City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Council Chambers

Columbia City Hall

701 E. Broadway

Thursday, February 9, 2023

7:00 PM

Regular Meeting

I. CALL TO ORDER

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

to order. Oh, I'm sorry, Peggy. I didn't -- I thought you were just turned around in the

chair.

II. INTRODUCTIONS

MS. GEUEA JONES: All right. Now, Commissioner Carroll, may we please have a

roll call.

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?

MS. LOE: Here.

MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Present.

MS. CARROLL: We have nine; we have a quorum.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.

9 -

Present:

Tootie Burns, Sara Loe, Anthony Stanton, Michael MacMann, Valerie Carroll,

Sharon Geuea Jones, Robbin Kimbell, Peggy Placier and Shannon Wilson

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MS. GEUEA JONES: With that, are there any changes or adjustments to the

agenda tonight, Mr. Zenner?

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

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Is --

MR. MACMANN: Move to approve.

MR. STANTON: Second.

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

Commissioner Stanton. Thumbs up approval of the agenda?

(Unanimous vote for approval.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Unanimous. Thank you.

Move to approve.

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

January 19, 2023 Regular Meeting

MS. GEUEA JONES: Next, we all received a copy of the January 19th, 2023 regular

meeting minutes. Were there any adjustments or changes to the minutes? Seeing

none.

MR. MACMANN: Move to approve.

MR. STANTON: Second.

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

Commissioner Stanton. Thumbs up approval of the minutes? Unanimous with one

abstention.

(Eight votes for approval; one abstention.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Loe was absent last time. Thank you.

Move to approve.

V. PUBLIC HEARINGS

Case # 66-2023

A request by Smith Lewis, LLP (agent), on behalf of Arcade District, LLC

(owner), seeking approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 'bar' within

an existing distillery. The 0.5-acre property is currently zoned IG (Industrial),

is located approximately 400' south of the intersection of Wilkes Blvd and

Fay St, and is commonly addressed 700 Fay Street.

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 CUP for a "bar or nightclub" use as

requested on the approximately 0.5-acres, commonly addressed as 700 Fay Street,

subject to:

1. An ADA-compliant sidewalk, striped crosswalk, and appropriate signage are

constructed, by the owner, at a location on Fay Street that will not

require utility relocation and is acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer.

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

any member of the Commission has received any outside communication from parties or

other interested folks on this case, please disclose it now so that we all have the same

information. Seeing none. Any questions for staff? Commissioner Burns?

MS. BURNS: Could you please go back to the interior configuration of the three

areas? Thank you. In thinking about the parking that is, what, 12 stalls, 80 percent of

the required parking, if the bar was expanded, would that trigger additional parking for this

location? What I'm saying is it sounded like that they had -- their fabrication had already

outgrown the use in the space, and so that possibly other uses, maybe additional bar

use, could be moved into the yellow area. Is it a total square footage of the space that

triggers the parking requirement, or is it -- does the bar impact?

MR. KELLEY: Yeah. So the manufacturing space here, there's 2,000 square feet.

That just requires two spaces. The parking ratio for that is one parking stall is required

for every 1,000 square feet of the manufacturing space, whereas for the bar, the ratio is

one space per every 150 square feet. So, yes. If the bar space -- if they started to reuse

the manufacturing space for a bar, they would require significantly more parking.

MS. BURNS: And how would we check on that?

MR. KELLEY: They would file a building permit and then we review that through the

change of use. We would examine the parking that they're providing. So one -- and we

would say, well, do they meet the 75 percent minimum and look at it that way.

MS. BURNS: The parking looks at a premium, so I was just curious if the use did

change, how additional parking could be converted. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Burns. It's a

very interesting -- I was there today and I didn't consider that. We'll look into this

possibility. I have two questions for my -- I just was on the outside. The lane/street that

is in front of the property, is that owned by Mr. Campbell? Does the City own that? Does

COLT own that? Is it drivable? Because it's not really marked, and I was wondering if -- I

was wondering about people parking there if that's a public right-of-way or emergency exit

or something like that.

MR. KELLEY: It's right-of-way for the COLT Railroad. It's not a named street. I

talked to the State traffic engineer. He called it a service road for the COLT Railroad. It

doesn't show up on the City map as street right-of way, per se.

MR. MACMANN: Okay. To follow up on that, COLT is not really coming down much

-- downtown much anymore. That railroad is really not in use, not that it can't be used.

But, to my knowledge, COLT is not really bringing things downtown. Is that -- my

question is the -- this bar is right next to a functional railroad line, and I was wondering

about safety issues in regard to that.

MR. KELLEY: I -- I don't know about the word functional necessarily. My last

knowledge of service on this road is that there is a bridge for the COLT Railroad that was

in disrepair and there was one customer affected by that. I know the City has made other

decisions specifically about there's a street opened up on -- that made connection into

Paris Road that was adding an at-grade crossing to the rail, and -- and I know that

decision was made with the knowledge that COLT was not currently in service, and that

decision would not have been made if COLT were in service.

MR. MACMANN: Well, let me -- let me pop forward. Were COLT to come -- I know

of -- I know of this customer and they're not necessarily happy about not having rail

service anymore. If that rail service was to come back, just as a supply service, not a

dinner train or anything like that, will that change the analysis of the functional --

functionality of this property?

MR. KELLEY: It could, yeah. I mean, you're talking about -

MR. MACMANN: Because it's 15 feet away, 20 feet away? It's not far.

MR. KELLEY: Uh-huh.

MR. MACMANN: And I -- you know, I'm all for it. It's a great thing in likes of the area

redone. I'm just concerned about, number one, people parking on that. I actually drove

on that today, and I've driven on it before because I’m like -- because it didn't -- it has

been repaved or concreted, if you will in the last few years, and before it wasn't really

drivable, and now it is drivable. So I'm just worrying about vehicles coming up and down

that lane and are we safe enough. Will the patrons be safe enough for the railroad if the

railroad comes back in use, because right now we're on a, like, a policy moratorium.

We're not using the railroad because it's not workable upstream so to speak, but that

doesn't mean it's -- I mean, the railroad works, it was functional. And do we know how

we would make that analysis if the railroad did again become functional?

MR. KELLEY: Yeah. I think my main concern would then be pedestrians crossing

the COLT Railroad there along Fay, people walking across that if that were an active rail

line; I think that would be my main concern. One other thing that I noted was the -- on

the City's CIP list, it does show the COLT Railroad Trail proposed phase of this roughly

2030, I think is what I saw, so I was balancing --

MR. MACMANN: That is unfunded, though. That's a conceptual --

MR. KELLEY: Yeah.

MR. MACMANN: Yeah. Okay. I appreciate bouncing this off you because there

were some unanswered questions that I have. Thank you very much. Thank you,

Madam Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Anyone else, questions for staff? Sorry.

Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Madam Chair, I’ll go after you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, thank you. Yeah. I -- I guess my question is similar to

Commissioner Burns. If they were to start using the green space as outdoor, you know,

recreation, whether it's through the tasting room or retail sampling or something of that

nature, that's going to drive a lot more traffic, as well. Will that go into the calculation or

I'm assuming they're not prohibited from doing that with that green space?

MR. KELLEY: Correct. I don't think that would factor in to my knowledge.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MR. KELLEY: With just yard -- yard space.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. My other question is it looks to me that the other lots

that people might illegally park in are Columbia College lots around there or other

business lots. There aren't any City owned lots or public parking lots around there.

They're all private. Correct?

MR. KELLEY: Correct. There is on -- the only public parking that would be available

or that I would be aware of is the street parking on Fay Street.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I've had recent experience

with the railroad and they're tough customers. I don't -- so I guess my worry, my thing is

who's going to bite the bullet and who's responsible for that railroad even being dead or

alive, and if it's alive, who's responsible for the safety measures that I know all railroads

have along their rails? That -- was that put into your -- was that put into your formula, or

were you -- are you just that confident enough to know that COLT is dead forever and,

whether they'll look around for them -- you know --

MR. KELLEY: Not necessarily. Public Works has made traffic engineering

decisions based on the understanding that the COLT Railroad is not active right now, and

I was largely leaning on that.

MR. STANTON: Okay.

MR. ZENNER: I think what we have to keep in mind here is if it is a COLT Railroad

service road and the property line for this particular building is at that service road

boundary, this, in essence, is what would normally be addressed through a right-of-use

permit for them to be able to access that access road to access their rear parking. If we

are required to provide safety measures and we choose to fence along our property line or

where our rights of ownership end, that is our choice, and at that point, accommodation

may need to be given for the existing access that is here in order to do that, or the

operator is going to have to relocate how they get to the rear of their building to access

their parking. Right now, the analysis has been done based upon how the operational

characteristics are of the existing rail line based upon the additional support and

documentation that's been provided by the City's traffic engineer. So, I mean, the -- the

scenarios that are being asked here, if we included that or something that really wasn't

included generally, this is an existing condition. This is how this building accesses its

rear parking, and that will either have to be addressed at a later date through some other

fashion that the City has, or it's going to continue to access as it does today.

MR. STANTON: So this service road is used at the pleasure of COLT at this time,

basically?

MR. ZENNER: That would probably be, and those that -- the service road is actually

probably being used by the adjoining businesses at the leisure of COLT --

MR. STANTON: Yes.

MR. ZENNER: -- not COLT is using the road at their leisure. They own it, they're not

enforcing limiting people from using it. It is a means of access to these existing

structures.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else, questions for staff? Seeing none. We will open

the floor to public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any members -- please come forward. Speak

directly into the microphone. Give us your name and address for the record. We give six

minutes to groups, three minutes to individuals. Welcome.

MS. LAMAR: Good evening. My name is Phebe Lamar; I have offices at 111 South

Ninth Street. I'm here this evening on behalf of the Arcade District, LLC, which owns the

property at 700 Fay Street south of Wilkes, as well as Isham's Ordinary, LLC, which is

the owner and operator of the Six-Mile Ordinary Distillery that is currently located in that

building. As staff has mentioned, some of the distillery operations have been relocated

because Six Mile Ordinary has outgrown the facility on Fay Street. As a result, the

desire is to convert part of the space in this building, not the whole space, into a tasting

room, and include education regarding the distillation process, as well. The property is

zoned IG, which means that although the distillery functions are permitted as of right, the

tasting room requires a conditional use permit. There are several criteria for determining

whether a conditional use permit may be granted. I'm going to go through all of them.

First, does the proposed use comply with all standards and provisions in the ordinances

for the zoning district. As staff pointed out in its report, the proposed tasting room use is

common in conjunction with this type of distillery. I've been to some of them myself in a

number of other towns, which is appropriately located here. The building complies with

all zoning requirements and the necessary amount of parking is provided. Secondly, is

this use consistent with the comprehensive plan? In a word, yes. This promotes infill

development and a small scale entrepreneur with retail and service components in a

walkable environment. Will the use be in conformance with the character of the adjacent

area in the same zoning district? Also yes. The area is in the process of transitioning to

an entertainment and recreation district. The use is consistent with the recent

development in the area such as the mixed-use building across the street, Logboat

Brewery down the street, et cetera. Is adequate access provided and does the design

prevent traffic hazards and minimize traffic congestion? The issue was the one that we

addressed most in detail in regard to this plan. Staff expressed concerns with pedestrian

access and a visit to the site suggests that while it's uncertain whether this would

actually be an issue, the owner of this property, who also owns other properties in the

areas, as well, is willing to address it in the fashion requested by City staff. Specifically,

he will construct an ADA compliant sidewalk on the portion of the property that does not

require relocation of utilities and will provide a crosswalk in a location to be determined by

City traffic. The Arcade District is, of course, willing to make these improvements to the

public infrastructure in order to advance the safety and well-being of pedestrians and other

visitors in the area. Also, given the number of vehicles that are frequently left parking on

Fay Street, which includes a number that are damaged or otherwise unattended, we

would like to start a conversation about how to address that issue going forward, whether

that be by metered parking or in some other fashion. The next criteria is whether there's

sufficient infrastructure and services to support the proposed use. Unequivocally, yes.

The site is served by all utilities with sufficient capacity for the proposed use, in addition

to the current use. Finally, will there be any significant adverse impacts to surrounding

properties from allowing the tasting room? The answer is no. There's sufficient parking

and the requirements imposed by City staff will actually improve pedestrian access in the

area, so there will be absolutely no adverse impact. Given all these considerations, as

well as analysis of the surrounding uses, which includes Beat Box just south and across

the railroad, Logboat Brewery, a little further south, the Mule Barn south of that, and

Columbia College right across the street from the property, permitting the proposed

tasting room in this location is a reasonable proposal. I'm happy to answer any

questions.

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

speaker? Commissioner MacMann, and then Commissioner Burns.

MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, Attorney Lamar. How

are you?

MS. LAMAR: Good evening. Good.

MR. MACMANN: I'm -- I'm totally for this. I think it's a great idea. And I'm just --

some of the questions -- I'm sure you followed us. We were discussing this up here.

That's currently City property, and there doesn't appear to be an easement right-of-way

situation. And I'm sure one could be worked out. I just -- I would be -- love to have a

business open and their primary access to their thing is through someone else's

property, and that's not resolved. A couple of things. I would -- I don't know about the

other Commissioners, but I don't view my approval to be predicated on that particular

thing, but I do think it needs to be resolved. As far as your generalized request about

parking on Fay, there's a concept in planning called coming to the hazard, and in that the

businesses up the street who use Fay for parking of their vehicles. And I appreciate, as

Mr. Campbell is developing this property, there will be greater need for public parking right

now, but I think maybe that's a joint discussion to be had with those property owners

first, and maybe everybody coming to the City. With that said, I think this is a great

concept. I was by there today. Looks great. I've known two previous occupants of the

building. It's fantastic now. You wouldn't recognize it. I thought it needed a bulldozer

before, and he has done -- he really has done one thing, because it did -- it did need a

bulldozer. So, like I said, I -- I take it back to Mr. Campbell, they could figure out -- I

think it's in your all's interest to figure out access on that because it's -- I don't know. I'm

assuming COLT paid for that alley, lane, road, service, whatever it is, because it used to

be kind of a ditch with gravel in it. But other than that, I wish you luck. Thank you,

Madam Chair.

MS. LAMAR: Just to respond briefly. There is access to the property from Fay

Street, also. It's not ideal necessarily, but there is access.

MR. MACMANN: I missed -- on that far side. Yeah.

MS. LAMAR: Yeah. It's -- it's going to be an issue at some point if they close that

road.

MR. MACMANN: I would think an agreement could be had, but that's between you

and the City --

MS. LAMAR: I suspect that there can be.

MR. MACMANN: -- the City and COLT.

MS. LAMAR: Generally, people are willing to cooperate at that point.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Commissioner Burns?

MS. BURNS: Thank you. I'm still trying to figure out the use and capacity for the

tasting room. In the application, it -- it's a conditional use permit to allow a bar within an

existing --

MS. LAMAR: That's -- so the -- the way that the ordinance is -- is written, the only

category, per se, that is listed in the ordinance that they can fit a tasting room into is a

bar. So that's what -- that's what it got categorized as.

MS. BURNS: Will drinks be sold by the glass?

MS. LAMAR: I believe they will be. And then there will also be occasions where it'll

be a tasting that you do in conjunction with a tour and that sort of thing. It'll be both

ways.

MS. BURNS: I'm still just getting back to the parking and, again, the use and

capacity. If you have a lot of people who are enjoying tasting or buying a drink, parking

could be at a premium.

MS. LAMAR: It's possible, but we've met the requirements of the ordinance, and at

the end of the day, there is also quite a bit of street parking in that area, et cetera. I

mean, frankly, part of the City of Columbia's approach to things has been to say we want

to minimize parking. We want people to walk. This is a perfect opportunity to implement

that.

MS. BURNS: Thank you.

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

building on what Commissioner Burns was saying. My concern is that people will, in

fact, walk, and will end up parking not in your lot, they will find other parking. People are

very resourceful. And while we believe the COLT Railroad is done and shut down,

someone walking from one bar, such as the Arcade, across a railroad track to another

bar, could end up very seriously injured even if there are no trains because the track is

not safe to walk on because it's not built to be walked on. So, I mean, I guess my -- my

questions for you -- I'm just stating that's my concern. My question for you is, is this, in

fact, a tasting room, or is this, in fact, an open-to-the-public bar?

MS. LAMAR: I believe it's going to be both. And at the end of the day, we've already

gone down the pathway you're describing with the building directly across the street from

this one, which was built based on pedestrian standards. So we've got this issue

whether this particular conditional use permit is granted or not.

MS. GEUEA JONES: No, I don't think that's true, because, right now, everything is

on the same side of the railroad tracks.

MS. LAMAR: If you -- if you look at --

MS. GEUEA JONES: And you are asking -- like, you are creating an attraction on

the opposite side of the railroad tracks.

MS. LAMAR: Okay. So 709 Fay Street --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Uh-huh.

MS. LAMAR: -- is on the same side of the railroad as what you're talking about,

and is, in fact, built to pedestrian standards. It's an M-N use built to pedestrian

standards. So what you're describing is an issue whether you grant this conditional use

permit or not.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I don't think you're understanding my issue, but that's okay.

So you haven't thought about the liability and where it would fall and how that would be

divided between you and the COLT Railroad?

MS. LAMAR: So the COLT Railroad is going to have liability if they hit somebody in

their -- in their --

MS. GEUEA JONES: I'm not talking about hitting. I think we're pretty sure that

there aren't trains traveling regularly. I'm talking about your traversing a railroad that is an

area of ground that is owned as a railroad track that is not being maintained.

MS. LAMAR: Okay. This question I'm completely lost by.

MS. GEUEA JONES: It's okay. Don't worry about it. My -- my concern is, yes, we

like to minimize parking. Yes, you have the amount of parking for the 900 square feet.

You also have a massive green space. You also have a large retail space, and you also

have a large space where you'll be doing demonstrations, all of which you could have

people in. So it's not so much that I'm worried about people who are coming just to the

bar, I'm worried that there are a lot more people than that 900 square feet will hold. They

will find parking elsewhere, and we will end up having regular injuries in that area. But if

you are right, you are doing the minimum, so thank you. Any other questions for this

speaker?

MS. LAMAR: Can I -- can I respond to that for just a moment?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Sure.

MS. LAMAR: So not only are we doing what is required, but we're doing everything

that we can possibly do on that site. So at the end of the day, if we want to encourage

infill, which is absolutely in the comprehensive plan, and is absolutely one of the things

that City Council and everybody else that I've ever spoken to who is associated with the

City says that we want to do, part of doing infill is using the space that's available. So I --

I see your point, although with regard to 709 Fay Street, I'm pretty sure I understood your

questions, and I'm -- and I'm right. But at the end of the day, we are supposed to

encourage infill and this is how you do it.

MS. GEUEA JONES: My concern isn't your proposal. My concern is you've got a

lot of extra space there, and there is an incentive for you to use it, and you will need way

more parking than you have, and 709 has its own lot. But, again, that's okay.

MS. LAMAR: No, it doesn't. That's a lot associated with the City. I promise you

709 Fay Street was built to pedestrian standards.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Any other questions for this speaker? No. Thank you

very much.

MS. LAMAR: Sure.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there anyone else here to speak on this case from the

public? Seeing none.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comments? Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: A couple of things, pro and con and informative. They do have that

side yard which they convert to parking. I might be and we might all be more comfortable

in the future if, you know, you are, too, for a period of time, the need for parking and

safety was readdressed, because these are not resolved issues. Regarding the railroad

crossing, some of you may remember -- Anthony probably does -- this -- the railroad

crossing spent a lot of time under water with stormwater, sewage, a variety of things, and

the City spent a significant amount of money -- I'm not sure what that was -- a significant

amount of money to change the drainage there and increase that crossing -- and improve

that crossing for driving and pedestrian use. While I must admit I have never walked

across that railroad while intoxicated, I do not have -- have not had an issue of it because

the concrete comes pretty close up to the tracks. I'm more concerned with the unknown

future and nature of COLT, and the need for additional parking, et cetera, et cetera. I

mean, this place -- I mean, I looked at it today. They're -- they're close to being ready. If

we approve them, they're going to be open in just a couple of months. They're, you know,

putting stuff in there right now. And I don't know, and that's a little -- I know we have

Commissioner -- or Manager Zenner, this is a question, I think, for you. I know we have a

lot of flexibility on conditional use permits, and I think what you're hearing up here is that

we think this is a great idea, but we're worried about what if it gets popular. Can we

make condition of revisiting some of these issues that we have by City personnel at some

point in the future? Can we do that?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is that a legal counsel question?

MR. MACMANN: It might -- and I don't -- whoever -- whomsoever has to answer that

question.

MS. THOMPSON: Say that again, Mr. MacMann.

MR. MACMANN: Well, as it stands right now, the given traffic uses and pedestrian

uses and their proposed uses, I think they're fine. Were it to grow, the vehicular access

to the parking lots is not truly resolved, and there may be safety issues in the future,

particularly if this space expands, and I can tell you they can expand into what's called

the retail space very easily. Can we put a condition upon this for health and safety, or

something like that, to revisit some of these pedestrian and automobile issues? I've never

done that, but you're hearing the concern up here. Right?

MS. THOMPSON: And, again, what -- what would trigger that reconsideration or

what did you have in mind? Is that if the use changes?

MR. MACMANN: I was just thinking it -- off the top of my head -- a period of time to

review these things again in the future?

MS. THOMPSON: I think Mr. Zenner can probably speak to this from a practical

standpoint the difficulties that that could bring up. Now if there was something that were

to trigger that reevaluation, like a change in use, I think that is something that can be

facilitated. But just a time-based reevaluation, I think, presents some practical

difficulties.

MR. MACMANN: All right. Well, I'm open to ideas here, folks. I really -- because I

hear your concerns. I'm for this. I think it's great. I'd like to see the place developed, but

we have our concerns.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other Commissioner comments? Commissioner

Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I had a warm, fuzzy feeling about this project when I got here, and I

do have concerns with the railroad. It has met all the requirements. I'm inclined to

support it and let the chips fall where they may, because if he's willing to put the

sidewalks in, that's cool. If COLT comes in and says they need access to their road,

that's their problem. If someone gets hurt on that railroad, that's litigation, their problem.

So let's -- let's play ball. Let's just go ahead and do what they want. I'm in full support of

it. Let's the chips fall where they may. They've done everything they need to do. The

City isn't making a clear definition of, you know, any safety regulations or anything with

that railroad. I've been dealing with Jeff City, and I -- the railroad is serious business. It's

the second government in this country. They're going to do whatever they want, and

they're going to make you do it. If they would have -- if this railroad were to come back

alive, no one here is going to run over the railroad, period. So, hey, let's just follow where

they go and good luck.

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

MS. CARROLL: I rather like this proposal. Concerns notwithstanding, I -- I do

support this. I see the issues. I -- I agree with Commissioner Stanton. You know that's

going to be the responsibility of the distillery, if that comes to pass, but I think that

they've done well to meet the requirements that we have, and I'm okay with this.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone -- Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Yeah. I've been puzzling over the comments. And really like the

proposal, just wish they were more oriented toward the Fay Street side and not so reliant

on the COLT road or whatever we're calling that. It's not even an official road. Because

on the Fay Street side, there is a possibility for parking that doesn't depend on that road.

I know they probably don't want to sacrifice the yard, but Fay Street is a better bet to me.

Just a comment. I suppose it's too late for that.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? So here is my thought. I think it's probably fine

as described. I think the temptation to expand and serve more people at any one time is

too large. So I would propose that we make one of the conditions of the conditional use

permit that they cannot use the green space as dining or bar space, no seating in the

green space. I think that will do two things. One, it means that we're not going to have a

second Logboat, which I think is a good model. I just feel like this isn't the right spot for

that kind of model. We know at Logboat, we have massive problems with parking and

people parking all over the place and walking in. We'll have that here, as well, which,

again, that's not what they're asking for, but that's what it is. I also think that we should

say -- or maybe the way to say it is there will be no seating for the bar outside of that 900

square feet, or something to that effect, to try to keep them from expanding and getting

away with the 12 parking spaces when what they've actually got is 2,700 square feet of

interior bar space if you include the retail and the bar, plus everything on the outside.

Commissioner Burns?

MS. BURNS: I appreciate your thought there, Commissioner Geuea Jones. I -- I'm --

I wouldn't want to restrict them in that way. I do believe what Commissioner Stanton said

is the best way to go. Let the chips fall where they may. If we're having occupancy

problems, if we're having parking problems, I don't want anyone to get hurt, but I think

we're trying to create solutions for problems that haven't occurred just yet. So I'm

inclined to support this, and I just hope that the applicant will take back what we said

and -- and consider some of the concerns and, if possible, address them.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else before we go back to Commissioner --

Commissioner Carroll for a second bite?

MR. STANTON: My fellow Commissioner has something else to say.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Go ahead, Commissioner Carroll.

MS. CARROLL: I would just say that I don't -- I do consider this to be far enough

away from Logboat to not exacerbate the issue of parking too much. I agree with chips

fall where they may. I notice that this yard gets used quite a bit during other City events.

I hate to limit that. I think it's a community amenity and I'm personally glad that they're

not putting parking there. Part of pedestrian oriented is keeping community amenities

like that available. That's my second bite.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? Commissioner Zenner -- or Commissioner

Zenner. I keep doing that. I am tired today.

MR. ZENNER: It's all right.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Zenner?

MR. ZENNER: At some point, I may reach that stature. I think as -- as it's been

discussed, the parking is the principal concern here, and I think what you -- the way that

parking is addressed and the increase in the total need of parking is based upon the

physical improvement of that space. Green space does not equate to parking. And if

there was a modification to put in patio space, similar to what we have done at Logboat,

all of that starts to get calculated into required parking demand, and that is a reasonable

trigger at that point by which that's when we start making additional assessments.

Parking impact along Fay, as well as in this particular neighborhood, is going to be driven

more so through complaints to the City of Columbia and potential inspection by

emergency response service to ensure that the pathways are clear for those types of

needs. And so if, as Logboat has become extremely popular during the summer months,

it creates significant impacts in particular area, there are safety concerns that arise that

are addressed, and I think that that's the way to potentially look at this as this may

become a popular location in combination with the other elements in this particular area,

the City is going to have to take steps by which to ensure that those that are partaking of

the businesses here are safe. The sidewalk crossing over the COLT Railroad may be one

of those issues. We have to be cognizant of the potential liability that crossing over our

property creates with patrons to this area. And so I think time will tell how we make

those improvements, how we address the -- the unknowns at this point with this business

expansion and its inclusion. Last point, the total parking on this particular proposal is

based on all spaces added together. So those 12 parking spaces is based on not only

the two spaces required for the manufacturing, the 100 -- the one space per 150 in the

bar, and then one per 300 in the retail. Any adjustments with that, when you start to

move walls and start to move how those areas are used, all generally are processed

through a building permitting process. It's not ideal, it's not exact, but what I can tell you

is, as well, the fire marshal will establish occupancy limits associated with what's inside

the building. And so based on what's shown here, there is an occupancy limitation that's

going to be established. The bar --you may take drinks out of the bar, and out of the

tasting room, while you're waiting for a tour, into the retail space. Again, that all I think is

just part of the ebb and the flow of this particular location. I think we will have to be

monitoring it in a tangential way, and to try to apply conditions potentially here that are

more vague that we have to then take some effective action, such as not utilizing more

space for bar purposes, that's almost impossible for us, from an administrative

perspective, to enforce. And I would strongly caution possibly not going down that path

creating a standard or a condition such as that. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. If no one else has anything, Commissioner

Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Let the chips fall. As it relates to Case 66-2023, 700 Fay Street,

Six Mile Ordinary conditional use permit, I move to approve for the CUP for a bar and

nightclub use as required on the approximately 0.5 acre lot commonly addressed as 700

Fay Street subject to ADA compliant sidewalk, striped crosswalk, appropriate signage

are constructed by the owner at the location on Fay Street that will not require utility

relocation and accessible to City -- acceptable to City traffic engineer.

MR. MACMANN: Second.

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

Commissioner MacMann. Is there any commissioner 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: Ms.

Burns, Mr. MacMann, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Placier, Ms. Kimbell, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Loe,

Mr. Stanton. Voting No: Ms. Geuea Jones. Motion carries 8-1.

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

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

Council.

As it relates to Case 66-2023, 700 Fay Street, Six Mile Ordinary conditional use

permit, I move to approve for the CUP for a bar and nightclub use as required on

the approximately 0.5 acre lot commonly addressed as 700 Fay Street subject to

ADA compliant sidewalk, striped crosswalk, appropriate signage are constructed

by the owner at the location on Fay Street that will not require utility relocation

and acceptable to City traffic engineer.

8 - Burns, Loe, Stanton, MacMann, Carroll, Kimbell, Placier and Wilson

Yes:

No:

1 - Geuea Jones

Case # 69-2023

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

LLC (owner), for approval of a major amendment to the existing Discovery

Professional Offices PD Plan to permit a 4-story hotel and subdivision of

the property into two lots. The new PD Plan would be known as the

Discovery Hotel PD Plan. The site is currently split-zoned between PD

(Planned Development) and M-C (Mixed Use-Corridor) zoning. This

request includes rezoning the M-C portion (2.79 acres) to PD so that the

whole site will be zoned PD. The approximately 4.09-acre property is

located on the east side of Nocona Parkway, west of Ponderosa Street,

approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of Ponderosa and Nocona,

and includes the address 4510 Nocona Parkway.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Before we hear a staff report, are there any members of the

Commission that wish to recuse themselves on this case? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: May I be recused, Madam Chair?

MS. GEUEA JONES: You are excused.

MR. STANTON: All righty.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And may we please have a staff report when you are ready?

Staff report given by Mr. Clint Smith of the Planning and Development Department.

Staff recommends:

1. Approval of the rezoning of property from M-C to PD.

2. Approval of the major amendment in the PD Plan for Discovery Hotel PD Plan.

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

fellow Commissioners have had any outside contact with parties or other interested

groups, please disclose that now so that we can all benefit from the same information.

Seeing none. Questions for staff? Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Yeah. I -- my question actually is about what is possible now on Lot

2. I assume that the 65-foot height is going to apply there, but are there any other

limitations?

MR. SMITH: Currently, or if they got the rezoning?

MS. PLACIER: If they got the rezoning.

MR. SMITH: If they got the rezoning So it would be subject to the same statement

of intent here, so they would have the same use restrictions there, and they would be

restricted to 65 as opposed to the 100-foot height limit that they have now. They would

be still subject to all the same overall green space and impervious surface conditions that

are throughout the entire Discovery Park Subdivision -- or development, excuse me.

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

MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a -- I guess a comment for

Manager Zenner. This doesn't affect this property. The 45 percent EIFS, I've been doing

construction since EIFS came in, the current form of EIFS and the others. I would really

go for a lower percentage because they -- their maintenance costs would be less over

time, even though they might have to spend more up front on the materials. An EIFS

really breaks down, and if we're going for any kind of architectural feature at all, it doesn't

present well, so just for future reference. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for staff? I -- I do have a question, I

suppose. The way that this statement of intent is done where they basically said we

want every use except the ones we struck through in the permitted use table, that seems

odd to me, or is that just my -- I haven't been here for 15 years bit?

MR. SMITH: Well, I mean, we do get a variety of -- of proposals. And so this -- in

this case, it is very similar to the way the rest of the Discovery Park was done originally.

And so is you look at the Discovery Park, the current statement of intent for all the

zoning, most of those are all commercial uses except for a few ones they've eliminated.

So this is very consistent with that, and that's generally how we like to try to approach

this as if they are amending something within a district, we're going to generally be

acceptable if they say we're changing some parameters, but the uses we really want to

keep the same as what was there before. And so these uses are generally what was

there currently in the PD section.

MS. GEUEA JONES: It's also the first time I've seen a PD plan without a plan.

MR. SMITH: We have -- it is -- it's not unheard of to have one empty lot, so this does

allow them to have some development on that site while still having some potential area

there, that they would come back and do a major amendment at that point, too, so it

would still come back before this Board. The alternative there would have been a

technicality kept -- could have kept it as one lot and then it's a one-lot development,

they're just not building on all of it. But in this case, it didn't seem necessarily the best

route to do that, so we just had them -- they proposed that the two lots set up with the

hotel on one and one vacant one that would come back again. And that's -- we've done

that in a few locations, I think, but, generally, with the new provisions, you are required to

have a development plan come forward. And this does constitute a development plan, so

there is a plan on the site, it's just not fully developed at this point.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Fair enough. Any -- oh, sorry.

MR. ZENNER: And just -- just so you're fully informed, what you will see in the

future, when we have planned district projects come forward, undeveloped and

unfoot-printed of properties are going to become the norm. Developed site plans that put

fictitious buildings on them that may or may not be built serves this Commission nor the

public any value. It is the design parameters that are far more essential to determine the

bulk and mass. And so we are gravitating toward, with a couple of projects we currently

have the pipeline, to those models, to where we are not having footprints shown because

the developer doesn't know what they want. And the real name of the game here when

you do planned development is is you want to inform the public of what the maximum

opportunity is on that property -- setbacks, percentage landscaping, impervious cover, all

of which are covered within the original 2004 ordinance which those provisions are coming

forward. As Mr. Smith pointed out, the undeveloped piece is going to be subject to that.

Now the benefit we have here, you have a plan, a two-lot plan with a lot not even being

developed, not shown with anything. That automatically sets the tone that it constitutes

a major revision because the plan is a two-lot plan, but you don't have development

shown on the second lot. In instances where we will come forward, the entitlement side,

which is typically what we take through when we define with the -- with the former

process where you have fictitious building footprints, it is going to -- you will identify a lot

layout, which is what's more important. People want to know how many lots, and how

then are those lots physically going to be controlled -- setbacks, screening, and all the

like. Plans that we will see in the future will probably have no building footprints on them,

and each individual lot shown in that entitled area will have to come back through each

one by themselves when sold. So this is a -- this is a pattern and a shift that we're

moving toward. Based on what we have heard over the years that changing footprints

really causes a lot of angst in the public and really doesn't serve a whole lot of value up

front. So, hence, we'll be back with -- we'll be back with a plan on Lot 2, and it will

probably be somewhat similar to what you see on Lot 1.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Well, I will wait until we get to Commissioner comment to say

what I think about all that. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any members of the public who would like to come

forward and speak, please do. Get as close to the microphone as you feel comfortable.

Name, address, you know the drill.

MR. STEPHENS: Yeah. I'm Jesse Stephens; Crockett Engineer, 1000 West Nifong.

And I do have a PowerPoint here. I don't know --

MR. ZENNER: They'll turn it on the back.

MR. STEPHENS: Okay.

MR. ZENNER: Unless you -- did you preload it?

MR. STEPHENS: It's pulled up here on the -- on the laptop.

MR. ZENNER: There it goes.

MR. STEPHENS: Okay. All right. Thank you all for letting me come up and speak.

So I'm with Crockett Engineering. We're representing P1316, LLC, which is the

applicant, and we're calling this Discovery Hotel. So -- so I think Clint did a pretty good

job of kind of explaining all this. But just so you know, the site is located adjacent to

Park Restaurant and the Townplace Suite Marriott. Our site is basically south -- to the

southeast of that fronting Highway 63. The desire for the location is kind of a synergy

between the two hotels and Park Restaurant, and that's basically the decision-making

factor on why we wanted here. So two tracts, they're both approximately two acres in

size. The Lot 1 request is for a four-story hotel, which is the model that the franchise

would be is a true hotel, which is a Hilton brand. Lot 2, you -- as Clint pointed out, there

will be a future PD plan that will address that. There's been a lot of discussion about

what that might be but hoping to be something that synergistic with this hotel-restaurant

concept. So here's the overview of it. As Clint said, we're dealing with some pretty -- the

thought process on the tract and zoning split lines didn't really hold out true with the road

pattern, so we just deal with that as we come into it. We -- we thought it was more

appropriate to go all PD than try to stick with the M-C due to the -- due to the height

restrictions. The pattern will flow all the way around the parking on all sides of the

building. And this connector thread, it will be a private connector thread that connects

between the round-about and Ponderosa. So the elevation, just one thing I'll point out.

The actual picture that you see up there is the St. Charles Tru Hotel. Caveat, that is

actually a five-story hotel. We are not -- what we're proposing is not five-story, but

four-story. But that's the closest thing to this area that's been built. That's -- that's the

look in the -- of what you're -- what we're proposing so -- there's a little bit bigger picture of

it, so something that looks nice and attractive. The developer has been committed to

brick stone materials out in that area, just due to the simple fact that not -- these are not

final designs, and there is some franchise agreements that there needs to be a little bit of

flexibility for building materials, although I highly suspect you're going to see a lot more

brick and stone and durable materials than the minimum, so -- and with that, I'll be happy

to answer any questions.

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

Commissioner Carroll?

MS. CARROLL: Will this hotel have conference rooms?

MR. STEPHENS: Interesting -- there will be probably a small -- I guess, part of the

franchise agreement, it was required to have some meeting space in there. But actually

part of the concepts that have been floating around for this Lot 2 is something of that

nature, more of a something that would pull from both hotels, more of a conference-type

area. So that -- nothing is final there, but that's been discussed.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Anyone

else wish to speak on this case tonight? Seeing none.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comments? Seeing none. Commissioner

MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Quick question for legal. Ms. Thompson, we want two motions

here?

MS. THOMPSON: That's correct.

MR. MACMANN: And do you want the zoning first and then the amendment?

MS. THOMPSON: I think that would be most appropriate, yes.

MR. MACMANN: Thank you. In the matter -- oops. In the matter of Case 69-2023,

approval of the rezoning of the property from M-C to PD, I move to approve.

MS. KIMBELL: Second it.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Seconded -- or moved by Commissioner MacMann; seconded

by Commissioner Kimbell. 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: Ms.

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

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

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

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

Council. Are there any other motions on this case? Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. In the matter of 69-2023, approval of the

major amendment to the PD Plan for Discovery Hotel as laid out in the staff notes, the

Discovery Hotel PD Plan, I move to approve.

MS. KIMBELL: I'll second it.

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

Commissioner Kimbell. Is there any Commission discussion on the motion? Seeing --

sorry. Commissioner Carroll, go ahead.

MS. CARROLL: I'll make a brief comment on this one.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Love to.

MS. CARROLL: I've been critical of these in the past with PD Plan amendments and

contribution to urban sprawl. I do see that we have quite a bit out there now. I do see

that this appears to support the neighboring uses, and the neighbor -- the surrounding

uses across 63. I think that may work out to benefit what is currently there.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? Seeing none. Commissioner Carroll, may we

have a roll call.

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

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

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

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

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

Council.

Motion # 1 - In the matter of Case 69-2023, approval of the rezoning of the

property from M-C to PD, move to approve. VOTING YES: Burns, MacMann,

Carroll, Geuea Jones, Placier, Kimbell, Wilson,Loe. VOTING NO: None.

RECUSED: Stanton Motion carries 8-0.

Motion # 2 - In the matter of 69-2023, approval of the major amendment to the PD

Plan for Discovery Hotel as laid out in the staff notes, the Discovery Hotel PD

Plan, move to approve. VOTING YES: Burns, MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones,

Placier, Kimbell, Wilson,Loe. VOTING NO: None. RECUSED: Stanton Motion

carries 8-0.

VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any public comments of a general nature for the

Planning and Zoning Commission? Seeing none.

VII. STAFF COMMENTS

MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Zenner, may we please have your staff comments?

MR. ZENNER: You said staff comments. I'm sorry; I'm behind. I'm sorry about that.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Sure. That's you.

MR. ZENNER: It's me. To heads up. Yes. You have a meeting on February 23rd.

I'm getting ready and girded for your -- your assault on me later.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I won't assault you.

MR. ZENNER: We have a meeting on the 23rd. It will be a work session at 5:30 in

our 1A-1B conference room. Again, I don't know what we'll be discussing, but I'll think up

of something. And then we have a couple of items on the agenda at 7:00 p.m. here in

this chamber, and it will actually only be one real item, and then we will be having, as we

were informed earlier today, that cases 49-23 and 50-23 will be seeing an additional

extended tabling due to issues that have arisen with MoDOT and plan redesign

considerations at the interchange of New Haven and 63, which are facilitating or

necessitating the delay. We don't know the time frame on that yet, but we will have that

for you for the 23rd's meeting. So the principal topic on the 23rd will be the drive-through

facility remand that came back from Council. As we have previously discussed, staff has

sent out a survey to a whole gaggle of individuals, approximately 400-plus comments

have been received to date. They are being -- or will be being evaluated. Those

comments in whole will be provided to you at the Commission hearing. We will have

them downloaded. The actual comment period will end on February 23rd to ensure

people have the maximum amount of time to solicit or to provide their comments. We,

however, for purposes of preparing our staff report, will actually poll the commentary

starting Wednesday of next week, so if there are folks listening that would like to

comment and have those comments considered as part of the staff analysis of public

comment, please have them to us by Wednesday, the 15th. But once they are all

produced, we will also be providing a full transcript of those comments to Council for their

consideration with whatever action the Commission takes. And at this point, as I

previously indicated, there are possibly two routes; a recommendation reconfirmation

from the Commission's original recommendation on this amendment, or a potential

request for additional time to evaluate the amendment based on public comments and our

summary of them to you. As we have indicated also previously, Council is expecting a

response from the Commission for their March 6th meeting. The deadline for that

meeting's reports are actually the 23rd of February, your meeting date. We will be

submitting the report late and have already made arrangements for that. So the report

may be one of two reports. It may be a report of recommendation or a report requesting

additional time. We will deal with that on the fly based on your conclusion at the end of

the public hearing. But it will be a brand-new public hearing that has been advertised, so

I guess be prepared possibly for comments if we've got 400 people comment on it. These

are the projects at the New Haven-63 interchange. We've seen these previously, and as I

indicated, it is likely that these will get a request for an extended tabling. The request for

tabling will be their second and therefore, it will be probably longer than what we normally

are accustomed to. There will be required readvertising specifically for the rezoning

request because it will be more than two months from the date of original public hearing,

and we will deal with that from an administrative perspective. Those are your cases for

the 23rd of February's meeting. What I can tell you is the volume is going to start to

increase. I have about seven items that sat on my -- that have come in over the last

couple of applications, and I believe our meeting -- our first meeting in -- or second

meeting in March will be a relatively large meeting, about six, seven items, so be

prepared. With that, that is all I have to offer for this evening, and I will turn it over to the

Commission comments.

MS. GEUEA JONES Coffee, sir. Coffee.

MR. ZENNER: Yes. Coffee.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Real coffee.

MR. ZENNER: The high-octane stuff; is that what you want?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yes. Commissioner MacMann?

VIII. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

MR. MACMANN: Thank you, before you took a bite out of Mr. Zenner. No. I would

like -- I just wanted to comment that I thought the philosophical big nature of the

discussion that we had in the work session was very helpful. It set the groundwork, and I

wanted to thank Commissioner Loe for all the legwork that she's done for quite some

time, because I've -- I've actually helped her on this, and that was two houses ago for me.

I now remember that, and that was really good. And thank you for still taking that

conversation, Manager Zenner.

MS. GEUEA JONES: You're here. Anyone else? Okay. So here's what I will say.

I am often frustrated that we have green fill, green land, green whatever plan development

where the only reason for a plan development is they don't like the straight zoning

options. It's not to fix a specific problem, it's not to have mixed zoning, it's not to, you

know, create something creative. It's just 80 acres of we want to do it our way and we

don't like your zoning options. The stuff out at Discovery is legacy, I guess we can say.

It's been here forever. We're going to have to finish dealing that. But if planned

development starts coming to us with just a we're using plan development instead of

straight zoning. We have no plan. We have no idea. We're doing this and we're selling it

as planned development, I'm not going to be particularly in favor of doing that unless it's to

fix a problem. We worked very -- well, I didn't because I wasn't here, but some of these

folks worked very hard to adopt a UDC that gives people options. We worked very hard to

change that over the years to give people more options. Doing planned development

because you don't want to follow the rules is not what planned development is for. That is

all I will say. Thank you. Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: To rejoin what you just said, a couple of things. One of the things

and the other of us old-timers here will remember this. One of the things we did discuss

was speculative zoning, zoning that sat and we knew it was going to sit for more than a

few years. I would appreciate the development community going in a certain direction

with the PD because if they have, theoretically, something open, that property is worth a

lot more rather than it's just M-C or it's M-N, or it's R1. I get it, but it is an issue and I will

support you in that. And to -- and to Manager Zenner's point, and it's hard for me to

remember this because I get bought into it, too. We see speculative plans on these PDs

or something of that nature. They're not obligated to tell us the truth. They're not

obligated to follow that plan, and we get attached to it in some way, and then when it

changes, everyone gets upset. So with that, I'm done with my running commentary.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton, and then Commissioner Loe.

MR. STANTON: In celebration of Black History Month, we sit on the ground that

used to be the classic African-American neighborhood here in Columbia, Missouri. We

are a block away from the sharp end, which was the Columbia's Black Wall Street.

We're also surrounded by Blind Boone's House, which is the father of Jazz, nation and

globally, and is part of the Jazz Highway that stretches across New York all the way to

LA. We have it right here in Columbia, so celebrate Black History Month, know your

history, and keep you real all the time. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann said what I was going to, which is the

speculative zoning. And as a body, we had moved away from that and attempted to

really support our new UDC and ask for planned zoning.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, sorry. Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Well, we've put people in the position of using contradictory language

of saying this is planned, but it's not planned. I mean, that is a sort of Alice in

Wonderland kind of situation that I think needs to be remedied if -- if it's not planned, it's

not planned.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Fellow colleagues, all you've got to do is get your eyes sharp and

your nose open, and when you smell or see BS, call it out, and we can stop all of that.

That -- you know, and that's you're right. You know, all this is marketing, people use key

words, affordable, planned, all those little key words. Whenever you hear those things,

we need to open our eyes and make sure you're standing on what you're talking about,

and if you're not, we'll hold you accountable.

MR. ZENNER: I’ll just have the last word because it relates --

MS. GEUEA JONES: I'm just making sure. Do any of the other Commissioners

have thoughts? All right. Manager Zenner?

MR. ZENNER: Again, exploring the educational opportunity of what the Code

contains and how we approach planned district, when the Code was adopted in 2017,

with the standards that are now in place, it specifically indicated that in order to request a

planned zone, you had to have a plan, and generally when you have to have a plan, you

have to have a user. And so when a plan comes to us with no user, that should be a

clear indication that it is speculative. So what we are suggesting that we are proposing

to gravitate toward is basically taking projects that are suggesting a planned user on one

or multiple lots with any development that has acreage, and identifying those based on

what that plan of attack or development is for that specific parcel. But when you have

multiple lots, and I will speak to a project that we are processing, Copperstone

Commercial, corner of Vawter School Road and Scott Boulevard, seven-lot development,

it has a single lot in it that has an end user on it today. Typically, the former process

would be show me six other fictitious buildings. We don't want that. We want you to

specify the scope of intent of development on each of those six lots and let those users

be identified. The one lot, however, that is what's driving that planned district revision is

what is opening up the door for us to consider that it is worthy of planned district

designation. If it isn't -- if there is not a user, our staff will not generally support any

requests to a planned district. That's why we have our Code the way we have it. It is

flexible, and that is -- that is an administrative process. We can't stop an applicant from

making an application with no user. It is then left to the Commission and the Council to

say this seems wrong. And I would strongly suggest and recommend, as some of you

have said this evening, that is the process that you follow when those requests come to

you. We can lead a horse to water, but we can't force it to drink, and we have also

expressed to those individuals before they reach your dais that planned districts are not

generally well supported by staff because of their administrative burden. So we try to

avoid them like the plague, but when they are needed because of resolutions of

neighborhood concerns, that is the default process that has always been utilized. We

had hoped that we can identify where those shortfalls are, develop other standards that

can counter that, such as increase landscape protections, lighting restrictions, or other

things of that nature so we don't have to default to planned district, but in certain

instances, we don't have a choice politically. What we want to try to do, though, is

further reduce the unintended consequences of people latching onto a plan that really

isn't real. With that, that's all I have to say.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I would say I have always taken a dim view of planned districts

that are not solving a real problem, and the more straight zoning, the better.

IX. NEXT MEETING DATE - February 23, 2023 @ 7 pm (tentative)

X. ADJOURNMENT

MS. GEUEA JONES: With that, would anyone like to make a fun motion that we all

leave?

MR. STANTON: Move to adjourn.

MR. MACMANN: Second.

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

Commissioner MacMann. Without objection, we are adjourned.

(The meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m.)

(Off the record.)

Move to adjourn