City of Columbia, Missouri  
Meeting Minutes  
Planning and Zoning Commission  
Council Chambers  
Thursday, December 5, 2024  
7:00 PM  
REGULAR MEETING  
I. CALL TO ORDER  
MS. GEUEA JONES: We will now call the Thursday, December 5, 2024 meeting of  
the Planning and Zoning Commission to order. Thank you all for your patience as we  
worked out our technical issues.  
II. INTRODUCTIONS  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Williams -- Commissioner Williams, may we have a roll  
call?  
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, you may.  
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Present.  
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Geuea Jones?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Here.  
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Williams, here. Commissioner Loe?  
MS. LOE: Here.  
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: Here.  
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Walters?  
MR. WALTERS: Here.  
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Brodsky? Commissioner Ortiz?  
MS. ORTIZ: Here.  
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: Here.  
MR. WILLIAMS: We have a quorum.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.  
8 -  
Present:  
Sara Loe, Anthony Stanton, Sharon Geuea Jones, Peggy Placier, Shannon Wilson,  
Thomas Williams, Robert Walters and McKenzie Ortiz  
1 - David Brodsky  
Excused:  
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Zenner, are there any changes to the agenda?  
MR. ZENNER: No, there are not, ma’am.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there a motion to approve?  
MS. PLACIER: So moved.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion to approve the agenda by Commissioner Placier.  
MS. ORTIZ: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Second by Commissioner Ortiz. Thumbs up approval on the  
agenda?  
(Unanimous vote for approval.)  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Unanimous. Commissioner Walters? Thank you. That’s  
okay. Unanimous. Thank you.  
So moved.  
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  
Move to approve the minutes.  
November 21, 2024 Regular Meeting  
MS. GEUEA JONES: We all received a copy of the minutes of our November 21,  
2024 regular meeting. Are there any changes or adjustments to the minutes? Seeing  
none. Is there a motion to approve?  
MR. STANTON: I move to approve the minutes.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there a second?  
MS. LOE: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner Stanton; seconded by  
Commissioner Loe. Thumbs up approval on the minutes?  
(Unanimous vote for approval.)  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Unanimous. Thank you all very much.  
Move to approve the minutes.  
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS & SUBDIVISIONS  
Case # 21-2025  
A request by Brush and Associates (agent), on behalf of Kenneth LaFond  
(owner), for approval of a 3-lot final minor subdivision to be known as  
“Lafond Subdivision” and a design adjustment from Sec. 29-5.1(d)  
[Sidewalks] along the subdivision’s Brown Station Road and Green Ridge  
Road frontages. The subject 1.76-acre property is located at the northwest  
corner of Brown Station Road and Green Ridge Road and is addressed  
2912 Green Ridge Road.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?  
Staff report was given by Mr. Kirtis Orendorff of the Planning and Development  
Department. Staff recommends the following actions:  
1. Deny the requested design adjustment waiving sidewalk installation along  
Brown Station Road and Green Ridge Road.  
2. Approve the requested 3-lot final plat to be known as “LaFond Subdivision”  
subject to:  
a. Technical corrections  
b. Submission of construction plans for required sidewalks (if design  
adjustment is denied)  
c. Submission of a “performance contract”  
d. Delayed Council consideration until technical corrections and  
construction plan approval, if necessary, have been obtained.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Just to double check with legal, we need two  
motions? One on design adjustment and then one on approval of the plat?  
MR. CRAIG: That’s correct. I think that’s the preferable way to handle the --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much.  
MR. CRAIG: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Very good. Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my  
fellow Commissioners have had contact with parties to this case outside of a public  
hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Are there questions for staff?  
Commissioner Williams?  
MR. WILLIAMS: Just quickly. If you could clarify for me the -- if it’s plotted R-1 and  
you said there’s a duplex that’s existing, what’s the implication of that for the --  
MR. ORENDORFF: So --  
MR. WILLIAMS: -- the lot that the duplex is on?  
MR. ORENDORFF: So it would end up creating a nonconformity in that there would  
be a multi-family structure on a single-family lot. However, the existing condition is that  
there are two structures on a single R-1 lot. So while the resulting parcel would be  
nonconforming, we are lessening the nonconformity by putting at least one structure on  
one lot.  
MR. ZENNER: And from the built environment, I mean, from a zoning perspective, it  
is a -- it was suggested that in order to correct the inconsistency and the land use type  
to the zoning, the possibly pursuing a zoning request to change the duplex parcel to R-2,  
which would be an appropriate zoning, be sought. However, in looking at the surrounding  
land use conditions and zoning, it is a predominately R-1 zoned environment, and  
therefore if redevelopment of that duplex lot were to be proposed through voluntary  
removal of the duplex, it would be -- only allowed to be improved with a single-family  
structure, unless it were rezoned. So we -- by -- as Kirtis has pointed out, by creating a  
separate lot for the duplex, which is the existing -- is a nonconformity, in addition to  
having two dwelling -- principal dwelling units on the one lot, we are reducing it. But if you  
were to then pursue rezoning, you would make everything fully compliant if approved.  
However, if you don’t, we are preserving also the opportunity to ensure zoning integrity  
within the neighborhood should that dwelling unit be removed. So it will function as a  
legal nonconformity. That legal nonconformity could be expanded provided it isn’t  
encroaching into any other regulated environment. Typically, if the -- if the -- it could be  
expanded in a minor manner pursuant to our nonconforming requirements. Also pursuant  
to our nonconforming requirements, if the structure were to be destroyed by an act of  
God, it would be allowed to be reconstructed in its current configuration on the foundation  
that is on that property. That is also a provision that exists within our nonconforming  
provisions of the Code. So we get rid of two structures on one lot by the platting action.  
We really don’t get rid of the fact that there’s a duplex here on an R-1 lot, but that duplex  
has been there since probably the early ‘70s.  
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Walters?  
MR. WALTERS: I had a couple of quick questions. Has there been any -- any  
history of incidents or accidents that have been reported up and down Green Ridge  
regarding, you know, pedestrian injuries and so forth with vehicles?  
MR. ORENDORFF: Not that I’m aware of at this time. No.  
MR. WALTERS: If -- second question Is, you know, if the City ultimately in the future  
decided they have funds to -- wanted to build a sidewalk totally up and down Brown  
Station Road or Green Ridge, if that were to -- would occur, how would that -- how would  
any adjacent property owners -- would they be assessed any -- any valuating fine, any  
fees at that point as a result of that construction? If -- if the City decided, hey, we want  
to put a sidewalk down here and to benefit everybody, would the adjacent property  
owners be impacted from a monetary point of view?  
MR. ORENDORFF: I believe --  
MR. ZENNER: So the City does reserve the right to tax bill for the purposes of public  
sidewalk installation. The properties that would be benefitted from that, that is a process  
that is rarely been facilitated due to generally the lack of support. We presently have  
sidewalk projects that are being built as a part of capital investments that may be through  
reconstruction of the other roadway. So if Green Ridge Road were reconstructed or  
Brown Station Road in this particular area, those costs for sidewalk construction  
associated with the road reconstruction would normally be rolled into one, and there  
would be no monetary impact. So it would depend on the type of action the City was  
taking. There is no capital project right now. There is no identified CIP project -- Capital  
Improvement Project to do sidewalk on either road right-of-way. Therefore, if that were to  
materialize at some point in the future as a priority, we would likely go through public  
information meetings, assess support, determine what acquisition of easements or any  
other rights-of-way may be needed. The subdivision regulations after their adoption --  
readoption in 2017 specifically made clear that any property platted after the effective  
date of the ordinance is required to install sidewalks as a part of that subdivision action.  
There are very limited exceptions associated with that, and this particular parcel is  
located in an environment where none of the exceptions that are within the UDC would  
apply. So this is actually an outright sidewalk installation mandate, unless otherwise  
waived.  
MR. WALTERS: And one last quick question. I did not visit the site. Do these --  
either of these two streets have curbs on them?  
MR. ZENNER: No.  
MR. WALTERS: Okay. That’s all.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none.  
Thank you very much. We will go to public comment.  
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: If any members of the public are here, please come forward  
one at a time. Six minutes for the applicant in a group; three minutes for an individual.  
Please state your name and address for the record.  
MR. SCHWEIKERT: Good evening. My name is Kevin Schweikert, Brush and  
Associates, here in Columbia. I’m here representing the property owner and the  
subdivider, Ken LaFond. Thank you all for your service and your time listening to me this  
evening. I want to briefly speak about the design adjustment request and give you a little  
more information possibly. Mr. LaFond purchased the property 17 years ago and has  
long wanted to divide the portion of ground on the northern side as a new buildable lot and  
also separate the existing duplex and existing house onto two separate lots for possible  
future sale of the two structures separately. The result of Mr. LaFond’s desire, if  
approved, benefits the City in that it brings these two structures closer to conformity, as  
was discussed, to the City of Columbia standards by putting the residential structures,  
even though one is a duplex, on separate lots. Our reasons for asking for a design  
adjustment for the sidewalk are as follows: Number one, construction of the sidewalk  
along the frontage of this proposed plat would be cost prohibitive due to the 580-foot  
length. There’s a water line along Brown Station Road that will need to be worked around  
or possibly relocated to construct the sidewalk if, in fact, it’s constructed in the normal  
area that it is. Pavement along Brown Station Road, there is the edge of pavement, the  
south edge or the east edge, whichever you call it. is at least 35 feet from the right-of-way  
line. The sidewalk would be built -- the proposed sidewalk would probably be built near  
the right-of-way line, which would be -- its edge would then be 30 feet from the pavement  
of the road. There’s a three-foot high embankment there. There is a ditch along that  
drive, so traversing from the sidewalk as it ends back onto the road would be probably not  
beneficial for pedestrians and possibly dangerous in inclement weather. At -- at the end  
of the road, you could possibly use the neighbor’s driveway to get back onto the  
pavement, so in my opinions, the walk along Brown Station Road would be rarely used  
because of the navigation to get there. Also along Green Ridge Road, it was mentioned  
there’s a stream to cross, which is very expensive. The nature of this neighborhood lends  
itself to having a modest home built on the proposed undeveloped lot making construction  
of the sidewalk cost prohibitive. Number two, a continuation of the existing conditions of  
no sidewalk in this area does not constitute a negative outcome on the area. This is a  
long-established neighborhood that has been in existence since the late 1950s and early  
1960s, sixty years or so. If the sidewalk is built, it will most certainly destroy the mature  
trees that line the area within a foot of the proposed sidewalk location on Green Ridge  
Road. In addition, the next existing sidewalk northerly of this proposed plan that would  
provide connectivity is along Blue Ridge Road, which is 1,600 feet away. At the other  
end of the plat, the walk would have to be extended 900 feet to achieve sidewalk  
connectivity. This neighborhood was developed over 60 years ago. The possibility of any  
additional sidewalk to be built because of new development in a long-standing developed  
area is very unlikely, so it is highly unlikely that this sidewalk will ever connect to another  
sidewalk. Number three is consistency. I wanted to bring your attention to another  
almost identical design adjustment request that was approved or granted, Case No. 138-  
2024, May of this year. The address is at 811 Broadway. It’s at the intersection of  
Broadway and Greenwood Avenue. The neighborhood is also a long-standing developed  
neighborhood of 60 years or more. Upon requesting to do a two-lot subdivision, a  
sidewalk would have had to have been built along Greenwood Avenue for 200 feet along  
the frontage of the plat. Greenwood Avenue has no sidewalk at all, just like this present  
case we are discussing tonight. The next existing sidewalk to the north is at Ash Street,  
1,000 feet away. Broadway does not have -- does have sidewalk along the road, so the  
sidewalk would have had connectivity at the intersection. This 811 Broadway property  
had less hardship and more connectivity than our present case that we are addressing  
tonight, which is on Brown Station Road and Green Ridge Road. I think if a design  
adjustment that allowed for not building a sidewalk at 811 Broadway was approved in  
May, if consistency is desired, then the design adjustment request that we are asking for  
tonight should be approved. I believe if you were to ask the residents of this  
neighborhood the question do you think it reasonable to ask or mandate construction of a  
sidewalk along the frontage of this tract for the right to divide the two existing structures  
onto separate lots and the right to build one more residential home, I believe a large  
majority, after considering the above information I just provided would say no. So that’s  
my statement. On behalf of Mr. LaFond, we respectfully ask that you approve the design  
adjustment request before you. Thank you again for your time and consideration of the  
matter.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any questions for this speaker? Oh,  
wait just a minute, sir. Sorry. Questions for this speaker? Seeing none. Thank you  
very much. Anyone else to come forward to speak on this case? Seeing none.  
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any Commissioner comments? Seeing none. We  
need a motion on the design adjustment.  
MR. WALTERS: Is that first before the --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: The design adjustment is before the platting action. And we  
make all -- all motions must be in the affirmative. So all motions are to approve.  
MR. WALTERS: Well --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Are you going to fight it out?  
MR. STANTON: As it relates to --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton, please go ahead.  
MR. STANTON: As it relates to Case 21-2025, LaFond Subdivision final plat, I move  
to approve the following: Three-lot final plat, LaFond Subdivision subject to technical  
corrections, submission --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Do the design adjustment first. Just the design adjustment.  
MR. STANTON: Doing the plat first.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Design adjustment first?  
MR. CRAIG: Yeah. Do the design adjustment first, then plat, please. Thank you.  
MR. STANTON: Okay.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Sorry.  
MR. ZENNER: Mr. Stanton, can you talk into the microphone as well, please?  
MR. STANTON: And rewind here. Okay. As it relates to Case 21-2025, LaFond  
Subdivision design adjustment, I move to approve the design adjustment waiving sidewalk  
installation along Brown Station and Green Ridge Road.  
MS. LOE: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton has moved to approve the design  
adjustment, Commissioner Loe has seconded it. Is there any discussion on the motion?  
Seeing none. Commissioner Williams?  
MR. WILLIAMS: Just on the basis of I think it’s important that we provide some  
rationale given that City staff has recommended that we deny this, I don’t think it would  
be prudent to -- to vote on it without having some -- some discussion. My view of it is  
that although I understand the purpose of the sidewalk provisions are within the  
subdivision requirements, that in this case, given the small size and the surrounding area,  
I don’t think that the sidewalk is going to be overly beneficial and serve the purposes that  
was the intent of the sidewalk requirement in the subdivision. I also note that it really is  
only adding one additional property, and so, effectively, you are adding a sidewalk for one  
house. So that’s -- that’s my reason I intend to vote to approve.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. I was going to just briefly say this Commission,  
despite the example that the applicant brought forward, has a long history of denying  
sidewalk waivers. And often even when they are approved, it’s on a split vote. I,  
personally, don’t usually vote for sidewalk waivers unless there is a real geographic  
problem such as a cliff. I think those are about the only times that I have a history of  
voting yes on sidewalk waivers. I understand the concept of, you know, there’s a  
sidewalk to nowhere. At the same time, there has to be a sidewalk started somewhere.  
And this is a corner property, so we’re getting a sidewalk on two streetways. And so, to  
me, this is why we have the sidewalk ordinances in place. It is to encourage sidewalk  
development as people are redeveloping properties. This is an older neighborhood. The  
fact that this property is being subdivided and development is occurring is an indicator to  
me that that is likely to continue happening. So I -- I agree with the staff that there is no  
legitimate reason to give them a waiver here that is anything other than their desire to not  
expend the resources as they’re redeveloping these properties. So I -- I will be a no vote,  
but we each have our own vote. Commissioner Loe?  
MS. LOE: We do review the sidewalk cases on a case-by-case basis, so I don’t feel  
we have a precedent per se. In this case I would consider that there are no vacant lots  
on Green Ridge aside from one which appears to be 90 percent in the floodplain and I’m  
not sure if it is developable. So I don’t see -- there’s extremely limited development on  
Green Ridge Road. Both Green Ridge and Brown Station Road are not improved with  
gutters, and there is a -- or with curbs, and Brown Station drains to a drainage ditch, so  
bringing a sidewalk in is introducing a completely new form of drainage and infrastructure  
that just appears inconsistent. And given the lack of continued development in the  
neighborhood, I don’t see it moving forward in that direction. So I will be supporting the  
denial -- or I’ll be -- yeah, supporting the denial. Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Ortiz?  
MS. ORTIZ: Hi. I just want to say that I am going to vote along with City staff’s  
recommendation. As a person who does not drive, who is a frequent pedestrian, I think  
it’s very important to start with sidewalks. You have to start somewhere. And as  
someone who is on the bicycle/pedestrian commission, we get people begging for  
sidewalks in their neighborhood very often that are very frustrated who have experienced  
first-hand what it’s like living in the areas like these that have been developed that don’t  
have sidewalks, and I want to avoid people in the future coming to bike/ped for sidewalks.  
We can do it now, so I’m going to vote along with City staff’s recommendation. Thank  
you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Walters?  
MR. WALTERS: I -- I plan to support this because I just think it’s -- there is no real  
benefit to having it here. And I think the excuse that you’ve got to start somewhere isn’t  
as applicable here as it would be if you were closer to an existing sidewalk network or  
you’re amongst -- you’re on vacant property that was most likely to be improved adjacent  
to you where those property owners would then also bear the burden of connecting that  
sidewalk. Right now it just seems like an unnecessary burden or unfair burden to the  
property owner to put up a considerable expense to something that will have no  
connectivity and no value to the general public.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? Seeing none. I’ll restate the motion. So the  
motion is to approve the sidewalk adjustment. A yes vote will allow them to not build a  
sidewalk; a no vote will mean that they do have to build the sidewalk. With that,  
Commissioner --unless anybody has anything? Commissioner Williams, may we have a  
roll call?  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.  
Stanton,  
Mr. Williams, Ms. Loe, Ms. Wilson, Mr. Walters, Ms. Placier. Voting No: Ms.  
Geuea Jones,  
Ms. Ortiz. Motion carries 6-2.  
MR. WILLIAMS: It’s six yeses and two nos. That motion carries.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Next on this case we have the platting action. Is  
there a motion on the platting action?  
MR. STANTON: As it relates to Case 21-2025, LaFond Subdivision final plat, I move  
to approve the following three-lot final plat of LaFond Subdivision subject to technical  
corrections, submission of construction plans for sidewalks, if -- well, it’s been denied -- I  
mean it’s passed.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Right. So they don’t need to be read.  
MR. STANTON: Delayed City Council consideration until technical corrections and  
construction plan approve --  
MR. CRAIG: I -- I believe with -- with the approval of the design adjustment, we don’t  
-- those conditions don’t need to be attached with the --  
MR. ZENNER: Technical corrections would need to be, sir.  
MR. STANTON: Yeah. So --  
MR. CRAIG: Technical corrections would be, but --  
MR. ZENNER: Technical corrections, and just as a course of process, the plat will  
not be forwarded to the City Council until technical corrections have been addressed and  
approved.  
MR. CRAIG: Right.  
MR. ZENNER: So the last two bullets are not needed.  
MR. CRAIG: Not needed.  
MR. ZENNER: The technical corrections are.  
MR. CRAIG: Yeah.  
MR. STANTON: Okay. Do we want to restate it?  
MR. CRAIG: Yes, please, Commissioner.  
MR. STANTON: I move to approve the following three-lot final plat, LaFond  
Subdivision subject to technical corrections.  
MS. LOE: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner Stanton; seconded by  
Commissioner Loe. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none.  
Commissioner Williams, when you are ready.  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.  
Stanton,  
Ms. Geuea Jones, Mr. Williams, Ms. Loe, Ms. Wilson, Mr. Walters, Ms. Ortiz, Ms.  
Placier. Motion carries 8-0.  
MR. WILLIAMS: Eight yeses and zero nos.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Those recommendations will be forwarded to City  
Council. Moving on to our next case for the evening.  
Motion to approve the sidewalk adjustment: Voting Yes: Mr. Stanton,  
Mr. Williams, Ms. Loe, Ms. Wilson, Mr. Walters, Ms. Placier. Voting No: Ms.  
Geuea Jones,  
Ms. Ortiz. Motion carries 6-2.  
Move to approve the following three-lot final plat, LaFond Subdivision subject to  
technical corrections. Voting Yes: Mr. Stanton,  
Ms. Geuea Jones, Mr. Williams, Ms. Loe, Ms. Wilson, Mr. Walters, Ms. Ortiz, Ms.  
Placier. Motion carries 8-0.  
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS  
Case # 25-2025  
A request by Crockett Engineering (agent), on behalf of Club Car Wash  
Prathersville L.L.C. (owner), seeking approval to assign IG (Industrial)  
zoning as permanent City zoning to a 7.71-acre parcel of land district  
subject to annexation. The property is currently zoned Boone County M-LP  
(Planned General Industrial) and is located at 1591 East Prathersville  
Road.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?  
Staff report was given by Mr. David Kunz of the Planning and Development  
Department. Staff recommends approval of the request to permanently zone the subject  
7.71-acre site to IG (Industrial)  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my  
fellow Commissioners have had contact with parties to this case outside of a public  
hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Are there questions for staff? Seeing  
none. We will open the floor to public comment.  
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Please come forward, state your name and address for the  
record. And six minutes for the applicant and three minutes for others. Go ahead.  
MR. GREENE: Good evening, Andy Greene with Crockett Engineering. Our office is  
at 1000 West Nifong Boulevard, Building number 1, here in Columbia. I’m here tonight to  
talk about the assignment of permanent zoning of industrial for this property which is  
currently zoned light industrial planned in the County. It was originally zoned that, I  
believe, back in the 80s when the first two-story building on the right on the east side of  
the property was built. I don’t know when Club Car Wash acquired it, but this is their  
headquarter site, and ultimately, they just need more space for office. The increase in  
office use increases the sewer. Per the sewer agreement, we really have to annex to add  
more office space here at the site. So as David put it, the IG seems appropriate for this  
area when you consider all the surrounding zonings and land uses. And I’d be happy to  
answer any questions.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any questions for this speaker? Seeing  
none. Thank you very much. Anyone else to speak on this case? Seeing none.  
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED  
MS. GEUEA JONES: We will close public hearing and go to Commissioner  
comment.  
Any Commissioner comments on this case? Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Madam Chair, if my colleagues don’t have any questions, I’d like to  
entertain a motion.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Please.  
MR. STANTON: As it relates to Case 25-2025, 1591 East Prathersville Road,  
permanent zoning, I move to approve the permanent zoning request to the IG zoning  
district upon annexation.  
MS. ORTIZ: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Approval moved by Commissioner Stanton;  
seconded by Commissioner Ortiz. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none.  
Commissioner Williams, when you are ready.  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.  
Stanton,  
Ms. Geuea Jones, Mr. Williams, Ms. Loe, Ms. Wilson, Mr. Walters, Ms. Ortiz, Ms.  
Placier. Motion carries 8-0.  
MR. WILLIAMS: Eight to zero, the motion carries.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation will be forwarded to City  
Council. Moving on to our next case for the evening.  
Move to approve the permanent zoning request  
8 - Loe, Stanton, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Williams, Walters and Ortiz  
Yes:  
1 - Brodsky  
Excused:  
Case # 26-2025  
A request by John Hooker (owner) for approval of a Conditional Use Permit  
(CUP) to allow 208 Redwood Road to be used as a short-term rental for a  
maximum of 4 transient guests and up to 210-nights annually pursuant to  
Sec. 29-3.3(vv) and Sec. 29-6.4(m) of the Unified Development Code. The  
0.15-acre subject site is zoned R-2 (Two-family Dwelling), approximately  
270-feet north of the intersection of Redwood Road and W. Ash Street, and  
is addressed 208 Redwood Road.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?  
Staff report was given by Mr. Ross Halligan of the Planning and Development  
Department. Staff recommends approval of the CUP to allow 208 Redwood Road to be  
operated as a short-term rental subject to:  
1. 210 nights of annual usage  
2. Maximum of 4 transient guests regardless of potential occupancy allowed by  
most recently adopted edition of the International Property Maintenance  
Code (IPMC)  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any  
members of the Commission have had contact with parties to this case outside of a  
public hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Are there questions for staff?  
Seeing none. Oh, sorry. Commissioner Loe, go ahead.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. I had a question about the north boundary. The report  
discusses the adjacency to the school, but then notes that there’s mature vegetation  
surrounding the north boundary of the property. There’s also a trail that appears to  
connect the school to the north end of Redwood Road. I was just curious. This didn’t  
appear to show up in the report.  
MR. HALLIGAN: That is correct. There is a trail as you can see in the aerial that  
would connect that.  
MR. ZENNER: I believe that is part of the Again Park improvements as well. Most  
likely it would come off the end of Redwood providing access from the West Ash  
environment.  
MS. LOE: Just I -- I see it -- there’s a little more connection than how I interpreted  
the staff report as it was written. Thank you.  
MR. HALLIGAN: Yes.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for staff? Seeing -- oh, sorry.  
Commissioner Williams, go ahead.  
MR. WILLIAMS: Just a question to staff. Did we approve recently a short-term rental  
CUP on West Boulevard?  
MR. ZENNER: We actually approved two, sir. One just up the street, and if we go  
back a slide or two. So at the corner of West Ash on the southwest corner of West Ash  
and North West Boulevard, that is 121 North West Boulevard. That is what is referred to  
as the Hobbit House. That was approved at our -- approved two planning commission  
meetings ago, and actually received final approval this past Monday before City Council.  
And then about midpoint of West Boulevard Elementary at 316 North West Boulevard  
was another short-term rental that was approved as well. All -- those two, however, are  
outside of the 300-foot radius. As Ross has pointed out, there is one unregistered  
identified short-term rental within 300 feet of the subject site.  
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for staff? Seeing none. We will open the  
floor to a public hearing.  
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: If anyone from the public would like to come forward and  
speak on this case, please do so now. State your name and address for the record. Six  
minutes for the applicants and groups; and three minutes for --  
MR. HOOKER: Hi. I’m John Hooker --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: -- individuals.  
MR. HOOKER: -- I live at 204 South Garth Avenue, and this is my property. I have  
owned this property for almost six years now, and it’s been a rental property since the  
1980s.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Could you -- I’m so sorry. Could you speak more closely to  
the microphone?  
MR. HOOKER: Yeah. I’ve owned this property --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.  
MR. HOOKER: -- for almost six years now. It has been a rental property since the  
1980s. We recently converted this one to a short-term rental to allow us greater access  
to be able to take care and manage it. the only contiguous property to this short-term  
rental is a property that I own at 206 Red Wood Avenue. And then the other access is --  
the access that you see there is the access to Again Street Park, itself, at the end of the  
road. So it’s at the end of the dead-end street there. And if there’s any other questions,  
I’d be happy to answer them.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any questions for this speaker?  
Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Stuff hits the fan, who do I call and how fast is it going to get there?  
MR. HOOKER: I live a mile and a half away, and my designated agent lives two  
miles away.  
MR. STANTON: Thank you.  
MR. HOOKER: And we’re very careful about who we rent to. We have security  
cameras on the outside monitoring the front and the back of the house, see how many  
people come, go. We always ask everybody that we do a short-term rental for why they  
are in town and what their plans are and how many people are going to be there.  
MR. STANTON: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for this speaker? Seeing -- well, I -- I  
have one. The property right next door to it --  
MR. HOOKER: Uh-huh.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: -- that one is also a long-term rental of yours?  
MR. HOOKER: That’s a long-term rental, yes.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.  
MR. HOOKER: And I own that.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah.  
MR. HOOKER: Yes.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Wonderful. Thank you. Seeing no other questions. Thank  
you very much. Are there any other members of the public to come forward and speak  
on this case? Seeing none.  
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED  
MS. GEUEA JONES: We will close public hearing and go to Commissioner  
comments. Any Commissioner comments? Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Madam Chair, if my colleagues do not have any other questions, I’d  
entertain a motion. As it relates to Case 26-2025, 208 Redwood SR -- short-term rental  
conditional use permit, I move to approve the request for the short-term rental CUP  
subject to the following: 210 nights of rental; maximum of 4 transient guests regardless  
of allowance -- of allowing permitted by the IPMC; and two driveway spaces be made  
available at all times while used as a SR -- STR.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there a second?  
MR. WALTERS: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion made by Commissioner Stanton and seconded by  
Commissioner Walters. Is there any discussion on the motion? Commissioner Loe?  
MS. LOE: I feel as if this case hits on some points that we’ve discussed recently in  
work session, and I’m not sure we’ve fully resolved those. And given that we’ve -- there  
have been other STRs that have come forward in this neighborhood, I have to admit I’m  
uncomfortable approving another STR in that it is removing long-term residents from an  
area where we have a school and other community services located. So because of that  
conflict and because I feel this is unresolved, I actually am not going to support this.  
Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Other discussion? I actually agree with you, Commissioner  
Loe. We are talking about an increasing concentration here of not just STRs, but STRs  
that are not the primary residence of the owners and license holder. So I -- I think this is  
the first time that we have had a case where there is an STR known to be within 300 feet,  
and it is in a small radius where we have two others that we have already approved. In  
addition, it is something that we know would otherwise be in long-term rental or could  
possibly be in long-term rental and has been in the past. So I am not comfortable with  
this. We talked a lot as we were developing the ordinance about concentration, and, to  
me, this is an example of overconcentration in an area where we know we have housing  
need. So I -- I likewise will not be supporting this. Any further discussion?  
Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: I definitely respect my colleagues’ positions. I think there is enough  
spacing between the Hobbit House and this. I do think and I’m glad that we’re remaining  
conscious of the concentration. I see it differently. I think, yes, it’s close to a school.  
Yes, it’s close to a park. I just see other applications why that short-term rental will be  
good there. That’s just my opinion, and I’m not -- I would probably agree with you more if  
one more in this area came up. I would be, like, okay. Yeah. But one more outside of  
what’s already there maybe, but we’re asking people to come out of the shadows and  
come to us and go through the process, and listen, and I’ll say this to the public, listen --  
get up here and get your stuff in and get approved because the more that are approved,  
the more factors start kicking in. And I don’t want to penalize people for not being  
renegades and being illegally using their property. You know -- you know my big spiel  
about illegal use. I forgot my famous little phase, but I got to get it back. But these  
people are playing the game and this is what we wanted. That is why we spent four  
years trying to figure it out. I think he has -- they have done what we asked. So, you  
know, the lesson is hurry up and get your stuff in before concentration becomes a factor  
to your STR. So I plan to support it.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: Yeah. I agree with Commissioner Stanton in that it could be  
perceived as unfairly on discriminating against this particular applicant, even though  
otherwise, they comply and have been one of the relative early applicants. In reality, I  
wanted there to be a harder distance requirement, especially in this area, especially  
because the demand for affordable housing and long-term rentals. I didn’t win that, and  
therefore, this one complies. And I don’t think we are on good footing to deny in this  
instance. Now once this area becomes more saturated -- well, I don’t even know how -- I  
don’t even know how we’re going to decide if it’s saturated because we made the 300 feet  
a condition like we could be, you know, flexible and go with 200 or whatever. That  
bothers me a lot in this particular area, but I don’t see a basis for denial in this case.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Wonderful points my dear colleague.  
MS. PLACIER: Thank you.  
MR. STANTON: Wonderful points. And I think what the criteria is going to be is the  
distance, the number in the area, and the key word here is conditional use. And it’s  
coming before us for us to filter it through our eyes and our experience with this. And I  
feel no way saying no to another -- to another one that may be closer. I think we’re  
getting to that point, and that’s why it comes before us. You met the technical  
requirements, yes. One thing that we’ve expressed when we were putting this together is  
saturation in particular areas. And we have to weigh that with getting these people out  
from underneath the underground. And if we start zapping them too early, we’re only like,  
what, 12 in. Right? We start zapping them too early, then people are going to go  
underground, and then we got to pull them out like potatoes. And we don’t -- we don’t  
have the resources for that right now. And, you know, I think as long as we continue to  
be consistent with our decisions, and we’re -- we’re voicing our opinion now. Hey, this  
area right here is becoming saturated. Get your stuff in. For everybody else that’s still  
on the underground, get your application in because this is going to start making a  
difference in who gets a permit and who doesn’t.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: I am appreciative of all of the comments. I am especially appreciative  
of the applicant’s note that he has vetted the individuals who lived there and will continue  
to do so. Thank you for sharing that, and thank you for your due diligence. And because  
of that, I plan to support.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Williams?  
MR. WILLIAMS: So I share the concern that Commissioner Loe and Geuea  
Jones have shared about the proximity to the school, and I also share some of the  
concerns about just the density, the concentration of -- in this area. At the same time, I  
think, you know, the 300 foot -- you mentioned, Commissioner Geuea Jones about the  
300 -- I mean, another one in 300 feet. I don’t -- since that’s not a -- when it is  
registered, I don’t feel that that should weigh against this applicant. We don’t have  
anything currently in the CUP criteria that reflects specifically on schools, so I don’t see,  
personally, a basis for restricting the applicant from getting a license on that -- on that  
basis at this time based on how the ordinances are currently written.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further comments? I think I would feel a lot differently if  
any of the four that are in the area of the map right now were owner-occupied, whether  
they were owner-occupied with a 210 CUP or whether they were owner-occupied and  
never had to come before us. But they’re not and that gives me pause. Any final  
comments before we vote? Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: I think we’re doing what we’re supposed to do. We’re setting the  
tone on how we’re going to judge these from here on out. And what weighs on our hearts  
are owner-occupied versus, for a lack of a better word, investment property, proximity to  
schools, a 300-foot radius per STR. These are things that we are looking at and I think  
we’re being pretty consistent throughout our decision so far, and as long as we stay on  
that path, I think it leaves us room to make the decisions that we’re making.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Last call. Seeing none. Commissioner Williams, may we  
have a roll call?  
MR. CRAIG: If I may, do we have a motion on that?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yes.  
MR. CRAIG: I’m sorry. I apologize.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: We were in discussion.  
MR. CRAIG: Pardon me.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: It’s okay.  
MR. CRAIG: Pardon me.  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.  
Stanton,  
Mr. Williams, Ms. Wilson, Mr. Walters, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Placier. Voting No: Ms.  
Geuea Jones,  
Ms. Loe. Motion carries 6-2.  
MR. WILLIAMS: Six to two. The motion carries.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation will be forwarded to City  
Council.  
Move to approve the request for the short-term rental CUP subject to the  
following: 210 nights of rental; maximum of 4 transient guests regardless of  
allowance permitted by the IPMC; and two driveway spaces be made available  
at all times while used as a STR.  
6 - Stanton, Placier, Wilson, Williams, Walters and Ortiz  
2 - Loe and Geuea Jones  
Yes:  
No:  
1 - Brodsky  
Excused:  
Case # 28-2025  
A request by Lauren Baxter (agent), on behalf of John and Lauren Baxter  
(owners), for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow 700 W.  
Green Meadows Road to be used as a short-term rental for a maximum of  
6 transient guests and up to 210-nights annually pursuant to Sec. 29-3.3(vv)  
and 29-6.4(m) of the Unified Development Code. The approximately  
0.24-acre subject site is zoned R-1 (One-family Dwelling), is located south  
of the intersection of Crawford Street and W. Green Meadows Road, and  
is addressed as 700 W. Green Meadows Road.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?  
Staff report was given by Mr. Ross Halligan of the Planning and Development  
Department. Staff recommends approval of the CUP to allow 700 West Green Meadows  
Road to be operated as a short-term rental subject to:  
1. No less than one parking space within the attached 2-car garage be made  
available at all times the dwelling is used for STR purposes; and  
2. Maximum of 210-nights of annual usage  
3. Maximum occupancy not to exceed 6 transient guests regardless of  
potential occupancy allowed by most recently adopted edition of the  
International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) or on-site/off-street parking.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my  
fellow Commissioners have had contact with parties to this case outside of a public  
hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Are there questions for staff? Seeing  
none. We will open the floor to public comment.  
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Please come forward if you -- and, yes, we know it’s the  
picture of the previous one. It’s okay.  
MR. ZENNER: We’re going to go back --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: It doesn’t affect the vote.  
MR. ZENNER: We’ll go back to a correct slide.  
MR. HALLIGAN: My apologies.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. It’s okay. Any members of the public to speak on this  
case, please come forward, state your name and address for the record. Six minutes for  
applicants and groups; three minutes for individuals.  
MR. BAXTER: Thanks for your time this evening. My name is John Baxter. My wife  
Lauren and I own the property for three years. We have no -- no comment prepared  
today, but we’re available for any questions you guys may have.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: You heard my little speech before on the last STR.  
MR. BAXTER: Sure.  
MR. STANTON: So I have two questions.  
MR. BAXTER: Yeah.  
MR. STANTON: If stuff hits the fan, who do I call and how fast do they get there?  
MR. BAXTER: Call us, my wife or I, and we’re there pretty quick. We -- we live  
maybe a six-minute drive away.  
MR. STANTON: Okay. Number two, you’re in that kind of area where I’ve heard  
noise complaint issues and I’m just -- well, this is more of a statement than a question.  
You’re one of the pioneers. If you screw this up, you greatly affect how we -- how other  
people use this opportunity, so you’ve got to be the pioneer and do good if you -- if you’re  
approved. Do you understand what I am saying?  
MR. BAXTER: Yes, sir.  
MR. STANTON: And I say this to everybody, so these first ones, you guys are going  
to set the tone. You guys screw it up, it’s open season. I mean --  
MR. BAXTER: Like the previous man, we do -- we vet our guests the same way  
when they request to stay at our place. We ask them why they are here and they  
usually tell us -- they always tell us. And we have denied some based on why they say  
they’d be here. If it sounds like they may be more than others, we’ve -- we have a good  
relationship with our neighbors. We let them know our intentions right off the bat and  
gave them our contact information and always keep that communication and let them  
know if they ever have any issue at all, that we want to know because we do want to be  
good neighbors. We want to do things the right way. We don’t want to be a nuisance of  
any kind. We’ve -- we’ve never received any type of noise complaint from anyone else, so  
when we saw that, that was kind of a punch in the gut to us because we do -- we truly do  
try to do things the right way and be good neighbors. That is a top priority for us.  
MR. STANTON: Good to hear that. Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for this speaker? Seeing none. Thank  
you very much. Any other members of the public to speak on this case, please come  
forward.  
MR. BRATTON: Hello. My name is Colby. I’m here with my partner, Mia. We live  
immediately adjacent at 702 West Green Meadows Road, and we just wanted to provide  
support to this --  
MR. CRAIG: I’m sorry to interrupt. We’ll -- we’ll need a full name.  
MR. BRATTON: Colby Bratton.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.  
MR. CRAIG: All right. Thank you.  
MR. BRATTON: Thank you. And we just wanted to provide -- provide support for  
this. We’d also like to say that we originally were not aware that this has been an STR  
for the last two and half years or so, but we’ve not had any issues. We would like to get  
contact information before we leave, if possible, but we have no objections and we have  
not had any noise complaints coming from us. So most of the short-term tenants are  
wonderful. That’s it. Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Wait just one moment, please. Any questions?  
Commissioner -- sorry -- Wilson.  
MS. WILSON: No questions. Thank you for coming forward.  
MR. BRATTON: No problem.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Anyone else from the public to speak  
on this case? Seeing none. We will close public comment and go to Commissioner  
comment.  
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any Commissioner comments on this case? Commissioner  
Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Madam Chair, if my colleagues do not have any other  
questions, I would like to entertain a motion. As it relates to Case 28-2025, 700 West  
Green Meadows Road, the STR conditional use permit, I move to approve the conditional  
use permit. Thank you. For 210 nights, maximum of six transient guests regardless of  
the allowance by the IPMC, conditional use of approval assured no less than one garage  
parking space be made available while the STR is in use.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any second?  
MR. WALTERS: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion made by Commissioner Stanton and seconded by  
Commissioner Walters. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. Mr.  
Williams, whenever you are ready.  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.  
Stanton,  
Ms. Geuea Jones, Mr. Williams, Ms. Loe, Ms. Wilson, Mr. Walters, Ms. Ortiz, Ms.  
Placier. Motion carries 8-0.  
MR. WILLIAMS: Eight to zero, the motion carries.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation will be sent to City Council.  
Move to approve the conditional use permit for 210 nights, maximum of six  
transient guests regardless of the allowance by the IPMC, conditional use of  
approval assured no less than one garage parking space be made available  
while the STR is in use.  
8 - Loe, Stanton, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Williams, Walters and Ortiz  
1 - Brodsky  
Yes:  
Excused:  
VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Next, public comments. If any members of the public have a  
general comment they would like to make to the Commissioner, please step forward.  
This is your opportunity. Seeing none.  
VIII. STAFF COMMENTS  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Zenner, staff comments?  
MR. ZENNER: Yes. You will notice that there seems to be a gap or maybe an error  
in the date here. It’s not as we discussed in our work session. Your next meeting is  
January 9 of 2025. We are turning the calendar yet again. We do not have any cases for  
the 19th’s meeting, so our work session topics that we had will be carried forward to the  
January 9th meeting, as well as some continued discussion on our small lot standards  
project that we have been working on. And then we do have a number of business items  
on our January 9th, 7:00 p.m. meeting, as those contain -- two of the three. We  
inadvertently indicated the Prathersville Road annexation request again as a repeat. We  
actually have a case that is off of Wilson Avenue that is in Benton Stephens. It is a  
replat of a property that is not formerly platted, and therefore, that will be coming to you  
and we will show you the graphic of that. We have a request for a PD zoning amendment  
to an undeveloped parcel down at the Bristol Lake Subdivision at the northwest corner of  
Bristol Lake Parkway and Gans Road. This was formerly identified as a multi-family  
development tract within the Bristol Lake Subdivision. It is being proposed to be  
developed with small cottage style single-family detached houses, and as such, requires  
a statement of intent revision, and that is what the rezoning action is for. The PD plan is  
a brand-new PD plan since the subdivision plat and PD plan just showed a vacant lot for  
this tract back in the mid-2000s when it was originally approved. And then the third item  
that is on the agenda is another short-term rental CUP request at 1003 Sunset Drive,  
which is off of West Boulevard, just to the west of Westwinds Drive. Your maps to put us  
into context. They are at the corner of Wilson and South William is the replat. In  
essence, what is happening here, you will notice that there’s a home in the upper  
northeast corner of that property. The property line runs north-south on that property.  
The replatting action proposes to reorient the property line to be east-west, and then the  
purpose for the platting action is one, we have a sewer line extension that is required, as  
well as the property requires Planning Commission review due to it not being a legal --  
previously approved lot before the Commission. Your Bristol Lake Parkway parcel, this is  
the immediate entry corner into Bristol Lake Subdivision up across from Phillips Lake and  
the fishing pier location of the Phillips Lake Park, property that the City owns. And then  
on the far graphic, that is our CUP request for the short-term rental there up off of Sunset  
Drive. Those are your three items for the upcoming agenda. We are starting to clear our  
docket of projects from the prior year, though our volume of concept reviews which are  
normally a precursor of activity for the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as other  
Council actions aren’t slowing down significantly, so that is still a sign that people are  
wanting to come in and investigate development within the City of Columbia, and we hope  
we’ll be seeing a continuous flow of activities. As we talked about within our work  
session towards the tail end of our meeting, we are six months now into adopted  
short-term regulation standards. Compliance is required by June 1st of 2025. As Mr.  
Stanton has encouraged the public that may watch in TV land that operates short-term  
rentals, get your paperwork in now. We do need to start seeing more applications in  
order to be able to effectuate processing them to ensure compliance, and we will as we  
monitor the application process also be cognizant of how we are ensuring that we are  
respecting the time of this Commission by not overloading you with requests and will  
continue to work towards streamlining the application review process before this body to  
continue to move them through at an appropriate pace. Again, at the close of another  
year of working with the Commission, and this is the beginning of my 16th year now with  
the City of Columbia, I don’t know how many of these meetings I have sat in and sat  
before a body of this nature. It is with my heartfelt appreciation and best wishes that you  
all have a wonderful holiday season, and we look forward to seeing you all again at the  
beginning of the new year for another year of fun and frolicking as we move through the  
regulatory process in the City of Columbia. Thank you very much for your attention  
tonight.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Mr. Zenner. If I don’t miss my guess, did we have  
two first presentations, like two of our staffers presented for the first time tonight?  
MR. ZENNER: I believe -- I’m hesitating only because I know Kirtis’s presentation  
this evening was the first, and I could have sworn I have had Ross present once before.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Ross presented before?  
MS. ORTIZ: Ross has.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, Ross has. Okay. Okay.  
MR. ZENNER: So I think what you will start to see, and this is how I had mentioned  
during work session and so the public that watches in TV land again understands, as the  
staff is becoming more familiar with our processes, I will still be behind the rudder guiding  
the ship, but will not be taking as a direct active role in presenting to you. I will be still  
conducting your work sessions for you with support from both David Kunz, one of our  
other planners, and Mr. Palmer. But you are going to start to see some faces and hear  
some presentations from the rest of the staff now. We’re ready to let them loose and  
allow me to continue to look forward to how do we manage the process. So if you all do  
have -- with the schedule being released this evening, again, if you do have conflicts for  
the coming year, please let myself and Ms. Geuea Jones know so we can put those into  
the schedule. And for the public’s benefit, the new schedule for 2025 will be published  
next week. So that will be available online on the Community Development Department’s  
page under the Planning and Zoning Commission’s link that is -- that can be found there.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Well, good job Kirtis and Ross, and I’m glad that  
we are going into the new year with a full staff or close to a full staff.  
MR. ZENNER: Close to full staff.  
IX. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any Commissioner comments for the evening?  
Commissioner Ortiz?  
MS. ORTIZ: I just want to echo that City’s -- thank you to City Staff for your due  
diligence. Since, I mean, all year, all the time, but it was really nice to see people -- can  
I say my age too? It -- doing reports, I think that is really cool seeing young people like  
stepping into their power and, yeah, thank you all for what you do.  
MR. ZENNER: I have -- I have used hair for grey -- I’ll darken my hair for you so I look  
younger.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Commissioner Stanton, did you have something  
you wanted to say?  
X. NEXT MEETING DATE - January 9, 2025 @ 7 pm (tentative)  
XI. ADJOURNMENT  
MR. STANTON: : I would like to entertain a motion to adjourn.  
MS. LOE: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Adjournment moved by Commissioner Stanton; seconded by  
Commissioner Loe. Without objection, we are adjourned. .  
(The meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m.)  
(Off the record.)