoning map

amendment, move to recommend approval of the requested rezoning,

statements of intent, PD Plan, and associated design exceptions with the

following condition: Should any building on an individual lot be removed, all

design exceptions shall expire with new development on that lot.

7 - Burns, Stanton, MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Kimbell and Wilson

Yes:

No:

1 - Placier

1 - Loe

Excused:

Case # 23-2023

A request by A Civil Group (agent), on behalf of DREW Properties, LLC

(owner), to rezone two tracts of land under common ownership; however,

identified by individual parcels numbers. The first tract is the northern half

of parcel 12-701-00-01-240.00 01 and seeks rezoning from M-C

(Mixed-use Corridor) to IG (Industrial). The second tract is identified as

parcel 12-701-00-00-002.0001 and seeks rezoning from PD (Planned

Development) to M-C. The subject sites are located northwest of the

intersection of E Brown School Road and N Roger Wilson Memorial Drive.

(This request was previously tabled at the December 22, 2022 public

hearing).

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

Staff report was given by Mr. Brad Kelley of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends the following:

1. Tract 1 approval of the M-C rezoning request;

2. Tract 2 approval of the IG rezoning request.

Alternatively, if the Commission believes the potential loss of commercial

property, unimproved street, and speculative nature of the request outweigh the

supporting criteria, then a denial of the Tract 2 IG rezoning would be

recommended.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Before we go to questions for staff, a

bit of administrative update. We have lost Commissioner MacMann for the rest of the

night. He had a family emergency and has had to step out. We do still have a quorum,

though, so the meeting will continue. I just wanted to let everyone know you did nothing

to upset him. He got -- he got a text and had to leave because of an emergency. With

that, before we go to questions for staff, did any member of the Commission have outside

communication with any parties to this case or members of the public? If so, we would

ask for you to disclose it now so that we can all benefit from the same information.

Seeing none. Any questions for staff? Seeing none.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: If there are any members of the public to speak on this case,

please come forward now. It's a race.

MR. GEBHARDT: Good evening. My name is Jay Gebhardt. I'm a civil engineer and

land surveyor with A Civil Group, 3401 Broadway Business Park Court, Suite 105. And

Kevin is handing out a diagram that was created by my client. He gives a little bit of

information at the back, and then I would like to read this into the record, if I could. So

I'm also here with Bob Walters, who is a member of DREW Properties, and he'll be

speaking after I'm done. I have worked with Bob and DREW Properties since 1992 and

did the rezoning for them on this tract in 1995 when the farm was purchased. This

property has been C-3 and now M-C and has been for sale for 28 years. It has been

zoned for the highest commercial uses before Bob developed any homes sites in Arcadia

or Auburn Hills. We do have neighbors here to speak against the rezoning, and I would

certainly let them speak for themselves. However, many of the attendees of our

neighborhood meeting were not aware of the existing commercial zoning and thought it

was all part of the soccer club's land. So they have been living across from an open

space that has been planned and zoned for commercial, but many of them were unaware

of that. As the staff has said, there is a demand for industrial ground, for what I call

contractor buildings such as the new Chapman Heating building just completed on Route

B. It took those owners several years to find a suitable site in Columbia because there is

a shortage of available industrial property for sale to accommodate these smaller and

less intense uses that require industrial zoning. We would like to provide a place on the

north end of this property for such a use, and the size and depth of the potential lots for

this property limit uses of the property and prevent many of the traditional uses one

thinks of when industrial zoning is mentioned. Staff has indicated the mechanical

contractors buildings is a conditional use in the current M-C zoning. The conditional-use

process is a significant deterrent to prospective buyers. The several real estate agents

over the years who have listed the property tell us that the potential buyers just don't want

to look at the property that requires additional unknowns that come with a conditional

use. Staff has indicated this is a speculative request, and it is, but that is because this

is a bit of a circular problem that we could -- like -- we would like to break. We need the

zoning to attract the buyers, and you need the buyers to obtain the zoning. So we want

to break that circle and establish a small portion on DREW Properties property for these

uses. Roger I. Wilson is an unimproved street and any development, regardless of the

zoning, is subject to the City's rules for when a traffic study is required. If a use goes in

that causes a traffic impact, it will have to mitigate those impacts with improvements to

the infrastructure and should, in my opinion, not influence your decisions for the land use.

Another reason staff has suggested for you to consider denial is the loss of commercial

property. I don't think that after trying to sell this five acres of M-C land for the last 25

years, that it will be missed. The land around Moser's Grocery Store has over 19 acres

of commercial property that could accommodate commercial uses. The soccer club's

property is zoned M-N for commercial uses, and then there is the remainder of the

DREW properties. And I -- I want to emphasize that a significant part of their property

here is not being requested to be zoned. It's already M-C and there was some confusion,

I think, on we were asking for commercial uses here, but we already have M-C zoning on

the bulk of this property. We hope with you -- you'll agree with your professional staff's

conclusions that the supporting criteria outweigh the denial criteria, and that other

impacts due to the rezoning would be mitigated by existing protections within the UDC.

With that, I would answer any questions that you have.

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

Burns?

MS. BURNS: How many meetings, Mr. Gebhardt, did you have with interested

neighbors?

MR. GEBHARDT: I kind of dropped the ball on this one, Tootie. I only had one

meeting and it was a week ago. And part of that is just my schedule, but then also

around Christmas, it's always hard to schedule these things. So that's why we tabled to

December 22nd. I mean, I didn't want to come here three days before Christmas and not

have talk to anyone, so -- but then we waited, and it was last Thursday at Sky Zone

where we had the meeting.

MS. BURNS: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Yes. It seems that everything is going to depend on the buyer or the

-- the use to which this land will be devoted and how much traffic that will generate on this

narrow, unimproved road with which I am very familiar because I drive to the jail pretty

often because of some volunteer work I do. But -- and people also walk down that road

from the jail when they're released. So -- and which is pretty risky as it is. But it's kind

of a pig in a poke because we have been -- what has been mentioned is mechanical or

construction contractor, but IG covers a lot more than that. So there's no guarantee of

what could go in. I understand the issue of needing to find a buyer.

MR. GEBHARDT: Right.

MS. PLACIER: But we have no reassurances on that point.

MR. GEBHARDT: Right. And I think Bob will speak a little bit to that matter. You

guys don't know Bob, but he's developed a lot of property and he's -- I'm proud to say that

he's one of the best residential and commercial developers I've ever work, and he will have

some -- a lot of say in what -- in what goes here and then what it will look like when it's

done. So there's a modicum of trust that we're asking for on that because of his

reputation. As far as the road is concerned, you know, the bulk of these three corners of

this intersection are zoned M-C, and we have had C-stores looking at this and, you know,

take a C-store for example, would pick a corner that they go on, whichever one it is, it's

going to generate a traffic study, and that traffic study is not going to be just for that site.

It's going to be everything that DREW Properties owns. So there will be trip generations

generated for the entire property, and all that will be looked at. And I can't imagine that it

won't trigger in a center turn lane down Roger I Wilson, which would mean a lane

widening, curb and gutter, and sidewalks on the property. So it's hard to envision now

because it's been vacant for so long, but I -- I can't imagine any commercial use it's going

to go -- now, the industrial uses that we have probably aren't going to trigger because

they don't have a lot of traffic. You know, if you have an HVAC guy that's here, his guys

come in the morning, and they go out to work jobs, and then they come back, and it's not

a lot of traffic that they generate during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. So that's how I

feel about it. I -- I know that if commercial use, it creates more than 100 trips in the a.m.

or p.m. is going to trigger a traffic study not just for this -- where they're proposing, but for

the entire property. And so I -- I feel like that's a pretty safe assumption that there will be

improvements to Roger I. Wilson at some -- at some point.

MS. PLACIER: What kind of freight deliveries do those kinds of -- generate

periodically?

MR. GEBHARDT: So like -- I just did Chapman Heating and Air Conditioning over on

Route B. They do not have a truck dock. All the deliveries come in on a flat truck -- a

straight truck, so it's not a -- so it's possible to have that without having semis and that.

And there -- there is concern from the neighbors about that, and I'll let them speak about

that.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? I have a question. The little hook bit that was

supposed to be part of the planned district and wasn’t but is still zoned such. From the

staff report, but I would just like to confirm with you, as well, as the owner, that is

currently not a usable piece of land; is that correct? That acreage you --

MR. GEBHARDT: The shape of it is really detrimental, plus the way it would have to

be graded, there just wouldn't be much. And I -- I believe -- I mean, if I was involved in --

in the design of whatever goes on that corner, I would use that piece for a detention and

storm-water quality because it's the low part of the property and it would lend itself -- and

that's probably the highest and best use for that.

MS. GEUEA JONES: But even that, though, can't happen unless it's combined with

the lot next to it really?

MR. GEBHARDT: Well, really, that's -- that's --

MS. GEUEA JONES: And I guess you could have a stand-alone PD Plan for it, but -

MR. GEBHARDT: We could -- we could plat that as part of the corner lot, and then

we would have a lot with split zoning, part -- part PD and part M-C, and I'll let staff, you

know, recommend what -- if that's -- if that would mean PD on the whole thing or just PD

on the part, you know, that -- of that lot. It's -- it's -- it kind of becomes a sticky wicket, I

think. But also, just for clarity, you know, I was involved in the design of the Brown

School Road. And the reason that -- that north line is a curve or that irregular piece,

that's where Brown School Road was originally designed. And then when we got to

actually working with MODOT to figure out what they wanted, they wanted it to swing

south like it is, which, at the time, the soccer club had already purchased based on the

original layout. And so when they moved the road, it created this remnant piece that we

are -- it was always zoned planned -- or C-P back in the day, and now we're just trying to

make it the same as the corner.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And before I let you go, you do a lot of development around

town. The word "industrial" is scary, and I get that. But for anyone who looks at our

permitted use table, a lot of the stuff that is permitted in that is not what I would think of

as industrial. It's not manufacturing, it's not smoke stack development. Is that -- is that

experience, that that's more what comes into those zones?

MR. GEBHARDT: Yeah. It's -- it's small business owners that have a need for a

shop area and an office area and, typically, there's no storage outside allowed, so there's

-- it's a garage door and an office space. Sometimes there's a retail space. We're doing

three of these buildings down south of town. You may have seen it off of Providence just

south of the Jimmy John's there, and they have a variety of different people going in there.

They have a t-shirt guy that makes t-shirts, and that one is in the county, and it's zoned

light industrial, and so that was an allowed use for that. And so he, you know, was pretty

excited. He had a place south of town that he could, you know, put his business in. So I

think there's a need for that, and being close to the interstate and that, I think there's, you

know, plumbers, electricians, all that kind of stuff, that is some place for them to go. So

really, we're just trying to break this, you know, Bob's not getting any younger, and it's

been 28 years since we zoned it, so trying to figure out how to get some activity up there.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Carroll?

MS. CARROLL: I wonder about the size of the property and what types of heavier

industrial could possibly go there anyway?

MR. GEBHARDT: Exactly. Heavy industrial would require a conditional-use permit,

as Brad said in the staff. The depth of the lot is only approximately 300 feet, so it's not

going to allow for a really large building. I would think an 8,000 to 10,000 square foot

building would be probably the largest you would see on maybe two lots in this five acres,

so a two-and-a-half acre lot with a 10,000, maybe 12,000 square feet, but it would

probably be less than that. And then the uses that go in that, right now, I've got a guy

looking for -- he has a motorcycle repair place, and he's looking for, you know, a new

place to expand his business, so --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? Thank you very much.

MR. GEBHARDT: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Next speaker on this case, please come forward. State your

name and address for the record.

MR. WALTERS: My name is Bob Walters with an address at 2704 Vale Drive. I'm

one of the owners of -- partners in DREW Properties, LLC. And to address a couple of

questions or topics that have come up already with Jay with some questions from the --

from the Commission, its motive, I guess, in why we're doing this. And also about the -- I

guess, the deal with industrial zoning versus a CUP plan. And you have to -- we're

talking this step because of the total lack of interest doing commercial. And after

speaking with commercial real estate people, they indicated there was this need or

potential appeal for having these sort of contractor warehouses. And we've approached

this with just this small five acres, and we've reduced the price significantly just to get

some traction here, and it's not our intent to -- I think, also, from regarding what, you

know, the scarier parts of industrial zoning is we have a lot more land to sell, and if we

permitted an ugly use, an owner's use, whatever, for property, it would harm us, it would

not help us. It would make developing the rest of this property even more difficult than it

has been with it being vacant. It would be worse than being vacant, if we put something

crap on there that would deter people from wanting to invest there. So it’s in our

self-interest to, while we're taking a step towards modifying the commercial towards an

industrial type of use, it's not the intent to do it more substantial than the five acres we

have there. A lot of times, my observation -- I've been a realtor myself for 30 years,

though not a commercial realtor. My observation is sometimes people don't want to be

the first party on a tract of land. They look at a property as being jinxed. They're looking

at a property, for some reason, someone is not going there, and I'm not going to go there.

And in talking with the commercial realtor who I -- realtors who I relied a lot on their

advice is that if you're showing a customer who wants this type of use and they're looking

at multiple tracts in town, and they may like this tract, and then the realtor says,

however, this is a conditional use, so there's no guarantee by right that they're going to

get the sort of zoning they need for this contractor warehouse, so they're probably going

to say, well, let's move on. And so that's the reason. It's unfortunate that the only uses

we want are just like this contractor warehouse. We kind of ala-carte picked it out of all

the industrial zoning, but we just can't do that. You have to apply for all industrial zoning,

so it's kind of at a disadvantage. But anyway, the take-away is, those -- or what's the

right word for -- the intense usage, loud, noisy uses, the trashier uses, whatever the right

word is, is -- we certainly don't want that to -- that to happen. And we'll have a right by

contract to also decide what the buildings look like in terms of the exterior finish, which is

beyond what the City -- the City regulations can do. And also I think these types of

buildings are somewhat compatible from a size and scale with what a strip mall would be.

I imagine -- I hope -- I have imagined for 25 years that there could be a strip mall there

with various businesses like you see on Rangeline or other parts of town. And so a strip

mall type building next to a contractor type building would not be significantly different in

terms of its overall appeal. Obviously, when you look at enclosure, you can see that it's

one more retail oriented and one is not, but anyway, so that's a taka away from that, so --

anyway, I'm -- I'm happy to address -- answer other questions maybe to context or

motive, whatever, regarding what -- what we're trying to do here.

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

Thank you very much.

MR. WALTERS: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Would the next member of the public who wants to speak on

this case please come forward. Come on.

MR. DALTON: Good evening. My name is Richard Dalton, and I'm at 2205 Faulkner

Court, which is one of the residents in Arcadia, in fact, just due south of this

development. And I just want to express our concerns and object to the rezoning

because of the potential for noise, the potential for light pollution. Probably most

importantly the high traffic that -- that any development is going to cause. And the area

particularly off of Nathaniel, which even now is difficult to -- to get onto Brown School

Road sometimes. So those really are the objections. I know that I did attend the

meeting last week. There were a lot of questions, seemed as though there were a lot of

concerns about the property. I don't know how many other folks are here from that

meeting, but I definitely, from my perspective, want to object to this.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any questions? Commissioner Carroll,

and then Commissioner Stanton.

MS. CARROLL: Can I ask -- and you may have said this. Are you opposed to the

industrial zoning or the M-C zoning, or both?

MR. DALTON: Well, it's -- it's already developed M-C --

MS. CARROLL: Most of it, yeah.

MR. DALTON: -- so any further rezoning in -- in my opinion, is going to add the

potential for it to be developed. It sat vacant for many, many years. So we've been there

for five years and feel like further rezoning would again add to the potential for it to be

utilized and create the issues that I talked about.

MS. CARROLL: So you don't want it to be utilized; am I understanding that right?

MR. DALTON: Preferably, yeah. That would -- that would be the best scenario, but

it is already zoned M-C.

MS. CARROLL: I have a follow-up, but I think that Commissioner Stanton may be

going along the same line, so I will pass to him.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: On this land, I'm hypothetical. Hypothetically, you own this land,

you've been sitting on it for 20-some odd years, paying taxes on it, getting old, might

need to do something with it. What do you do? What is your -- my famous saying, how

do we make this a win-win, you know? How do we make this a win-win and with

everybody here.

MR. DALTON: To me, the -- the potential win-win -- not to interrupt -- sorry -- would

be to develop the northernmost section and leave the southernmost -- that hook alone,

donate it to the soccer fields. I think that's the biggest concern of most of the residents,

or at least that's what I heard at the meeting last Thursday was the immediacy of that --

that area to the -- to the neighborhood.

MR. STANTON: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: Is there some fear because you listed -- you thought there would be --

there potentially could be a noise issue or light issue, so is there fear that there would be

activities going on at night time?

MR. DALTON: Well, the potential would be there for -- for light pollution. You know,

they'll have to have 24-hour lights, in my opinion, whatever is there for security reasons.

So that -- that light pollution, I -- any -- any of those three issues will degrade the -- the

value of property, certainly in close proximity to -- to this area.

MS. WILSON: Thank you.

MR. DALTON: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? I have a -- a question. If you knew, like,

instead of -- let's live in a happy world -- instead of asking for straight zoning, they said

this is going to be a planned district. It's going to be a neighborhood grocery store and,

you know, a farmer's market stall, and whatever. Like, this is going to be something that

your neighborhood can use and will make your lives better, would that be something you

would find desirable, or would you still be saying I'd rather have an empty field?

MR. DALTON: I would definitely say I'd rather have an empty field, and -- and it was

mentioned that, you know, a lot of residents in the north are looking for development and

restaurants and other stores. We're absolutely fine with where we shop now, so adding

something just to the north of this I think will detract from the neighborhood.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Thank you. Seeing no other questions, thank you very

much for coming forward tonight. The next person to speak on this case, please come

forward? And just a reminder, name and address for the record, please?

MS. SOEHNGEN: My name is Kristen Soehngen, and my address is 2107

Dickinson Court. So my house basically is -- my backyard, my deck looks directly at

the northernmost tract that they're talking about developing as industrial. So my main

concern is that changing it from mixed commercial to industrial has the potential to

decrease my property value. And I think that there's a lot of traffic on that road already.

There's a lot of noise from the traffic. There are heavy trucks that go down that road, and

that industrial development of whatever type is likely to increase the truck traffic even if

it's just an electrician's truck or some small businessman's truck, I think that's going to

add to the noise and traffic. They've mentioned that Brown School road is major corridor

road, but it does narrow kind of below -- if you ever go the whole length of it, it's -- it's

wider at the end toward Rangeline, and then it eventually narrows. And so it is narrower

in that section than it is at the end toward Rangeline. And then looking at the plan for the

development of the soccer fields, with the eventual parking lot that is supposed to go onto

Brown School Road, that's going to increase a lot of traffic, too. So I just think traffic is

going to be much worse if you -- when they eventually develop the soccer fields to empty

onto the road, and when they empty whatever industrial development onto the road. I

realize there are plans for landscaping and that sort of thing, but the other concern I have

is that we don't know what was -- what could be built there, that there are multiple options

for things that could be built there. A medical marijuana infused processing plant could

be put there. That's one of the permitted uses, and I have read the appendix that it's

supposed to not make odors and other things, but, you know, that is a permitted use,

and I don't think that's something that the neighbors in that area would want. I don't know

that the soccer field people are aware that that's a potential use. The other point that I

would like to make is that I was told at the informational meeting that the land for the

soccer fields was donated to them, and they have the majority ownership of the land

affected by this, so I was originally going to try to petition so that at least we would have

to have a super majority for this to pass, but since they own the majority of the land and

they're supporting it, our chances of getting enough support for a petition are limited, and

it seems unfair that they didn't actually invest money into that land, and they have the

majority say in what happens to the development of land adjacent. That's about it.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I'm going to pose to you, ma'am, the same question the gentleman

before you. Your land, how do we make this work -- how do we make this work? How do

we make this a win-win for both parties? It's a lot of land to sit on for 20-some years and

you can't do anything with it.

MS. SOEHNGEN: Yeah. I understand that, and, you know, I understand that it's

potential lost income. I just think that, you know, developing it in an assured fashion that

we know is going to be in fitting with a neighborhood area and of actual benefit to the

people in the area would be the way to go. So I would -- I would propose a planned

development versus just open industrial zoning. I guess I also have some doubt in my

mind as to the actual need for more industrial land at that end of town. I mean, I can't

say. I'm not a realtor person, but I know there's land that is not developed along

Rangeline and just north of Brown School, and just -- I know there's some land for sale

just south of the intersection of Brown School and 63. So, I mean, I guess I'd like to see,

is that really a true need for the community, or is that just somebody saying that

because they want to sell their land.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Burns?

MS. BURNS: Yes. In -- in -- and thank you, Kristen. I don't know if you can answer

this question or not. I just relooked at the letter from -- on behalf of the soccer club. It's

from a Chris Newman, who is a realtor with Weichert Realty. He indicates we wanted

you to know the Columbia Soccer Club supports this rezone request, but I don't think this

is coming from the soccer club, I think this is coming from someone -- Brad? Thank you.

MR. KELLEY: Yeah. Thank you. I had that same question when I first saw it, so I

asked the applicant to provide some kind of link to this person to the soccer club. They

provided me the minutes to the Board of Directors for the soccer club, and Chris Newman

was listed as a member on that. And that's the information I have. The applicant may be

able to provide more.

MS. BURNS: Okay. Sorry. I think we're starting down the road to answer that.

Thank you.

MS. SOEHNGEN: Yeah. I don't know.

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

MS. CARROLL: You said that your backyard was facing the industrial portion? I

wasn't clear.

MS. SOEHNGEN: Yeah. So --

MS. CARROLL: Are you able to point that out?

MS. SOEHNGEN: Yeah. I could definitely point that out. So, you know, if you point

your cursor three houses to the left -- or, I'm sorry -- your left, my right, so I don't know

whatever -- that direction. There you go. Or one house over more. One more. That's my

house. And from my deck, it's a big open field. You know, it's not like -- you know, it

looks like it's way far away, but it's just a big open field. There's nothing there, you know.

So I stand on my deck, I see -- I mean, basically, I see the line of trees that goes down

the road toward the jail across the field. So, I mean, basically, we're talking about

building something in front of that, and so I care what it is.

MS. CARROLL: Yeah. My understanding was that is intended to be M-C -- stay as

M-C as it's currently zoned, and the industrial portion is the northernmost portion.

MS. SOEHNGEN: It is the northernmost portion. But what I'm saying is, you can

see completely across the field. There's nothing in the way of seeing across the field.

It's just a big grassy field, so, yeah. The -- the portion across the way is just plainly

visible. That's basically what I'm saying. I mean, I can see the foxes running across the

field.

MS. CARROLL: Yeah. So you're concerned that you'll see the industrial at the

northernmost --

MS. SOEHNGEN: Whatever it is. If it's an industrial complex, it's what I'm going to

see when I stand on my deck. And I understand the need to develop, but I'm just saying

I'd rather know what it's going to be and not have the possibility of any of these options.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else, questions for this speaker? My question would

be the same as to the previous person, as well. You are looking at the M-C portion. That

will be developed differently. If that portion is developed as a neighborhood market area,

then, like, that will be between you and the industrial, and that could very well be uses

that you use every day.

MS. SOEHNGEN: So that little -- the little extra portion, that's what you're talking

about?

MS. GEUEA JONES: No. No. I'm talking about --

MS. SOEHNGEN: No. Okay. The M-C.

MS. GEUEA JONES: -- everything that's in the field.

MS. SOEHNGEN: Right. Yeah. It's just that nothing has been there for 28 years.

How long is that going to be -- and how long is it going to be open, and there's just going

to be an industrial thing across the field?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Sure. So, again, you -- you would say planned development.

So you're not opposed to it being developed, you just want to know what's going in?

MS. SOEHNGEN: Right.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Thank you very much.

MS. SOEHNGEN: Uh-huh.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Seeing no one else, thank you very much for your time.

Anyone else to speak on this case? Don't be shy.

MR. MURPHY: Good evening. Kevin Murphy with A Civil Group, offices at 3401

Broadway Business Park Court. I just wanted to touch on some of the issues that were

brought up. Yes. There's a large portion of M-C that's going to buffer this IG north of

Brown School Road. There is M-C south and directly adjacent to these properties that

will be developed with lights and -- and M-C could have 24-hour operation, whereas IG,

typically, industrial uses are daytime uses and -- and whatnot. There's some IZ -- IG at

the southeast corner of Oakland Gravel, Brown School, and whatnot that, yes, it is for

sale, but it does have a small contractor in there, I believe, a critter control type place

that is utilizing that. It's a very small parcel and -- but it is being utilized for that. The IG

property, it has the highest level of screening, so we will have a level three screening, a

ten-foot screen buffered area with landscaping, and an eight-foot-tall fence on three sides,

next to the driveway to the soccer park, all along the soccer park, and all along M-C

zoning to the south, so that will be there, as well. To Ms. Placier's concerns about the

road, again, improvements, depending on the impact, will happen. Any development on

here regardless will have sidewalks put along there. The sooner sidewalks go in there, I

think -- I think the better myself. As far as the marijuana uses or whatnot, I think -- I'm

pretty sure all those licenses are given out, and so that's not something that's going to

happen anytime soon unless the State ups those up. But Brown School Road is a major

arterial. It's expected to expand someday to four-plus lanes and whatnot, so any

concerns of traffic along there, again, there's room for that improvement to happen in

time. Property values, there's an IG zoning, a jail, a couple of juvenile facilities just

immediately to the north of this. These properties were zoned M-C and IG when these

people bought their houses, when this was developed, and any -- any appraiser would

take that into value -- or into effect. And so this isn't necessarily going to affect those

property values at all. As far as the noise, lights, traffic, again, we're next to Highway 63.

We have a soccer field across the way that's got 60, 70 foot tall lights where any lights

on our property would be limited to 24 foot in height, inward and downward directed. And

I believe a lot of traffic that they see now is traffic -- industrial traffic, possibly, coming

from Highway 63 going to Brown Station to Rangeline because that's the quickest route.

We've heard some complaints that it would be vice versa, trucks coming up Rangeline

and coming east, but with today's GPS and the fuel prices and just trying to be efficient,

the efficient -- most efficient way to get to this property, if there were any truck traffic

associated with it, would be from Highway 63 directly to the site and back to Highway 63.

And I think that covers about everything I wanted to say.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you.

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

Any other one -- anyone else to speak. I was going to say, I thought we saw someone

trying to get up behind you, Mr. Murphy.

MS. HEINEN: My name is Donna Heinen, and I'm a neighbor to Kristen at -- I'm at

2109 Dickinson Court.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Pull your mike down to -- yeah. Pull your mike down. Thank

you.

MS HEINEN: Donna Heinen. I'm at 2109 Dickinson Court. I'm a neighbor to Kristen.

And I just want to share the same concerns that she shared. I am concerned about,

even though I know it's been addressed, that Brown School is going to widen maybe at

some point. It's already -- the traffic is already pretty loud in that area. And -- and it has

been such a beautiful area, being able to look out on that soccer field. And I do have one

question and one concern. What if, if this zoned industrial and you have that soccer field,

if they decide they want to sell, will that industrial zoning then become a large industrial

zone then for larger industries to come in?

MS. GEUEA JONES: They would have to come in as the new owners and request

some kind of zoning. It would not automatically become industrial. And currently it's

planned district for the entire soccer park.

MR. KELLEY: Correct.

MS. GEUEA JONES: So if they wanted to build something there at all, they'd have

to come and see us.

MS. HEINEN: Okay. I just didn't know if that would make it easier for them to then

say, hey, we want this to be a large industrial area because it would be easy since it's

just a wide-open soccer field. So that's just something that popped into my mind as I

was sitting her listening, or when I heard a realtor actually sent the letter in supporting

this from the soccer field, that -- that concerned me, so -- I -- and maybe -- maybe my

concerns are unfounded, but I just don't want to think of that turning into a large industrial

area.

MS. GEUEA JONES: That's a pretty massive piece of property. I doubt that there's

an easy way to answer that, but I can tell you this. It would be a very long process if

anyone wanted to make that something other than a soccer field.

MS. HEINEN: Okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Sorry. Go ahead. Commissioner Placier? Or if you're done

with your statement, we'll start asking you questions now.

MS. HEINEN: Sure. Sure.

MS. GEUEA HONE: Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Yeah. I had a couple of questions. Are you at all convinced by the

buffering that's going to be on three sides of the proposed IG is both landscape and

eight-foot fending, that would shield the view of whatever goes there?

MS. HEINEN: That does make me feel better. I will say I attended the meeting last

week, and I -- if something does happen there, then that does make me feel better that

there would be trees, hopefully, surrounding the area so that we wouldn't -- is that what

you're alluding to? So that would help if that goes in. If something is going to go in there,

I hope that we see a lot of trees and that we still see a lot of nature because that's one of

the things I appreciate about the area, that we have a lot of trees, and it's a beautiful view,

and I just don't want to destroy that.

MS. PLACIER: Well, just to follow up to that. Were you aware when you moved in

there, which might not have been all that long ago, that that whole area across the road

was zoned commercial and had been for many years?

MS. HEINEN: Yeah. I didn't know -- now, actually, I have -- I live in the area that that

large lot behind us is commercial, and I knew that, and that's been a concern to me for a

long time. But the tract that you're pointing at, well, the cursor was pointing at that's

across from what Kristen can see from her deck --

MS. PLACIER: Right.

MS. HEINEN: -- I thought that was all soccer field. I didn't think that there would

ever be anything that would obstruct that view. I had no idea what they were talking

about when MoDOT apparently came in and did this weird thing with the Brown School

Road, that there would be a little piece of that property there that could potentially be

zoned differently.

MS. PLACIER: Well, it has been for many years. That's the thing. And we have

been -- we have had this situation before that people come in and say I love that field

across from me.

MS. HEINEN: Yeah.

MS. PLACIER: And for decades, I did not know that it was zoned commercial --

MS. HEINEN: Yeah. Yeah. And I've lived there 20 years. Yeah.

MS. PLACIER: which does allow -- which does allow the owner then to -- I mean,

you could have a convenience mart, you could have lots of things there. So this is a

possibility, and I'm not saying it's a great possibility, I'm just saying that has been the

reality of this situation for your neighborhood.

MS. HEINEN: Yeah. Yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else, questions for this speaker? Commissioner

Carroll?

MS. CARROLL: I'm going to have a clarification question, just that I want to be clear

on this with staff. This was zoned -- so the portion that's already zoned M-C, this was

zoned M-C prior to when Brown School Road changed, how they wanted to move. That --

that portion would have been zoned M-C regardlessly. Correct?

MR. KELLEY: Yes. That was 1995, it was zoned C-3. The transition to that today

is M-C.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Thank you very much for your time. Anyone else

to speak on this case, please come forward.

MR. OLMSTEAD: Hi. I'm Kyle Olmstead; I live in the Auburn Hills neighborhood at

5104 Hatteras Drive. I just have some concerns with the lack of clarity around the

industrial movement. The rest of it totally fine, but developing commercial would love to

live near more commercial places, but the light industrial park does make me concerned,

and I have no additional information that's -- rather than what's already been said, so

happy to answer any questions.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thanks. Any questions for Mr. Olmstead? Commissioner

Wilson?

MS. WILSON: If you can, can you articulate what your concern is with the light

industrial?

MR. OLMSTEAD: Well, the change in traffic patterns would be one concern. The

hypothetical for some increased environmental stress depending on what is developed

there. One concern I would have is we have been conversing around the best case

scenario for a light industrial development, but the neighbors and the neighborhoods

around it will have to deal with a possible worst case scenario, and that is where my

concern around the -- the speculative nature of it. And I know there would be something

that would be discussed further, and I hope there would be an opportunity to have a

neighborhood meeting maybe in Auburn Hills or at least I could reach out for further

clarity. But one quick mention was, you know, there needs to be trust, and I recognize,

of course, that's part of the process. But once the trust is done and you walk away from

it, there will be the neighborhood and the neighbors around it that deal with whatever

those consequences are of an unenforceable promise. And so it just makes me nervous,

but I say that also again to repeat as someone who is fully on board with commercial

development and things like that, it's the light industrial that makes me -- that gives me

pause.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Thank you very much for being here

tonight. Anyone else to speak?

MR. ILSLEY: I am Matt Ilsley; I live at 2108 Dickinson Court. I am a neighbor to

Donna and to Kristen, as well. I would like to support everything that was said by my

neighbors. The biggest thing that gives me pause is the uncertainty of what would go into

the industrial zoning. I know we've heard that it'll be a contractor-type building. My son

is a contractor. He has leased buildings like that. I understand there is a need for that,

but there is no guarantee that that is what will be there. It is too broad. I'm 62 years old.

I've had a lot of promises made over my life, and I would be rich if I got a dollar for every

one that was broken. So that is my primary concern, as well as the traffic issue,

particularly that four-way stop there. The Brown School-Oakland Gravel, that is

problematic most of the time especially during busy times, morning and night. We have

issues with people speeding through there, people not stopping at stop signs, and adding

additional traffic, truck traffic, even if it is contractors, people coming in and out of a road

that is now the least used of the four is just only going to add to the troubles that we have

as a neighborhood getting into and out of our neighborhood.

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

Commissioner Carroll?

MS. CARROLL: Yeah. You said you supported the comments of your neighbors.

We've heard some different comments tonight, so I -- I just want to clarify.

MR. ILSLEY: Okay.

MS. CARROLL: I understand your comments about being uncomfortable with

industrial. Were you -- were you comfortable or uncomfortable with commercial -- with

that M-C --

MR. ILSLEY: It depends on what goes in.

MS. CARROLL: Okay.

MR. ILSLEY: For example, I've heard some people say that a convenience store

could go in. I would be opposed to that because where my property is located, I would

be subjected to the 24/7 traffic and light pollution of a business of that nature. Yes, I was

aware that that property was commercial, and I took a chance when we bought our

property. And there would be appropriate uses, in my opinion, for that property near a

neighborhood. But something that generates a lot of traffic, a lot of light would not be

beneficial even if it is something that is deemed as, oh, it's a benefit to you because it's a

place for you to go shopping. I can find a lot of places to go shop that I don't have to do it

in my backyard.

MS. CARROLL: Do you feel that the light controls and buffering required by the UDC

will provide any protection for you?

MR. ILSLEY: Are you referring to the current zoning or if something were to be built

near to my property.

MS. CARROLL: I'm talking about the current M-C zoning.

MR. ILSLEY: The current M-C zoning. It probably would not. That has been a

concern of mine as development has occurred. The neighborhood has grown around

those properties. Personally, I think those properties would be better used as either

residential or park land or something like that. That would be more of a benefit to the

neighborhoods than commercial property would be.

MS. CARROLL: Okay. Thank you.

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

for being here tonight.

MR. ILSLEY: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else to speak on this case?

MS. TONYAN: Good evening. My name is Emily Tonyan; I live at 4602 Bolton

Court, so it's a little bit further into the neighborhood here. And I'll actually -- it's a little off

the topic, not off topic, but a little different from what everybody else has been expressing

concerns on. So tract 1, the weird shaped track that's across from Nathaniel Drive, my

concern is hearing from -- it's -- it's to be developed to M-C, which it's not really usable for

anything other than, as I think it was mentioned, water runoff. It's hard to tell, but you

can basically kind of figure it out when there's tree lines, so there's -- it's a natural runoff

there anyway. My concern is if that gets developed -- if commercial development

happens, it -- it happens, but if the parking lots and any sort of drainage, it does -- the

grading on that already goes down, there's natural prairie there already, and on top of not

ever being mowed by whoever owns it now, I believe that holds enough water to prevent it

from flooding into the neighborhood because that tree line, it crosses Brown School, and

there's a natural flowing creek there. That creek goes into my backyard, and I've already

had rising water previously from natural rainfall just this last year. I've only lived in the

neighborhood a couple of years, but I -- I don't know the exact specific number of houses

that would affect, and you can even see the pond there on the other side where the

soccer fields are. Again, that's just a low-lying area overall, so you remove any sort of

field grass that is already there, my concern is the actual environment impact of that

draining into our neighborhood and going all the way -- that creek goes into actual Lane

Middle School area, too. So that would be more of a concern to me. I mean, I

understand if it's already zoned M-C, development is possible, but that's just something

that hasn't been discussed yet. And then I can answer questions on other feelings for

the development, but that's something I don't think was really mentioned at all through

any of the development meetings or just it seems like a simple solution to turn that into a

drainage when that's my concern of what would actually that would mean for the

neighborhood.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. And thank you for bringing up new points. I

appreciate that. Anyone with questions for this speaker? Thank you very much. Thank

you for your time. Any other questions -- or any other speakers on this case?

MS. BENNETT DAVIS: Good evening. I'm Rita Bennett Davis; I live at 4505

Hockaday Place. So I am very much more central in the neighborhood of Arcadia, but I

just wanted to share. We -- we've been a 20-year resident in that neighborhood, and it is

a -- there's large families there, small children, teenagers in the area. We walk that

neighborhood a lot. In fact, every day out in the summer, I'm walking that neighborhood.

And, in fact, along Brown School Road, I use that as my path. And one of the things it's

-- it hasn't been brought forward, but I think a concern of mine and probably my

husband's, as well, is that there was, at one time, a lot of criminal activity that kind of

bled into the neighborhood. Since that has some -- somewhat resolved, which I think

we've all been very happy with. But I think not knowing what could potentially go into that

area would be a concern for all of the neighbors because, depending on the type of

people that you may bring into that area could potentially draw crime back through the

neighborhood. And so with it being a family neighborhood and with having teenagers and

small children and lots of play area, it would be a concern of mine -- the unknown.

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

Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Yes. What's your worst-case scenario? I'm -- I'm trying to imagine

a crime magnet if this does become a contracting and construction facility. Just tell me

why that might be a crime magnet, or were you thinking of some of the other possible

uses?

MS. BENNETT DAVIS: Well, I think dependent upon what goes in there. So I know

that there was a discussion about marijuana. So I don't know if all the licenses are used

up. I don't have that knowledge base, so I apologize. But having a dispensary, if that's

even able to go into that area, or a convenience store, that -- that can draw certain

crowds that, in and out, I feel like could potentially bring crowds that would bring criminal

activity, as well.

MS. PLACIER: Now, this evening, we're just considering that IG area, the red area

there to the north on the map. So we don't know what might happen with the rest of the

M-C, but I was just trying to picture what kind of land use in that area could potentially

attract crime, so --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Carroll?

MS. CARROLL: I'm wondering, we've touched on the potential for marijuana --

medical marijuana or recreational marijuana facility in that location. And I'm wondering,

we have dealt with ordinances surrounding that recently, and we have talked a bit about

the number of licenses that are out. I'm wondering if staff would like to comment on that

at all, or if --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are you asking staff to comment on whether there are any

new --

MS. CARROLL: I am asking staff to comment on whether there are any new

licenses or potential for any licenses in the area.

MR. ZENNER: There -- so the way that the City's regulation is structured on

marijuana dispensaries, all of those licenses have been issued within the City's corporate

limits. There are no additional available dispensary licenses for either medical -- and with

the new passage of recreational marijuana, there are no additional licensures being

offered at this point, only conversions of existing licensed facilities. As it relates to our

manufacturing facilities, in other -- other related medical marijuana, the licensure

restrictions that apply to dispensaries do not necessarily apply to those, but it is also my

understanding that all of those licenses, at least within this congressional district have

been issued and there are no others that are in the pipeline at this point. And I think it's

been pointed out, this particular site, given its characteristics of being as small as it is in

comparison to our other facility sites that we have, really is not conducive to this type of

development. We have a facility that actually is in the industrial park up off of Paris

Road, Route B, by the Ewing Industrial, that is a building that is the only mixed marijuana

-- medical marijuana facility. It is a -- it's a dispensary, a production facility, as well as

infused product manufacturing. It is in an industrial zoning district. It is the only one that

is within the City of Columbia. The other manufacturing facilities are located along the

industrial corridor of Route B, and they are in buildings that are substantially too large to

be placed on this property based on the way that that product is manufactured. At this

point, it is unlikely that this would be -- it is incapable of being licensed for additional

medical marijuana. That is not to say -- medical or recreational. That's not to say that if

licensure limits are expanded, that it could not be. It is not in proximity to a protected

use of a church -- a school, or a church, as I am aware of, and I would have to do

analysis. So that use is really off the table as something that I think that the public

needs to be concerned about. The dispensary would be a permissible use within the M-C

zoning district today, so that has been there since 1995. Our regulations recognize

medical marijuana after the first passage of the amendments to the State statute. So

this site would have been an available target for that, as well.

MS. CARROLL: So I'm wondering if you would feel any more comfortable with the

knowledge that there are not likely to be any remaining licenses in this congressional

district for another medical marijuana -- comprehensive marijuana site at that location,

and that the existing zoning wouldn't have changed anything in that respect for you?

MS. BENNETT DAVIS: I do appreciate that knowledge. And, yes. And I think a

dispensary or a plant in that area is just an example of what I fear because we really have

absolutely no knowledge of what we're putting so near a family neighborhood that to draw

people who may tend to -- I don't know -- engage in criminal activity is what I just worry

about passing through that neighborhood because so many people travel through the --

from, like, Brown School Road. I mean, we have travelers who come off of 63 and then

travel west on Brown School Road but bringing some of the people from -- enter to the

Brown School Road and out towards that 63, out towards where the jail is. That's what I

worry more about is the type of people that we might be bringing into that area or through

that area with having small children and having families.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Anyone else with questions for this speaker?

Seeing none. Thank you.

MS. BENNETT DAVIS: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else to speak on this case? Going once, going twice.

Thank you all for being here tonight.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comment on this case. Who would like to

start? Commissioner Burns?

MS. BURNS: Thank you. I'm glad for all the information and the people that have

taken the time to come out and speak tonight. I do hear what the neighbors have to say.

They will be impacted with an upzoning of this property, and that -- that impact could be

unknown. I think that changes the rules on existing property owners to upzone the

property when they bought their properties with an existing zoning and with existing

criteria for what the PD Plan or the M-C, the upzoning to the M-C or the IG changes that.

I also want to be honest about the zoning map. If this does go through and City Council

passes it, the map will reflect these upzones, and our body does look at surrounding

areas, so you will have an IG parcel or an M-C parcel where there was a PD. And I know

that -- I take that into consideration what surrounding zonings are if additional properties

in this area would be brought forward to be rezoned. So that might be borrowing trouble,

but it's a consideration that you all should be aware of, that if something is upzoned, then

it -- it reflects that, and that we take that into consideration when we make

recommendations to City Council. Again, I -- I have to listen to what the neighbors are

here tonight to say and the concerns about impacting their properties.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Anyone else, Commissioner comments? Go

ahead, Commissioner Carroll.

MS. CARROLL: Yeah. So I do view two different zoning requests here. We have an

M-C request for the bit on the south that needs zoning to add to the existing one, and we

have the request for industrial on the farthest north. I do view those two very differently. I

understand your reservations -- the neighbors' reservations related to the industrial zoning

that is an upzoning. It is part of what makes -- part of what makes this a difficult case for

me is the speculative nature. And I understand, Mr. Gephardt, your situation where you

can't attract a client without the zoning, and you can't get the zoning without the client,

but I still don't want to get the cart before the horse because it does change things, as

Tootie said. And I agree we do -- we do consider surrounding zoning. I want to address

the soccer fields that exist, if they, for some reason, decided to sell that property, it is a

long process given that they’re PD zoned, and everyone would be notified, and that would

be a very large property. I think that -- that would take a lot of consideration and that

wouldn't be taken lightly just because it may be next to an industrial zone. But, to me,

the M-C zoning, since it is a very small property to be attached to existing M-C zoning

doesn't change a whole lot of the -- the types of developments that could go next to you.

The types of developments that could go next to you with this zoning, to me, are the

same as the types of developments that could go next to you if they include M-C zoning

on that small parcel next to them, so that is not a stretch for me at this point.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Anyone else? I have some thoughts. No one

here has mentioned the fact that the industrial zoning we're considering is actually going

in next to a prison, not a residential area. And I can under -- I can understand why it

might be difficult to sell this property to someone who is looking at more retail uses as

opposed to mechanic shop or, you know, some of those things. I also am keenly aware

that because of the size and because of the use specific standards that we have in our

Code, the difference between M-C and IG for this particular plot of land, they're really not

that different. Generally, what we're looking at is potentially light industrial, which go into

an M-C zone. You would need a CUP for it, but it could go into a M-C zone. And we're

not looking at heavy industrial. And for those of you who don't study our Codes, the light

industrial has to happen indoors. We're not looking at an outdoor smelter or something

like that. And as much as I respect what the neighbors are saying, what is going to be

close to them is what is going to be close to them now. The part that is changing is six

acres away, and I don't have the measurement, but it's -- it's a good distance. And right

now it seems close, because there's nothing there, but when you've got a development

between you and that next thing, I -- I don't know. I mean, it's -- it's interesting. We've

had, when we had the discussion about artisan industry, a lot of that discussion was

about there's not enough IG properties in our City, so folks who are doing smaller, light

industrial wanted the ability to do it in other commercial zones. I mean, I -- I don't know.

I'm -- I'm quite torn, but it is interesting to me that everyone is concerned about the

industrial zoning that is going in adjacent to a corrections facility, not their property, and

yet none of them seem to have a problem with that facility being in their line of sight. So I

-- again, I'm very torn. I want to see in-fill development. This is in-fill development. It is

on a major corridor. It is essentially adjacent to a highway. I don't know. Much like

Commissioner Carroll, I am not at all concerned about the little hook bit. That is

basically doing some cleanup so that someone can go in and actually make a proper

retention pond there because until you change that zoning, you can't do anything with

that little hook. So that's kind of where -- where my head is. Any other thoughts from

Commissioners? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I wrestle with it. I listened to the neighbors. I put the other hat on.

I'm trying to -- trying to balance it out, but we -- the owner of the property has pretty much

done what he's -- everything he's got to do to make this work for him. I remember when

this wasn't fully developed on the other side of this property. I was young, but we're

hollering the same thing. I -- this was pastureland, and this was, you know, don't want all

this development. Probably, basically, where you guys' houses are, they -- I remember

the scoff of them, oh, we don't want this out here. This is God's country on the edge of

the -- of the City limits, and -- it was the same argument. And so I'm, like -- I couldn't find

a win-win, and I -- and I definitely wouldn't be -- I wouldn't like being in a position of having

land for 28 years, you're trying to move it, and you can't. You're paying taxes on it. You

have vast acreage. I mean, you know -- you know, the soccer -- the soccer fields are

there, but that's not generating money -- a lot of money. Yeah. I kind of understand

maybe if it was up and off the curve, it wouldn't be right in your face across the street, but

you've got a prison right up the -- prison right up the street. It’s hard for me not to support

this because what else can you do, and I don't hear anything else, I mean to help this

owner make himself whole. I mean, he's stuck. And, you know, yeah, we all want

pastures and foxes and rolling hills and deer. It was good turkey out there, I know. And

so, I remember when I was young, I remember this spot. It was good turkey out there

before those houses that you guys probably live in right now. They were hollering about

that. So it's hard for me not to support this and -- and give the -- give the owner a shot.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: I think that a lot of this -- Mr. Gebhardt has made the argument that

leading an M-C and using a CUP was not desirable for people, that they -- that whoever

was going to be light industrial or a contractor or whoever -- whatever buyer might be

attracted to this needed a firm zoning decision, and IG seemed like the logical one. But

on the other hand, that has raised a lot of concerns with people despite the attempt to

buffer the neighborhood. I don't know what else we can ask for in terms of reassurances

about the uses other -- or the potential buyer other than the size of the lot would not allow

a lot of possible IGs. So, yeah. I'm a little bit torn, but I'm also moved by Commissioner

Stanton's argument that there's a need to move on part of this property and then maybe

the rest will follow, but I don't think it's going to make the neighbors all that happy to see

this entire boot eventually developed, but it has been zoned in accordance with that for

many, many years.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any other Commissioners? I would have the staff

go back to the weighing factors in both approval and denial, and these are specific to the

IG. Again, the zoning right now is all M-C except for the little bit that's PD. Any other

comments from Commissioners?

MS. CARROLL: Can I make one more comment?

MS. GEUEA JONES: I'll give you a second bite.

MS. CARROLL: I will be very quick with my second bite.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Carroll, go ahead.

MS. CARROLL: The comment that I forgot to make at my initial pass is about the

existing zoning. And -- and just to clarify for the neighborhood, our zoning doesn't allow

us to require this to stay as a field, and I know you may really enjoy the amenities that

having that natural land across from you provides. But even if we didn't pass this, the

majority of that property is already zoned M-C, and all of the things that we're discussing

tonight apart from the industrial can already go next to you as is. So this vote doesn't

change much of what I believe you are facing.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Kimbell?

MS. KIMBELL: I would say it is -- it is very hard because you have a -- he had a right

to sell the property and it is -- facts are facts. It is commercial. It is M-C. The flip side of

that is being a homeowner, and being a homeowner is a very personal thing. And so I do

appreciate everyone that came up and spoke tonight. I understand that. At the same

time, a fact is a fact. So with that being said, being on here just for the little bit that I

have, I've learned it is about the zoning. It's nothing personal, it is business. And that

still makes it just as hard because I'm not the one living where you're living, and whatever

is going to happen there is going to affect you. It will. The other side is we have low

inventory, so if you want to sell a house, you may not have that much trouble doing it,

providing that you want to do that. With that being said and the facts is I will probably

end up supporting what's going to be -- what's been here tonight, but I appreciate those

that did show up and share what you needed to share. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Wilson, you're the

only one. Do you have anything?

MS. WILSON: No.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. In that case, Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I just want to share -- this -- so I -- everybody knows that I share the

same feeling. I live right in town, and before that big old garage was built. Right? I had a

million-dollar shot of Jesse, Tiger, all of that, our skyline in town. I had that million-dollar

shot from my house. And there's a garage there now, a big garage. I think the biggest

one in the City. I get it. So don't think -- I get it, and it was zoned property. You had,

you know, the same scenario that I have here, and I lost out to the bigger picture. And

these -- these zoning classifications are for the bigger picture, and I lost my million-dollar

shot. And, you know, I don't think that the garage will help my property value either, but I

live with it and it was a good place to look at fireworks until they shut it down and I can't

even go to the top of that and watch the fireworks across town when the shut the top of it

off. So now I'm just stuck with a big garage. I can't even use the top four floors anymore.

So I get it. I get it. And -- so we can hopefully -- you know, the owner is here. He hears

you. Maybe work it out.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Commissioner Stanton. Is there any other

comment from Commissioners? If not, I will take a motion. Commissioner Burns?

MS. BURNS: Do you need two motions?

MS. GEUEA JONES: I do, actually. Can you go back to that slide? Thank you. I

am looking for a motion on Tract 1 only. Commissioner Burns?

MS. BURNS: In the case of 23-2023, 2205 East Brown School Road, zoning map

amendment, I move to recommend approval of Tract 1, approval of M-C zoning.

MR. STANTON: Second.

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

Stanton. Any discussion on the motion relating to Tract 1 only? This is the little hook bit

going from PD to M-C. Seeing none. Commissioner Carroll, may we have a roll call.

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

Stanton, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier, Ms. Kimbell, Ms. Wilson.

Voting No: Ms. Burns, Motion carries 6-1.

MS. CARROLL: We have six yes, and one no. The motion carries.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That -- I guess I'll wait and say that. Is there a

motion on Tract 2? I will take any kind of a motion on Tract 2. Commissioner Burns?

MS. BURNS: I will make a motion. In Case Number 23-2023, 2205 East Brown

Station School -- Brown School Road, zoning map amendment, I move to approve the IG

rezoning in Tract 2.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there a second on the motion relating to IG zoning in Tract

MS. PLACIER: Second.]

MS. GEUEA JONES: Second. Moved by Commissioner Burns, seconded by

Commissioner Placier. Any discussion on the motion relating to IG zoning in Tract 2?

Seeing none. Commissioner Carroll, may we have a roll call.

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

Voting No: Mr. Stanton, Ms. Burns, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier, Ms.

Kimbell, Ms. Wilson. Motion denied 7-0.

MS. CARROLL: We have seven no votes. The motion is denied.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Those recommendations will be sent to City

Council. For the information of the public, what that means is the entire hash marked

that you see in front of you will remain M-C zoning. This will go to City Council. It will

probably be on the consent agenda; is that right? Or, no, because it was a denial, so

that --

MR. ZENNER: Yeah. Yeah. One of the motions is a denial, so it will likely end up

on old business procedurally.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Right. Right. Which means there will be the same

notification procedures of the hearing in front of -- no, there won't be?

MR. ZENNER: No, we're not.

MS. GEUEA JONES: All right. I'm going to shut up now and let staff tell you what

happens from here. Staff, would you please inform the members of the public what the

next steps are because I am botching it tonight.

MR. ZENNER: That is all right, Madam Chair. So for the purposes of Council action,

the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to our City Council which ultimately

will hold two -- will hold two readings on this particular item. The first reading is a reading

in the record, and that is referred to as our first read. The second reading, because this

item will be under old business, will allow for public input to be heard on the case, and

that second reading will be the first Monday in March, which is March 6th, 7:00 p.m.

That'll be in this chamber. Any individual that is here this evening that would like to

speak publicly before the Council, all of the minutes this evening are verbatim. They will

be forwarded to the Commission, so -- or to the Council for their review. But if you would

like to speak again, you are more welcome to when that item is called. And, again, it is

going to be open for public comment on the March 6th agenda. The first reading, which

would be February 20th, is only an introduction and a reading of title.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Zenner. I appreciate it. All right.

Case # 51-2023

A request by JWT Architect (applicant) on behalf of Nicole and Josh

Jacomb (owners) seeking a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to permit an

Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as an attached structure to a principal

residence. The subject site is zoned R-1 (Residential single-family),

located on the eastern frontage of S Garth Ave approximately 600' south of

Stewart Rd, and is commonly addressed 506 S. Garth Avenue.

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

Staff report was given by Mr. Brad Kelley of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit to allow

an ADU on property addressed as 506 S. Garth Avenue, subject to the following,

voluntary conditions:

1. The property owner shall be a resident of either the principal dwelling unit or

accessory dwelling unit;

2. The property is limited to one (1) rental certificate registered with the Office of

Neighborhood Services.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Before we go to questions for staff, if

any member of the Commission has had outside communication with parties to this

application, please let us know now so that may all benefit from the same information.

Seeing none. Questions for staff? Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: Just for clarity, I thought -- I think you said, but I just want to confirm,

that there would be no entry from the existing house, it's from the outside only?

MR. KELLEY: Correct. Yes, ma'am.

MS. WILSON: And can you show the picture of the present home with the garage.

So it looks like there is a gate already there. Is that what they would be using?

MR. KELLEY: Let me go back to this. Yeah. Yes. The -- you can't see the entry

from here. It's around on -- it's around this area over here. Let me see if I can find an

aerial. Here's the gate in question. Right? Yeah. I can't find a good photo. Basically,

the door to this is on the north side. It goes upstairs -- directly upstairs to the second

floor, but it's roughly in here if you can see where my cursor is.

MS. WILSON: And is this -- is it attached? It's -- it's detached, it's not attached at

all?

MR. KELLEY: No. It is attached.

MS. WILSON: Is attached. Okay. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA NONES: Any other questions for staff? Seeing none. Thank you very

much.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any members of the public here to speak on this

case tonight? Please come forward.

MR. THOMPSON: Good evening. I'm Jonathan Thompson; I'm JWT Architect. I'm

here on behalf of Josh and Nicole Jacomb at 506 South Garth. I'll keep it very brief. I

think we're at that point, you know. I did want to reiterate. Brad mentioned that my

clients had spoken with the adjacent neighbors, and they had. That's written in an e-mail

that I forwarded to Brad that they had spoken to them without any opposition. I think the

empty room tonight shows that they were made aware and have not chosen to pursue

any opposition in addition to the two letters of support that we have received from people

that are directly impacted. To me, that's the important piece of our process, in addition

to meeting the conditional use permit requirements, which I think this successfully does.

Our goal is to show the intent that the owner wishes to owner occupy and, you know,

kind of maintain the character of the neighborhood in context. So, with that, I'll keep it

brief, and turn it back over to comment. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Just one moment.

MR. THOMPSON: Oh, sorry. Yes. If there any questions?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any questions? Commissioner Burns?

MS. BURNS: Parking; will there be any additional accommodations for parking?

MR. THOMPSON: Technically, the driveway will accommodate the additional -- an

addition -- sorry. The driveway with the garage existing will accommodate the four

spaces that we would need for any additional temporary -- you know, kind of short-term

scenario.

MS. BURNS: Okay. The four spaces that -- that driveway will accommodate four

spaces?

MR. THOMPSON: It could be tandem. Yes, ma'am.

MS. BURNS: Okay.

MR. THOMPSON: And I do have a sketch that indicates the -- if that's helpful.

MS. BURNS: No. I -- if you say it is, then they better have small cars.

MR. THOMPSON: Okay. I've shown it with vans, if that's helpful, so --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? Or I'm sorry. Commissioner Burns, were you

finished?

MS. BURNS: Yes. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? My question: I may have misheard.

The first floor of the addition would be used by the existing home, and the second floor is

the ADU; is that correct?

MR. THOMPSON: That's correct.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Thank you. I just -- I was -- I thought that's what I

heard, and then my brain was trying to reconcile that with the concept design which I

appreciate you providing. That's very helpful. So thank you. That' helps me.

MR. THOMPSON: Right.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Pure curiosity. Okay. So the second floor of the AU is like an

extension of the primary home, like a den?

MS. GEUEA JONES: First floor.

MR. STANTON: The first floor.

MR. THOMPSON: The first floor is connected, and I think the use intent, you know,

would be to -- it would be similar to a garage, you know, maybe storage or workshop

use. We've given some -- some doors that offer, you know, access to the backyard, and

there are doors that access to the garage within that envelope line.

MR. STANTON: So the true rentable space is upstairs where that balcony is at?

MR. THOMPSON: That's correct, and that's the limited ADU request. Yes, sir.

MR. STANTON: Okay. And they get to it from stairs coming from the front?

MR. THOMPSON: Where that gate would be, the intent is to have the access --

MR. STANTON: Isolated from the downstairs part of the --

MR. THOMPSON: That's correct. We would have a door to the -- you know, I

guess, rear of the addition, the two-story addition, and then a stair that makes a turn and

goes up, so that's the intent, at least.

MR. STANTON: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Anyone else, questions for this speaker? Seeing

none. Thank you very much.

MR. THOMPSON: All right. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else to speak on this case? Seeing none.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any Commissioner comment on the case? Commissioner

Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I'm excited. This is exactly what we worked weeks to hash out,

and somebody had the cojones to try it, and this is what I want to see. I want to see

more of these, too. I mean, this is what we wanted -- well designed, hope they use

quality material, hope they do what they say they're going to do and stand on what I'm

seeing in this rendering. If this is what they develop, this is great. Innovative, everything.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.

MR. STANTON: And they've got the neighbors' blessing.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. They did -- they did the work.

MR. STANTON: They did. This is what we want.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else to comment on the case? Anyone like to make

a motion? Could we go back to our handy-dandy crib sheet? Thank you. Anyone like to

make a motion on this case? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: As it relates to Case 51-2023, 506 South Garth Avenue,

conditional-use permit for the ADU, I move to approve the requested conditional use

permit to allow an ADU on property addressed at 506 South Garth Avenue, subject to the

following voluntary conditions: The property owner shall be a resident of either the

principal dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit; and the property is limited to one rental

certificate registered with the Office of Neighborhood Services.

MS. KIMBELL: Second.

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

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

Commissioner Carroll, may we please have a roll call.

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

Stanton, Ms. Burns, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier, Ms. Kimbell, Ms.

Wilson. Motion carries 7-0.

MS. CARROLL: We have seven votes to approve. The motion carries.

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

Thank you very much.

As it relates to Case 51-2023, 506 South Garth Avenue, conditional-use permit for

the ADU, move to approve the requested conditional use permit to allow an ADU

on property addressed at 506 South Garth Avenue, subject to the following

voluntary conditions: The property owner shall be a resident of either the

principal dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit; and the property is limited to

one rental certificate registered with the Office of Neighborhood Services.

7 - Burns, Stanton, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Kimbell, Placier and Wilson

2 - Loe and MacMann

Yes:

Excused:

VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any general public comments for tonight? Seeing

none.

VIII. STAFF COMMENTS

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Zenner -- or Commissioner Zenner. Lord, I'm

tired tonight. Mr. Zenner, would you please give us our staff comments.

MR. ZENNER: I'm not sure I want to be elevated to the level of Commissioner. I like

my place where I'm at at the table.

MS. PLACIER: Downzoning or upzoning?

MR. ZENNER: You have a meeting coming up on February 9th. I can't believe we're

already in February. So we do have a meeting February 9th. We will have a work

session on February 9th. What we will discuss, I don't know yet. I'll make it up as we go

along. Maybe we'll have trivia that night; who knows? We do have -- so our work session

will start at 5:30. We will have our regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. On that 7:00 p.m.

meeting, we will have a conditional use permit off of Fay Street, so this is going to be

north of where the Logboat Brewery is -- thank you. I get confused where all of our

breweries are. So this is just north of Logboat Brewery. This is a distillery that is

wanting to add a tasting room to its facilities, and as such, it is classified as a bar. And

in the IG zoning district, a bar requires a conditional use permit. So that will be

discussed by your senior over here, Mr. Kelley. And then we have a second request that

is being proposed off of South Ponderosa. This is a rezoning to -- of -- of a portion of

property that is in Discovery, so we're coming back to the Discovery development. Some

of you may be eagerly awaiting the next round we have down there. This is a rezoning of

a portion of property that is actually split zoned right now between PD and C -- or M-C,

what used to be C3. We are looking at taking the PD portion -- we are looking at taking

the M-C portion, and converting it to PD, and then having a PD Plan approved on this.

The tract of land is immediately south of the existing hotel and Park Avenue Restaurant --

or Park Restaurant that is down in Discovery right off of Ponderosa. It is the first of

several requests that we are going to be seeing coming forward in Discovery over the next

couple of months as it relates to some movement that we're seeing down in the

development at this point to try to continue to bring on online some additional commercial

activities to support the residential rooftops that are down there. So we will see some

additional changes, not necessarily rezonings, but some planned district plans that we'll

be dealing with. Give you the oversight of where we are -- or the overview. Our 700 Fay

Street immediately on the north side of the railroad tracks, and then our Ponderosa

Street rezoning request from M-C to PD. The piece that is to the west of the triangle

that's highlighted is actually already zoned PD, and we are going to be merging the

hashed area into the PD zoning district still leaving a quite significant portion of open M-C

along Ponderosa as you come back down to the interchange with Gans. So there still is

a significant amount of flexibility associated with those commercial uses. The stuff that

then is more or less fronting onto Nocona will be retained within the -- in the PD zoning

classification that it is presently in, and there will be plans submitted on that over the

next several months. We've seen in concept review, and I think they're working on

finishing the details. With that, that is all we have planned for the February 9th meeting.

I will need to go back and I will need to look at my application submissions that we

received on Tuesday of this week. Those are submissions that would be for the February

23rd meeting. We have tabled items to that agenda. We may not have any additional

items that will be discussed, so we may only have the two tabled items down off of New

Haven and Lenoir Street to discuss, so that would be your material for the 23rd's meeting,

as well. With that, that's all we have to offer. Thank you very much for hanging in there

tonight as we debated and discussed 28-year-old zoning and proposed changes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you for your help.

IX. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any Commissioner comments? Seeing none.

X. NEXT MEETING DATE - February 9, 2023 @ 7 pm (tentative)

XI. ADJOURNMENT

MS. GEUEA JONES: Would anyone like to move to adjourn?

MS. CARROLL: Move to adjourn.

MR. STANTON: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner Carroll; seconded by Commissioner

Stanton. Without objection, we are adjourned.

(The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.

(Off the record)

Move to adjourn