City of Columbia, Missouri  
Meeting Minutes  
Planning and Zoning Commission  
Council Chambers  
Columbia City Hall  
701 E. Broadway  
Thursday, January 4, 2024  
7:00 PM  
Regular Meeting  
I. CALL TO ORDER  
II. INTRODUCTIONS  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I will now call the January 4, 2024 Planning and Zoning  
Commissioner to order.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Carroll, may we have a roll call?  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Dunn?  
MR. DUNN: Present.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner MacMann? I am here. Commissioner Geuea  
Jones?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Ford?  
MR. FORD: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Loe?  
MS. LOE: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: We have eight; we have quorum.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.  
8 -  
Present:  
Sara Loe, Anthony Stanton, Valerie Carroll, Sharon Geuea Jones, Peggy Placier,  
Shannon Wilson, Zack Dunn and Matt Ford  
1 - Michael MacMann  
Excused:  
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any changes or adjustments to the agenda?  
MR. ZENNER: No, there are not.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. I would take a motion to approve the agenda.  
MR. STANTON: Move to approve.  
MS. LOE: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Approval moved by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by  
Commissioner Loe. Thumbs up approval of the agenda?  
(Unanimous vote for approval of agenda.)  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Unanimous. Thank you.  
Move to approve  
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  
December 21, 2023 Regular Meeting  
MS. GEUEA JONES: We have all received a copy of the December 21, 2023 regular  
meeting minutes. Are there any changes or adjustments to the minutes. Seeing none.  
MS. LOE: Move to approve.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner Loe, seconded by Commissioner  
Stanton. Thumbs up approval of the minutes?  
(Unanimous vote for approval of minutes.)  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Unanimous. Thank you.  
Move to approve  
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS  
Case # 41-2024  
A request by Simon & Struemph Engineering (agent), on behalf of A Good  
Start, Inc. (owner), for the approval of 'A Good Start P-D Plan' proposing  
the development of a daycare center and an indoor recreation or  
entertainment physical fitness center. The 1.79-acre subject site is located  
at the northeast corner of E. Richland Road & Grace Lane, and includes  
the address 5401 E. Richland Road.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report.  
Staff report was given by Mr. Kiaan Ahamed of the Planning and Development  
Department. Staff recommends approval of the proposed "A Good Start PD Plan" and  
associated Statement of Intent.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any member  
has had outside contact with the parties to this case, please disclose so now. Seeing  
none. Any questions for staff? Seeing none. Well done. We'll now open the floor to  
public comment.  
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone here to speak on this case? Please state your name  
and address for the record, speak into the microphone, all that stuff.  
MR. SIMON: Yes. Keenan Simon, 1516 Business Loop 70 West. I'm the civil  
engineer for this project. If you have any questions, I can -- I'm here to answer them now.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any questions for Mr. Simon? Seeing none.  
MR. SIMON: All right. Thank you. Apparently, you did well, as well. Anyone  
else to speak on this case? All right. Any Commissioner comments?  
MS. CARROLL: I think there's someone to make comment on the case.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, sorry. I'm so sorry.  
MR. WRIGHT: I'm the property owner right next to where you all are --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Can you state your name and address for the record? I'm  
sorry.  
MR. WRIGHT: 547 East Richland Road.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Great.  
MR. WRIGHT: I'm the property owner right next to the -- the plan. So I was  
wondering, is there a way I could look at the site plan? I'm a carpenter, so I kind of am  
interested in, you know, what all it will look like. And it's an apartment complex -- triplex,  
so I want to make sure that --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: All of the documents are attached to the agenda, so you can  
find those online through the Como.gov website, and you can look at all the same stuff  
we have to look at, and that does include a site plan.  
MR. WRIGHT: I just wanted to make sure.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. It does. Sure. Thank you. Oh, sorry. Any  
questions? We've got some questions for you, sir. Would you come back?  
MR. WRIGHT: Sure.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton, go ahead.  
MR. STANTON: The engineer is sitting behind you.  
MR. WRIGHT: Okay.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Wait. One more. Sorry. Commissioner Dunn?  
MR. DUNN: Yeah. I was just going to ask -- so I actually live off of Hunley Court,  
very close to you, in one of the duplexes over there. I'm just curious. Do you have any  
reservations, you know, with the proposed plan, being a daycare and an entertainment  
facility or physical fitness center?  
MR. WRIGHT: No. But I kind of wanted to talk to someone about the -- the entrance  
that I have. So it's a shared entrance, but it's kind of, like, in a loop, so I don't know who  
to talk to about that. So I don't know if --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I think staff may have an answer for you, a partial.  
MR. ZENNER: That particular entrance, sir, is not being impacted, so that will  
remain as your own private access. We have -- we have previously restricted access to  
this particular corner lot from Richland Road, so the driveway entrance that is proposed is  
as far north on Grace Lane as possible to remain on this particular site, and that will be  
the only access in and out of the project site in the future.  
MR. WRIGHT: Okay. So I wanted to, like, kind of, you know, build more privacy  
around, you know, the acre and a half that I have, so that -- that's why I was, like,  
concerned about that because I don't know if I could purchase it or, you know, kind of talk  
to somebody about it.  
MR. ZENNER: That would be an issue to probably raise with the project engineer as  
something that they potentially would be able to address. It will be required to be  
landscaped according to our landscaping and screening standards, and those details are  
shown on the site plan that is included with the Commissioner's packet.  
MR. WRIGHT: Como.gov. Right?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah.  
MR. WRIGHT: Okay.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. And either the planning staff or Mr. Simon can help  
you find it if you call in the morning. Or the site plan on the big screen won't be -- you  
won't be able to see as much as you would if you looked at it on a phone or tablet or  
something; you know what I mean? But yeah, it's all available, and Mr. Simon, I'm sure,  
will take your contact information.  
MR. WRIGHT: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Okay. Anybody else before I look away again?  
Okay. Seeing none.  
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Now Commissioner comment. Any Commissioner comment?  
Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: If my colleagues have no other questions, I would like to propose a  
motion.  
MR. DUNN: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I believe we're ready for that.  
MR. STANTON: In case 41-2024, Good Start PD Plan, I move to approve the PD  
Plan.  
MR. DUNN: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Approval has been moved by Commissioner Stanton and  
seconded Commissioner Dunn. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no -- oh,  
sorry. Commissioner Dunn, go ahead.  
MR. DUNN: Yeah. I'll just add, you know, living in this neighborhood, you know, it's  
a vacant lot of land. It's -- I've always kind of had a question of what's going to go there.  
So knowing it's going to be daycare and a physical fitness center, I mean, I think it's a  
great use. I don't think it's going to add a lot of traffic. There's not a lot of traffic at that  
intersection anyways currently. So, yeah, I think it's a great project.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other discussion on the motion?  
MS. CARROLL: Yeah.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: Sorry. I view this plan very positively. I think it's a good  
amendment to the existing PD Plan. I like this use. It's rather a lot of parking, but I find  
that the plan of the parking lot makes a lot of sense for a daycare. Daycares can be a  
traffic -- drop-off time, but it seems to be well planned for that. And so I intend to support  
this.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none.  
Commissioner Carroll, when you're ready, could we have a roll call?  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.  
Dunn, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier, Mr. Ford, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Loe,  
Mr. Stanton. 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 where they will also get a chance to vote on it.  
In case 41-2024, Good Start PD Plan, move to approve the PD Plan.  
8 - Loe, Stanton, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Dunn and Ford  
Yes:  
1 - MacMann  
Excused:  
Case # 44-2024  
A request by Smith Lewis LLP (agent), on behalf of Joe and Kerry Goyette  
(owner), for approval to rezone 0.18 acres of property from the R-MF  
(Multiple-family Dwelling) district to the M-OF district to allow office uses.  
The subject site is located roughly 90 feet north of the intersection of Park  
Avenue and N. Tenth Street, and includes the address 303 N. Tenth Street.  
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 requested rezoning to M-OF.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my  
fellow Commissioners have had outside contact with parties to this case, please say so  
now. Seeing none. Any questions for staff? Seeing none. Thank you very much. I will  
open the floor to public hearing.  
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Please come forward. Name and address for the record, and -  
-
MS. LAMAR: Good evening. My name is Phebe LaMar, and I have an office at 111  
South Ninth Street. I'm here this evening on behalf of the applicants, Joe and Kerry  
Goyette, who own the property that's located at 303 North Tenth Street. My clients are  
requesting to rezone this property from R-MF, which it is currently, to M-OF in order to  
allow for mixed uses of office and residential. They want to have office uses on the first  
floor and then have an apartment upstairs. The proposed use is appropriate in this  
location. It's actually matching zoning for properties that are north of the -- north of the  
property already. The property across the street is already zoned industrial, so it gives a  
nice stepdown from the property to the east and matches property to the north. My  
clients have actually consulted with the owners of the property to the north and the south,  
and also to the east of this property, and those property owners have expressed no  
reservations about the proposed rezoning. In addition, my client meets the requirements  
for parking as was explained by staff. In sum, the request is a logical use of the property,  
and we request that you recommend approval of the rezoning to M-OF. I'm happy to  
answer any questions, and my clients are also here if you have any questions for them.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? Commissioner  
Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: And I probably just misunderstood. I heard, or at least what I thought  
I heard, was that there were options that could be pursued regarding the parking, but you  
just indicated that we are meeting the parking requirements.  
MS. LAMAR: We actually meet the requirements based on the language in the  
ordinance as far as the reduction due to the mixed uses.  
MS. WILSON: Okay. Thank you.  
MS. LAMAR: Sure.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further questions for this speaker? Seeing none.  
MS. LAMAR: Thank you all.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Anyone else to speak on this case? Seeing  
none.  
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any Commissioner comments? Seeing none.  
Commissioner Dunn?  
MR. DUNN: I'd like to make a motion. In the matter of Case Number 44-2024, as it  
relates to 303 North Tenth Street rezoning, I make the motion to approve the requested  
rezoning from residential multi-family to M-OF.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Approval moved by Commissioner Dunn, seconded by  
Commissioner Stanton. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none.  
Commissioner Carroll, may we have a roll call?  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.  
Dunn, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier, Mr. Ford, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Loe,  
Mr. Stanton. 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. Moving on.  
In the matter of Case Number 44-2024, as it relates to 303 North Tenth Street  
rezoning, make the motion to approve the requested rezoning from residential  
multi-family to M-OF.  
8 - Loe, Stanton, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Dunn and Ford  
Yes:  
1 - MacMann  
Excused:  
Case # 45-2024  
A request by Engineering Survey and Services (agent), on behalf of TKG  
St. Peters Shopping Center, LLC (owner) and Brew Crew, LLC (Lessor),  
for approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow a drive-up facility on  
property located within the M-DT (Mixed Use - Downtown) Urban General  
West district. The subject site contains approximately 34,945 sq. ft. and is  
located on the west side of S. Providence Road south of Raising Canes  
and north of Custom Complete Automotive and is presently addressed 209  
S. Providence Road.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?  
Staff report was given by Mr. Pat Zenner of the Planning and Development  
Department. Staff recommends:  
Approval of the requested CUP to permit a drive-up facility to be an integral  
feature of the proposed "Brew Coffee Restaurant subject to:  
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan dated 12/29/23;  
2. Installation of a traffic control device, if required and approved by MoDOT,  
that would restrict northbound traffic movements at the intersection of the  
backage road and South Providence Road north of Elm Street as  
recommended by the TTS.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my  
fellow Commissioners have had contact with parties outside of this case, please disclose  
so now. Seeing none. Any questions for staff? Commissioner Dunn?  
MR. DUNN: Could you just kind of better reiterate for me what the kind of  
conditions are for the approval that you have listed here? I just don’t think I fully  
understood what you -- what we’re looking for.  
MR. ZENNER: So the site plan that you see here is the first page of, if I’m not  
incorrect, a six-page set of development plans. So if you should grant approval of this  
conditional use, this site plan and the remaining plan sheets that go along with it, which  
include the landscaping, would become an integral portion of that approval. And when we  
are -- if we receive -- when, and if we receive an actual building permit application, that  
building permit application and site development plan will be reviewed against these  
documents. If it is inconsistent, we will require that it be revised to be consistent with  
this, or the applicant would need to come back for additional consideration by this body  
and Council. The second condition, of course, is one that is triggered by MoDOT. So if  
required, and it could be required at development permitting, we did not want to make this  
condition applied as an absolute that they shall be required to put a MoDOT approved.  
We wanted to be cautious. And if MoDOT chooses not to, which is in their full discretion,  
we’re going to let MoDOT take the heat. But that second condition basically puts the  
applicant on notice and would authorize us to assist MoDOT, if necessary, to facilitate it.  
MR. DUNN: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: Yeah. My questions flow from that. I'm really concerned about the  
MoDOT issue because this looks like kind of an obvious case for restricting access to  
Providence and I guess we're kind hoping that MoDOT does the right thing. Can't you  
advise MoDOT that this could be a problem or do you not want to do that?  
MR. ZENNER: Well, I anticipated that question, Ms. Placier, so I asked our City's  
traffic engineer. We could advise MoDOT, however, MoDOT is MoDOT.  
MS. PLACIER: Okay.  
MR. ZENNER: And if they choose not to act upon our request, that is within their  
sole discretion. And so our City's traffic engineer was disappointed to give me that  
response, but that is the realistic response. If MoDOT does not feel that the conditions  
warrant some restriction, that's MoDOT's call. We do not have any permitting authority  
over this particular access, nor do we have any regulatory authority over this portion of  
Providence Road.  
MS. PLACIER: Okay. I just see problems down the road, but anyhow, my other  
question was -- and I'm glad you have this map of the plan, and I'm pointing to this  
knowing that nobody can see what I’m pointing to, but there are two lanes, both the  
drive-up lane and the sort of bypass lane, I guess you're calling it, going into one lane  
going west. How is that supposed to work? Just explain it to me, please.  
MR. ZENNER: So the two lanes that you see on the right-hand side of your graphic -  
-
MS. PLACIER: Right.  
MR. ZENNER: -- so everybody is looking at the -- those are actually -- this is a dual  
bypass drive-through.  
MS. PLACER: Right.  
MR. ZENNER: And so you'll enter in from the west off of the backage road and traffic  
will likely distribute itself within the two bypass lanes. Given the fact that this is a  
drive-through facility that basically relies on delivery -- personal delivery of a service to the  
vehicle that's in the drive-up lane, you're going to meter traffic out unless they're so  
efficient that they're delivering coffee to the front two vehicles at the exact same time and  
it's like the Indy 500 when you leave the starting line and they're all trying to get out of the  
exit to get to work.  
MS. PLACER: We've seen that.  
MR. ZENNER: We probably have, and that may be -- it may be more comical to  
visualize that than it may be if it happens in reality. The way that the curvature, and I will  
let Mr. Kriete respond to this. The curvature associated with the entering into the -- what  
would be the drive aisle of the actual parking spaces is designed, as we understand it, in  
order to meet the curvatures necessary in order to allow for the traffic to merge in. It's no  
different than when you get stopped on the highway at a construction zone where you've  
got to merge in, but you're told a mile and a half earlier that you need to merge, this could  
be a little bit more obvious. You've got two vehicles; one is going to have to take the  
lead.  
MS. PLACIER: Well, let's hope so. I don't know if signage would do that, but they  
are going to have to merge to get back to the --  
MR. ZENNER: Back to the exit.  
MS. PLACER: -- exit.  
MR. ZENNER: That's correct.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Loe?  
MS. LOE: Mr. Zenner, I was wondering if you could provide a definition of backage  
road. I have to admit that was a new one for me, and we do have a definition of frontage  
road, which is a street which is parallel and immediately adjacent to an arterial street,  
expressway or freeway which is a means of access to abutting properties. What is  
backage road?  
MR. ZENNER: Backage road is what's not along a main arterial. It's behind it. I'm  
sorry. The backage road is the term that is used within the traffic study itself to describe  
what this private access is. But this is, in essence, a 26-foot-wide driveway. They've  
referred to it as a backage road. It's a private -- it's a private access no different than  
what you would find within any other commercial development. I've just used the term  
that was in the traffic study for the purposes of just staying consistent with what we were  
viewing it as. It functions, in essence, as a private street, and was a requirement  
associated with, basically, the Raising Cane's construction.  
MS. LOE: And I notice -- I mean, it has curbs and gutters, storm drains, so it's built  
to our street standard?  
MR. ZENNER: I don't believe it was built to our street standard, ma'am. I think it  
was -- they put curb and gutter on it in order to ensure that the runoff, the drainage was  
going to properly go to central storm sewer locations to be able to exit the site, but I don't  
believe that the road itself was constructed to our city street standards. Again, it  
functions more like a private driveway or a parking lot drive aisle.  
MS. LOE: An internal street.  
MR. ZENNER: Correct.  
MS. LOE: The other question I have is regarding policy resolution 154.05.  
MR. ZENNER: I'm familiar with it.  
MS. LOE: Yeah. And my question really -- so for those that aren't familiar with it,  
this is a policy that was adopted in 2005 regarding development along Providence Road  
corridor. My question is, is this still in effect or has it been vacated?  
MR. ZENNER: Council has not taken official action to invalidate or to vacate, as you  
put it, the Providence Road corridor. However, it is, as was discussed during the last  
review of this particular -- of a -- of a proposal, actually it was discussed as part of the  
proposal for the Raising Cane's site that it is downplayed in the evaluation criterion that  
we utilize given that the M-DT supersedes it, and the M-DT has a much more substantive  
set of general requirements associated with objectives for that particular zone  
classification in this particular road corridor in this area.  
MS. LOE: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: Yeah. I have two questions. The first question is the painfully  
obvious one. We're wanting to restrict traffic flow onto Providence from the backage road.  
I see really good flow indicators on the plan for within the site. Which -- how -- can you  
just point out on this plan that's up how they want traffic to flow on the backage road?  
MR. ZENNER: So -- and Mr. Kriete may be able to better explain to you how the  
traffic study identifies the movement that will come off of the site. The exit point is what I  
am circling around right now. That is the sole exit point out of the entire tract of land, and  
it is actually located in that particular location to allow for site visibility moving back to the  
north, and allowing for site visibility moving to the south coming back towards Custom  
Complete. Depending on the direction that you would like to go in, and depending on if  
the intersection has a restricted turning movement at some point in the future, if you want  
to head north at some point in the future, if you want to head north on Providence, you  
will have to exit out of the site and turn right to head back towards Eatwell. If you want to  
head south, you would have to -- you would come around, turn left, and then make the  
right out to the Elm Street intersection.  
MS. CARROLL: I guess -- so my question is, is that backage road intended for  
two-way traffic?  
MR. ZENNER: It is. It functions that way today.  
MS. CARROLL: Yeah. And my other question was, did you consult the Downtown  
Charrette report at all in your operation of staff report and your research on these parcels?  
MR. ZENNER: No, I did not. However, the Downtown Charrette itself is -- while it is  
inclusive of this property, as well as the property to the north, again, the evaluation of this  
tract of land was based upon the M-DT's requirements. The Board of Adjustment granted  
that relief accordingly. The use is an allowed -- the restaurant use is an allowed use,  
regardless of the Charrette may have recommended. So really, when we looked at this  
from a staff perspective, we were looking at it as the restaurant first, drive-through  
second, and the restaurant component of it, the architectural features of the restaurant  
and the cooler itself and its placement on the site what really we were evaluating.  
MS. CARROLL: Okay. Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for staff? I had one. There aren't any  
sidewalks at all along the backage road. There aren't any sidewalks at all throughout that  
entire site internal. They're only along Providence where they've been required, and this  
has some that go down the parked-car side. But we know that there's a pedestrian  
problem with people crossing from the Lucky's, or in deference to my fellow  
Commissioner MacMann, parking lot to Raising Cane's. So, I mean, I guess if we're  
building out the rest of this site, at any point, are they going to be required to provide  
some kind of pedestrian access in between the various pad sites?  
MR. ZENNER: No. The simple answer is no. There is not a requirement given that  
this is -- that the backage road functions as, basically, a drive aisle and private -- private  
access. And therefore, because it's not a street, it -- it doesn't have that same trapping  
of you've got to put sidewalks on both sides of it. That's not to say that when we did  
Raising Cane's, as a part of the Raising Cane's proposal, we acknowledged as a part of  
that -- the Commissioner did or it was the Board of Adjustment when it went through the  
variance procedure for them, we acknowledged the necessity for sidewalk along what  
would be the southern side of the Locust Street extension. So there is sidewalk at least  
that that comes up into the Lucky's parking lot, but it terminates at the backage road  
itself, so just to the east of the backage road location. And given how the site  
improvements for Raising Cane's are constructed all the way, in essence, to the backage  
road's easternmost boundary, putting any sidewalk on the east side of the backage road  
is almost a lost opportunity.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Uh-huh.  
MR. ZENNER: As the property potentially is developed to the north, that -- or to  
the west, there may be an opportunity for that to where you could tie in along the western  
side of the backage road along the front of those lots between the parking area and  
possibly the backage road, the throat that will need to be created, to have a sidewalk  
placed in there. But that would be off-site to this particular user, and we'd have to be  
looking at that as a potential condition associated with the future development of the  
western vacant parcel.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: What does it take for something like this backage road to be  
designated as an internal street, because I know that there are some requirements for  
internal streets.  
MR. ZENNER: This was created, if I'm not in -- well, it was created not as a shared  
ingress-egress. It functions -- that's what's odd about this. If we were to look at this in  
the -- in a different scenario where we had individual lots that didn't have roadway  
frontage, we would have required it to have been an irrevocable ingress-egress easement,  
which, at that point, it potentially would have triggered the necessity for the sidewalk  
improvement or at least relief being granted to waive it on side. Because this doesn't  
function that way, it has frontage and it attains the access through the other parcel, the  
Locust Street extended. It's -- there's not a possibility to come back and retrofit it if that's  
what your thought is.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: No. I'm just curious as to how and -- and there's a saying in  
the legal field that bad cases make for bad law. But I think this is a case where because  
of the history of the site, they've escaped a sidewalk requirement that otherwise would  
have been there if they would have brought this to us as a plan altogether. But because it  
was a construction access, and then it's -- now it's a backage road or whatever, I'm not  
saying that there's a solution to it, other than, as you say, if the sites to the west get  
built. I just find it unfortunate that there is no sidewalk on the south and then west side of  
that backage road because that would be between this and the Custom Automotive, and  
then between this and the cemetery. Right?  
MR. ZENNER: That -- yeah. That would be correct.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah.  
MR. ZENNER: And along the south side of the current backage road between the  
site and Custom Complete --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah.  
MR. ZENNER: -- that is actually, as you probably know, where there is a concrete  
retaining wall, and the pavement actually comes all the way to that retaining wall. So we  
would either be --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Wanting to build something up.  
MR. ZENNER: -- filling a portion of the backage road with a sidewalk. It is a very  
unfortunate situation, and due to some gaps within the UDC, this was an item that just  
fell through.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah.  
MR. ZENNER:  
And, unfortunately, it is, as I often say, what it is, and we're  
trying to make lemons out of lemonade.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Fair enough. I just didn't know if that -- it sounds like that  
discussion was had in depth at some point, given your response, but I didn't hear it in the  
staff report. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? No? No. Okay. Public  
comment.  
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Please come forward.  
MR. KRIETE: Good evening. My name is Matthew Kriete; I‘m with Engineering  
Surveys and Services, and I am the civil engineer on the project. So I do have a  
presentation here, as well, and if you don’t mind, I'm going to try to answer some  
questions along the way as well here. So, again, -- and again, this is what this is about.  
This is the conditional use for the accessory use of the drive-through and the M-DT. So a  
little bit about 7Brew. As you have seen, there's already one open in Columbia now.  
They're an Arkansas-based company, several locations. You know, they do employ  
locally, have got about 50 employees, hourly rates of about $18 to $20 an hour, as I  
understand. They are the Mizzou official coffee, I believe, and, you know, is opening --  
they -- they tend to always get a charitable donation, I understand it'll go the Children's  
Hospital in this case. As I mentioned to you, this is also a one-of-a-kind unique building  
for them that they have designed to meet the unique conditions of downtown Columbia.  
Again on the location, again, south of Cane's, kind of at this Providence Road, you've  
seen the backage road that's there and access to the signal and other shared access.  
The site has all the infrastructure that's required. That's kind of another condition on this,  
you know, all the water, sewer. It's all in place. We can handle the storm-water runoff  
and it will be taken care of on the site. In terms of the circulation, well, again, we've got  
the frontage on Providence Road, so you've got the -- the full access down in the southern  
part of that, what we're kind of calling the private drive or what's been referred to as a  
backage road here that heads to the north and then has access out to the signal at  
Locust Street. Again, all the access is to the west side of this backage road, getting as  
far from Providence as we can. This is to get that circulation away from the public  
movement, away from the pedestrians on there, and really away from the pedestrians  
accessing the -- the site from Providence Road. Again, there's no menu board, all of the  
services are taken in person. Walk-up service is available, so you'll walk in off of  
Providence Road, you can come off of the MKT Trail right up, park your bike, and get  
some coffee. It is ADA accessible from Providence Road, and there is exterior seating  
available up on the Providence Road side. So, again, trying to create some inviting  
environment, more pedestrian oriented environment on the frontage of Providence. From  
a circulation standpoint, again, you can see now the northeast entry. That's where  
drivers are going to come in and enter the drive-through. Access can come from the  
north or the south. The backage road is two-way. So you imagine you're coming down  
to your job at the University in the morning, you're going to take a right into the site,  
maybe at the signal or at the backage road, circle in, come back out, take a right back  
probably at the south side of that backage road. But again, the exit is at that corner  
there. Odd location, but this gives the best site distance, the separation for access here.  
And then the southern entry that -- or the southern entry, kind of to the east you see in  
front of the Custom Fleet Automotive driveway is simply for people to enter in to park.  
But, again, we're taking all that circulation out. So in terms of the questions about the  
circulation, yeah, we've got two drivers -- now, this is unique, so if you've -- if you've been  
to these drive-throughs and they tell you what to order from the order board or that, you  
know, it takes your order, Chick-fil-A tells you, you know, follow the blue car in front of  
you, you know. You kind of get that direction, so the orders are going to be coming out,  
and I think it's going to effectively stagger the traffic, you know. And it should  
self-regulate itself pretty well. You know, cars coming in, you know, that's, I think, in  
front of the parking stalls, I think they're going to be of minimal concern if conflicts occur  
there, but there's plenty of room in backing out and, you know, just a short stop until  
somebody backs up and pulls out. So I, again, don't see that as being anything that  
creates a significant concern. So in terms of the sidewalks on the backage road, another  
unfortunate issue here is all of this is private property, so it is 100 percent required to  
meet ADA law. Topography in here just doesn't allow for sidewalk connections between  
it. The tiering just doesn't make it possible. The grades on the side are going to be well  
over six, seven percent. Sidewalks can't exceed five. Access, and that's part of the  
problem going back to Eatwell. That's that driveway between Eatwell and Cane's is too  
steep. Yeah, people walk it, but as soon as you provide that pedestrian access, you  
have to provide equal opportunity for -- for those who need the access. It physically is not  
possible in this current condition at this site. It's unfortunate, but I'm -- I'm kind of afraid  
that's the case. So really that really forces you up to using Providence Road, as that  
point of access, you know, and that's, again, where our focus is. And, of course, for the  
vehicular circulation, too, from driving in and using the accessible stalls on the property.  
And again, with all the circulation, this is provided to provide the safest access,  
circulation, and that doesn't interfere with pedestrians, it doesn't interfere with bikes,  
anyone wheeling on the sidewalks in the area, and even circulation in and out of Custom  
Complete Automotive, separation from Cane's drive-through, all of this is going to be  
provided in this situation. And from a building character standpoint, and Mr. Zenner has  
spoken of this quite a bit already, this is, you know, again a unique building for -- for  
7Brew. It does provide some visual interest and is very much in line with what we have  
around the area already. Again, you see the patio out front for some outdoor seating, and  
you actually kind of see the sidewalk coming away, as well. It's providing access into the  
site from Providence. And if you look down at the bottom, you'll see the grade transition,  
too. This actually works to benefit to kind of hiding some of the vehicular facilities for  
Providence, as well. You know, again, that -- that is kind of unintended, but I think it  
does sort of work to that benefit. And then the cooler, if you see it back there, kind of  
see the Mizzou logo on the backside, that's the cooler. Periodic opportunity for some  
art, where these can display. There's actually, honestly, some sort of Mizzou artwork,  
and provide as a street wall, just again to help create that wall and that frontage on  
Providence Road and that presence and frontage on Providence Road. Again, you know,  
other than the variance which was received, this is compliant with the M-DT standards.  
There were really no other additional variances we need. We -- you know, we talked  
about -- well, hours of operations is one thing we didn't have. Sorry. Skipped over that,  
but generally, these facilities are open -- it’s a coffee shop, it’s open early, 5:30 in the  
morning, and they do run late, about 10:00 p.m., so that's their typical hours. And then it  
shows the M-DT again, since this leased parcel was kind of considered its own parcel,  
rather than the whole lot, I mean, obviously, the M-DT -- there's a cemetery behind us.  
There is some frontage of M-DT of that behind Custom Complete. You know, that will all  
be screened and, you know, per code, so, you know, I'm not -- not concerned about that.  
We do have a wall there. It’s got some limitations on what we can plant in that area, but  
if you look at the landscape plan, you'll see another island in between. There's a pretty  
strong buffer in there. We do have some site distance limitations in the driveway we have  
to account for, but, you know, if we need to have fences up on top of the wall, whatever  
we need to make sure that's properly screened, we'll account for that. Again, surrounding  
properties going south and north. Again, I want to just kind of cycle through some  
pictures, and talk about, you know, what do we have, and there's Cane's. So again, you  
see the drive-through facility. It is, you know, fronting on Providence. It is visible from  
Providence. You know, likely, you've got an automotive facility next door, parking lots in  
front of Custom Complete just to the south of us, buildings to the back. Just south of  
that, at 309 South Providence, again, parking is in front, and not -- you know, not again  
the intent of M-DT, so again, a non-compliant. Continue south and yet again,  
noncompliant, parking in front of the building, and another building, same way, so you  
can see down this block. You go to Eatwell. Again, you can imagine what you have in  
that -- that large parking lot for, you know, what's a big store there. Hardee's across the  
street. It looks terrible. I hope, you know -- it is unboarded and occupied soon, but  
again, the drive-through is out in front of the building again. You know, even Chamber of  
Commerce, you know, it's set back from the road. Yeah. It’s got parking behind it, but it  
is not even compliant with M-DT standards. Taco Bell is M-DT. So again, we've got  
another drive-through in the area. Parking is visible, drive-through is visible. Walgreen's  
has its drive-through. It's at least fronted on the street, but again, it's got its  
drive-through, you know. Again, that's kind of hidden back from Providence Road, but  
visible from Second Street, or I think that's Second Street. Yeah. And then a new gas  
station. They've got some particular requirements in MBT. I don't know the particulars of  
its approval, but, you know, again, very visible parking and the like. Again, I think that's a  
nice presence off Providence Road, but -- so you look at the area. I mean, this is very  
consistent with character that we see in the area. Again, Comprehensive Plan, you  
know, we're supposed to look at that, as well. I think we've met many of the goals on  
that with the infill development. You know, we're not impacting any sensitive areas. It is  
a walkable, bikeable, wheelable facility. It's near MKT, I think -- you know, I think you’re  
going to pull some riders off of that and some walkers off that in the end. You know,  
sidewalk on Providence is being widened, street lighting is being added, landscaping,  
again, not where we want it, but we're restricted by MoDOT as being added through there.  
So in summary, and I think before I hit that, just in terms of MoDOT and the access, you  
know, we're -- my client is not interested in fighting the -- any -- any improvements that  
MoDOT wants to see done. You know, we're just working out what those details are.  
And then to be clear, what the traffic study shows -- let me back up a little bit -- it may go  
early --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: If you could actually get to the summary, that would be great.  
MR. KRIETE: Oh, okay.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.  
MR. KRIETE: Thank you. Again, same thing that I’ve said. Again, we've got the  
adequate infrastructure. We've got some adequate space for circulation. It's protecting  
pedestrians and bicyclists and wheelable. You know, drive-through is kind of hidden  
behind the building and utilizing grade change to help benefit that, as well. That's  
compliance with the standards. You know, it's conforming again with the area, you know.  
And it doesn't have negative impacts on the neighbor or the transit in the area. So with  
that, I would be happy to answer any questions you all might have.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Great. Any questions for this speaker? Commissioner  
Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: Do you intend to install any lighting on the backage road?  
MR. KRIETE: I mean, I don’t think we could do the whole thing, but I certainly think  
adding some lighting along our site would be prudent just to help light that area. It's  
pretty dark today.  
MS. CARROLL: Yeah. I drove it tonight --  
MR. KRIETE: Uh-huh.  
MS. CARROLL: -- and visibility was quite poor as I was coming in off the Locust  
Drive extension towards Eatwell. Like, it wasn't readily noticeable that there was drive  
behind Raising Cane's because it was dark back there. I would recommend some  
lighting, as well as some painted traffic direction. There is nothing on the pavement to  
suggest that there's a drive over there. I'm sure during the daytime it's a little more  
obvious.  
MR. KRIETE: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think we can certainly get that added, and, you  
know, there's going to be some directional signage that goes into this, you know, some  
of the detail you don't completely see today, but will be in there to help out, too.  
MS. CARROLL: Yeah.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Commissioner Dunn?  
MR. DUNN: So just -- so you're going to have attendees taking orders outside  
currently under the model for the drive-through. You know, the employees that are going  
to be out there, you know, what designs have you made to help those employees during  
rain or inclement weather, like, when it's winter and it's snowing, are they going to remain  
out there? Do you have heaters or anything? Like, what does that look like, and is there  
any type of modifications we might see in the future to help those employees?  
MR. KRIETE: And some of it there is -- there is some covering back there, as well. I  
don't know -- I don't think it hits the whole drive-through now, but certainly, you know, I  
think in inclement weather, they'll be cared for and taken care of, you know. Have an  
opportunity to get back under cover, even some temporary cover if they need it. And, I --  
you know, I kind of taking the example of Chick-fil-A, where you see that they've modified  
some things that they needed to in those times. And I'm trying to see if there is a  
picture --  
MR. DUNN: Yeah. I was going to say, like, with Chick-fil-A and even specifically,  
like, I grew up in St. Joe. I know right now they're doing renovations to the Chick-fil-A  
there to provide covering for those employees --  
MR. KRIETE: Yeah. Yeah.  
MR. DUNN: -- as well as heaters. I just wasn't sure if that was something in your  
design.  
MR. KRIETE: Yeah. Yeah. So there’s your example, that's the elevation. So what  
you're looking at in those top and bottom are cuts through the drive-through, so you see,  
you know, you're -- in kind of the left side there, you've got one that is under cover. The  
second one is -- the second lane is not covered, but, you know, for the employees, I  
mean, they can kind of get in and out of that -- the covering, you know, whenever they  
need to in some inclement weather.  
MR. DUNN: And then on -- you know, let's talk peak hours just for a moment. When  
you're looking at the drive-through and it was said during the staff report that the -- both  
lines of the drive-through would be utilized during peak hours. For the cars that are  
coming in there, you know, there's no easy way to get out, and if you miss that first  
entrance into the parking, you know, there's not a good way to circle back around, is  
there? Or --  
MR. KRIETE: Well, what you would do is probably just go up to the Eatwell parking  
lot and turn around and come back, you know. But, you know, access into that parking -  
- that entrance in the parking lot, you could certainly make a left off the backage road into  
it, just like a right. You just -- you know, the idea is that you want to drive through traffic  
going back out of it, so that's available, you know. It would just be a matter of turning  
around. But again, there's going to be some directional signage in there kind of directing  
where you're -- you're going to be at each of those driveways to help folks when they first  
come in.  
MR. DUNN: And do we have any requirement for a crosswalk from the backage road  
to the drive? Like, if you -- I'm looking -- I don’t know if that's south and north, but at the  
bottom of the map there where you would come into park, is there any crosswalks there  
on that backage road?  
MR. KRIETE: And you're kind of talking from along Providence Road itself?  
MR. DUNN: Whatever is south there, yeah.  
MR. KRIETE: Yeah. Yeah.  
MR. DUNN: The southeast parking entry.  
MR. KRIETE: Yeah. I mean, it's a typical driveway. I mean, it really is a private  
driveway, so it's -- it's going to have a crosswalk. It's generally unmarked when you --  
when you deal with crosswalks and driveways, but certainly some marking, if needed,  
could be added there. I think it's kind of up to MoDOT's discretion on that, but I believe  
we do need to review some of the details of whether that even is grade compliant and  
correct that if it's not. So there may be some reconstruction that goes on to make that a  
proper sidewalk, too.  
MR. DUNN: Okay.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much.  
MR. KRIETE: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other members of the public here to speak on this  
case? Seeing none.  
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comments? Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Oh, boy. Well, I was here when Raising Cane's was talked about.  
Didn't like how that went. It got through the marketing plan, the presentation. I think we  
voted against that one, I think. But it -- here it is. So they made it work. A lot of smart  
brains made this work. I might not like it. I think that it's going to be a nightmare when  
this is, like, first opened, and it's like the buzz of the city and everybody is going to be  
going in there. I'm really curious how this back road, Raising Cane's and this coffee shop  
are going to operate at peak capacity at the same time. I'm really curious about that.  
But nothing else we can do about it. The engineering has been done, we've a meeting --  
dealing with MoDOT is like dealing with the railroad. So any ideas we have as far as  
what we can do with the MoDOT jurisdiction, save your breath. We -- it don't matter what  
kind of -- just save your breath, because they're going to do what they want to do and  
what they feel is necessary. I honestly -- I -- I did like Raising Cane's there. I really don't  
like this. I feel like we're going to get to a point where the traffic issues that we've always  
been concerned with are going to meet and come to a head on Providence right there in  
the future. It's going to -- I feel like it's going to happen. But being in this field, in the  
engineering and construction field, I feel this is the smartest thing they can do as far as it  
being engineered, the layout works, they can make lemonade out of lemons, that's what  
this does. And we're stuck with what we were stuck with when we built Raising Cane's  
there, and we set the tone to make another situation like Raising Cane's come up, and  
then to the left, there's probably going to be another one, and then -- but I plan to support  
it because what else? And I think the sharp -- I think the pencils have been sharpened to  
the best of their ability. I think all the brains, the engineering and mathematics have been  
squeezed to capacity, and it's the best design that we have available. I mean, and get  
into some graveyards which I'm worried about, I mean, but that must have been  
addressed before, so I plan to support it, but the lesser of two evils. I'd rather have it  
designed than awful.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Loe?  
MS. LOE: This Commission is charged with reviewing cases with respect to active  
enabling zoning acts, and that includes the best of my understanding, the policy  
resolution on Providence, and the Charrette Plan. City Council has the ability to  
invalidate or vacate those, but they have not. So I am including those in my evaluation of  
this case even if staff chose not to. One of the items on the  
PR 154.05 is item  
D, which says a list of uses on Providence Road Corridor shall not include large traffic  
generators such as fast-food restaurants. Restaurants with the drive-through windows are  
generally characterized as fast-food restaurants. So we have provisions that were  
adopted in 2005 just to mitigate the very traffic conditions that Commissioner Stanton is  
identifying now. That's one of the reasons this Commission chose not to support Raising  
Cane's when it came up. Just because another body chose not to consider that doesn't  
mean I'm going to ignore again what we have in place already. We had several examples  
shown to us this evening as being -- defining the character of the area. Many of those  
examples are ones that don't meet the current standard because they were built before  
the current standard was adopted. If our idea is to continue building projects that don't  
meet our current adopted standard, then I'm all for letting what we -- letting buildings  
continue go forth based on what was there. This used to be the area west of the railroad  
line and was a pretty deplorable -- pretty tough area. We're trying to turn that around with  
the policies that have been adopted for this area. The Urban General West Zone is  
defined as less intensive than downtown. The frontage anticipates a gradual increase in  
pedestrian traffic, so we want projects that are bringing more pedestrian traffic over time.  
It provides improved pedestrian connectivity and transition to adjacent neighborhoods.  
Right now, the internal sidewalk to this project leads to the dumpster. I'm -- I'm really  
concerned about this because this project is providing no internal pedestrian connectivity  
whatsoever that I can see. I'm really concerned that we're not requiring sidewalks along  
internal streets on a commercial property, because in our last meeting, we heard a case  
for a residential driveway that was over 250 feet long and we were going to be requiring  
sidewalks along that. We are looking to the exception that allowed for a sidewalk not to  
be required along a residential access street if it's less than 250 and terminates in a  
cul-de-sac. This is not either one of those, but appears to be comparable to and much  
more public. A lot of the discussion we were having last time about the public using that  
road, using it as a cut-through, and our concerns, we're not addressing those at all if our  
current standards don't include sidewalks along similar routes on non-residential  
subdivisions. So the fact -- this -- this has been proposed to us as a revision that's  
superior than what was brought to us initially, and I agree there are many features,  
pencils have been sharpened. However, I don't feel that this is a project that supports the  
policies that have been adopted by City Council regarding how they want development in  
this area to move forward, nor do I fully -- am I convinced that this project shows true  
pedestrian connectivity, which is one of the reasons we're being asked to support it even  
though it is an autocentric project. Thanks.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: Yeah. We do have a plan that guides development along this  
corridor. It is the Charrette's Report. I don't view this as superseded by M-DT, but  
guidance to go along with M-DT. Within the Charrette's Report, it discusses an intent to  
make the Providence south of Broadway a green corridor with green architecture and  
pedestrian infrastructure. Our city has already embarked on the developments that were  
discussed in this report towards developing this as a green corridor with the installation of  
Flat Branch Park and the more recent installation of the Gateway Park at the corner of  
Providence and perhaps more across the corner of Providence and Broadway and  
perhaps more across the street from Broadway, as well as numerous mini-parks and  
pedestrian paths passing under Providence all outlined in Charrettes as intended  
projects. I think that we are not supporting those investments well if we don't follow the  
plan outlined within Charrettes that is supposed to go along with M-DT criteria. I agree  
with staff's analysis that a restaurant would fit in with M-DT, even a coffee shop. I agree  
that that would be in good fitting with Charrettes. What I find even more persuasive is  
that Charrettes calls out these specific parcels on page 30 of the Charrette's Report.  
These specific parcels are called out in the text as underdeveloped parcels. It lays out  
development options that are low traffic intensity. There is mixed-use residential M-OF.  
It discusses a meeting option but highlights that that was not very popular for a meeting  
center with the community. It's interesting to me that, you know, we have this plan. This  
particular corridor does have a lot of vehiclecentric uses, and recent vehiclecentric uses.  
I think this plan was put into place with the intent to move away from that, but we didn't  
stick with it very well, and so we have a very disjointed area where we can't visually see  
and interact with the investments that we've made for public parks, and that included not  
following this with the gas station and with Raising Cane's. You know, we didn't support  
that, and Council did, and that's up to Council. I think that we're really looking at what do  
we view as the future for this corridor. Do we want to follow the future of the plan and the  
parks that we've already installed, or do we want to continue further down the  
development patterns that have been, I guess, re-established. I would prefer to support  
our planning process, the design that was made for this corridor, and the public  
investment that we've already made in the corridor and continue to project for that  
corridor. And so I don't think I can support this. I will say, however, that I do view this  
design as an improvement upon Raising Cane's, particularly as it does move it forward  
towards a walk-up building with traffic to the rear. Raising Cane's has the pedestrians  
crossing the drive aisle. I would support this without a drive-through. To me, the traffic  
intensity is clearly due to the drive-through.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other Commissioner comments? Commissioner  
Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: I agree with both of my esteemed colleagues. They made very  
solid points. I hate to be that guy, but once City Council approved Raising Cane's, they  
set the tone. We had these same discussions about the Charrette and about green  
space and all of that before Raising Cane's was there. So the decision to allow Raising  
Cane's to be developed, to me, showed me the position of City Council. There may be a  
totally different City Council now, but the precedents have been set, and that back row  
was evidence of that because that was already telling you what was to come in the  
future, and it wasn't green space. Now let's say we reverse and we go back to what the  
Charrette said and let's make this green and all of that. Well, really, there's not much  
else to develop now. We're -- you’ve run right into Custom Auto. So my position, yes, I  
agree with both you ladies wholeheartedly. But the reality is that's not real anymore, and  
that, to me, and I don't even agree with the sidewalks in the back. I'm -- this is my  
neighborhood, so I wouldn't walk that back street if you paid me. If you see the traffic  
that flies and the cars that go back there, I wouldn't walk that. And being I'm not lazy,  
but being, you know, my natural compass is I'd rather have my butt on Providence and  
walk that sidewalk than to try to walk behind there on the back road. And the bottom  
line, you know, I'm not superstitious, but it's like a level of respect. There's graves back  
there. There's a cemetery back there. How much more digging do you want to do back  
there; you know what I'm saying? That's kind of where I'm at. So I think that the  
infrastructure has been set. I think this is the best use of the existing infrastructure.  
Even though I don't like it, I'd rather see this than something of lesser value and move on  
to the next --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Carroll? Oh, sorry. Commissioner Wilson.  
Would you -- since you've already gotten to go once, would you mind, Val?  
MS. CARROLL: Oh, yeah.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Go ahead, Commissioner Wilson.  
MS. WILSON: Thank you. I think I agree with Commissioner Stanton. He said  
exactly what I was thinking. We had this issue of principle and this issue of what has  
happened. And at this point, to me, it's a punishment to this business that's trying to go  
in by holding to the principle when there's no point. There is nothing else to develop, and  
that's -- I just agree with what Commissioner Stanton has said.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Now Commissioner Carroll.  
MS. CARROLL: Thanks. Yeah, and I apologize for second bite. You know, things  
that you're saying, Commissioner Stanton, I've wrestled with the same thing. When  
Council approved Raising Cane's, that felt to me like they were deciding to go with the  
more vehiclecentric corridor. But then after approving Raising Cane's and before this  
came back to us, they acquired more land along that corridor to put in another park. And  
this is a bit of a different Council, not a hugely different Council, but a slightly different  
Council. I think right now that leaves me confused as to where Council wants this to go.  
And for me, you know, we have a written plan. It's not really a conscious versus a state  
that it is. It's really a -- I -- we're very disjointed along this corridor and I am not clear  
on where they're wanting to go. So in the absence of clarity, I'm going to go with the  
written plan for my own vote, and Council's is going to show us where they want it go. If  
they want to flip us, then they will do that, and that's okay.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Other comments? Okay. Commissioner Dunn and then  
Commission Placier.  
MR. DUNN: Thank you. You know, I was thinking back to my interview with Council  
to join this Commission and some questions that they had asked. And I remember very  
distinctly drive-throughs were a conversation in my interview. And I believe it was the  
mayor, as well as a couple other Council members, that really wanted to make sure we  
had pedestrian safety, when we see some of these newer developments with  
drive-throughs, et cetera. And the lack of a sidewalk on the back road, the lack of kind of  
crosswalks there, I just -- I feel like this doesn't meet that standard for pedestrian safety.  
And when we think about walkable cities and we think about green spaces and everything  
else, I mean, this is antifickle(ph.) to that, so I don't know that I'm going to be voting in  
support of this today.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: Yeah. When I first came on the Commission, Raising Cane's was  
being built or had already been approved, and I was under the illusion that you all had --  
or those of you who were on there before had approved it. And I thought, oh, my. The --  
in the interest of safety, I just can't see two drive-throughs side by side. It's -- it's not that  
we don't have a bunch of other noncompliant businesses along there, it's these two are  
going to exacerbate an unsafe situation both for cars and pedestrians in that area in the  
way that Custom Automotive doesn't and the Chamber of Commerce doesn't. I mean, it  
just -- I'm like you, Commissioner Stanton. I wouldn't walk that sidewalk in a million  
years behind there. I've already tried to walk up to Eatwell several times, and it's -- it's  
hair-raising going up there. So this intensification there is -- is even more than we have  
with those other places, and I can't -- I just can't go with it.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. I -- I'm torn. I think a lot like my fellow  
Commissioner, Commissioner Stanton, I personally don't like this, but I'm not here to vote  
for what I like, I'm here to vote for what is compliant and what meets our policy  
statements and what makes sense given the built environment. And I think that you can  
either look at things as M-DT compliant or M-DT not compliant, or you can look at it as  
there's a sliding scale between vehicular uses and pedestrian uses. And Raising Cane's,  
while it's not a great project, made concessions to have pedestrian walk-ups. The gas  
station made a lot of concessions to try to create a way for pedestrians to be able to  
easily use that facility, as well. They are a middle ground between the giant parking lot in  
front of big box store, and the street frontage with all the parking in the back, or parking  
garages on the corners or whatever. I think they are move towards a more pedestrian  
centric or pedestrian friendly, I should say. They are moved towards a more pedestrian  
friendly use of South Providence. I think that I am struggling to find an objective place to  
hang my hat for a no vote. Every logical objective argument I try to make says this is  
moving towards more pedestrian friendly, not away from it. This isn't the same as  
Raising Cane's. This isn't the same as the Taco Bell. This is at least trying to make it  
more welcoming for folks who may be walking up from the park that's a block away to  
grab coffee at the patio. Is it ideal? No. Is it my favorite? No. If it were my property,  
would I sell it to you to do this with? No. Are any of those reasons as a Commission  
that I can actually vote no? No. So I think I'm -- I'm in the corner where I have to be a  
yes, even though it's not a project I'm particularly fond of. Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Tea leaves have been spilt. I'm going to tell you what's going to  
happen. We've got a wonderful park across the street that we have invested in. You walk  
over there, you hang out at the Globe. If you choose, you trot across Providence. Once -  
- take the underpass? Okay. Or take the underpass. Okay? You traverse the  
sidewalks over there and you come up the street and you have coffee. Or you drive  
through after you duck the traffic coming out of the driveway from either Raising Cane's or  
this coffee shop. I'm -- this is the reality of it all. And, you know, we says to you -- my  
colleague says something here, and this is -- I'm just going to have to bring this up. This  
is on the other side of the tracks. So this side of the tracks thinks a little different than  
the other side of the tracks. I live on that side of the tracks and I don't be thinking about  
that park unless I'm on that side of the tracks. I'm on this side of the tracks where  
Raising Cane's is. I'm driving or I'm walking along Providence right there. I'm not worried  
about that Globe or that park over there. That's my side of the tracks. Now we can think  
people are going to cross and traverse back and forth and get coffee and all of that.  
Yeah, maybe. But the bottom line is this has already been a chess move that's already  
been played. So we either concede and tip over the king and the game and concede or  
we play the hand that's dealt. And the hand that's dealt is that that back road is already  
built with a driveway to Providence, the private street that's already been designed. It  
didn't have sidewalks because it's not required. And I'm going to put my concrete hat on  
and say heck no, because the grades are horrible and you -- the City would be sued as  
soon as the site -- the concrete dried because that elevation is crazy. So are sidewalks  
practical there? No. Were they designed to be there anyway? No. The sidewalk that  
best fits is the one that's on Providence. They're going to expand it. What's the win for  
us? We get a more expanded sidewalk on Providence. Yay, because I walk that. I'm  
digging that. So yes, yes. I've got to duck some traffic across Eatwell, across Raising  
Cane's, and then I got, you know, cross this -- where this new place is. Yeah. And if I  
survive those three crossings, whoo, I'll be somewhere, and I can walk down to the park.  
I can walk down to the trail. But this has already been played. This is a chess move.  
It's already in checkmate. It's -- we're already in check, and the best way to do it is to go  
with this design, which I do support the design. I hate that it's there. I hate this whole  
situation, but if I'm going to have it, this will be the best way I would hate it. And I plan to  
support it because I think it's the best solution to the position that we've been put in.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further comments? Commissioner Carroll, go ahead.  
MS. CARROLL: My very last comment, I promise. I wanted to address the  
sidewalks and the -- the conversation around the back sidewalk. The sidewalk that goes  
north to south along the west side of the -- west side of Providence is already existing. I  
don't think they have to install one. There's quite a good sidewalk there right now. It has  
already been improved, too, with Raising Cane's. That communication connecting really  
all the way from Taco Bell up to Raising Cane's, I find to be quite good. I use it already. I  
don't think that people are going to take a back walk to go between those sites. What's  
lacking here that does influence the site design is the pedestrian communication from  
there back to the Eatwell, and people are going to be entering this site from the Locust  
Drive. And so for people accessing Eatwell by pedestrian use, there's not a good  
communication back there, and actually it does get used quite a bit because it's next to  
the Stewart Road trail head. It's kind of the main local trail head for the MKT, and by  
quite a bit of student housing, as well. So people walk across there. There's also people  
who live in that park who cross along there too, walking up that road. That drive is an  
issue. It would be nice if sidewalks were installed up the drive to Eatwell. This is already  
existing site. This is exactly the flaw that we're discussing.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Loe?  
MS. LOE: Cemeteries used to be picnic grounds back in the day. I like to hang out  
in cemeteries, so I wouldn't mind walking past that cemetery whatsoever. And  
accessible routes while required, not every route needs to be accessible. Yes, features  
need to be accessible to everyone, but you don't have to have all routes at a one and  
twelve grade. So if that were the case, we wouldn't be going up Broadway either. I don't'  
think this grade is any much steeper than the sidewalk over on Broadway. So I just want  
to point out -- and there's allowances for when grades are steep. You can drive and park.  
If you -- I see you shaking your head, but I -- I enforce these regulations for certain federal  
agencies, so I am pretty familiar with them, and you should discuss them further with  
whoever is enforcing them for you. Thanks.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any final comments from anyone else? Commissioner  
Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Ms. Loe, you are so correct. But it would -- it would take maybe  
some retention walls. Yes, it could happen. Is it practical? I don't think so. And to add  
to your point, yes. That used to be a black neighborhood over there. That used to be  
part of the Sharp end, so I don't even want to go there. But you're right. There used to be  
other uses for cemeteries. It's technically sound, bottom line, and I plan to support it.  
It's technically sound.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other comments? Anyone like to make a motion at this  
time? Commissioner -- oh. Commissioner Stanton, go ahead.  
MS. LOE: No. You truly do support it, and we make our motions in the affirmative,  
so please.  
MR. STANTON: As it relates to Case 45-2024, 209 South Providence  
conditional-use permit, I move to approve the requested CUP to permit a drive-up facility  
with the proposed 7Brew Coffee restaurant subject to substantial compliance with the site  
plan dated 12/29/23 PD Plan revision, and installation of a traffic control device if required  
and approved by MoDOT that would restrict northbound turning movement in or out of the  
backage road north of Elm Street.  
MR. FORD: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion was made by Commissioner Stanton and seconded by  
Commissioner Ford. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none.  
Commissioner Carroll, may we have a roll call.  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms.  
Geuea Jones, Mr. Ford, Ms. Wilson, Mr. Stanton. Voting No: Mr. Dunn, Ms.  
Carroll, Ms. Placier, Ms. Loe. Motion carries 8-0.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: We have a tie, the motion fails.  
MS. CARROLL: We have four yes votes, four no votes. The motion fails. No  
recommendation.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: No recommendation.  
MR. ZENNER: No recommendation pursuant to the rules of procedure. So no  
recommendation will be forwarded to City Council. You've seen how this has played out  
in the past in other items.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yes. Yes.  
MR. ZENNER: Okay. I would be, of course, given that there's no recommendation,  
I'm assuming that we will have this placed under old business, as well, on the Council  
agenda?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yes. Do we need to make that motion, or is that part of the  
procedure?  
MR. ZENNER: We can take care of it.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Thank you. Very good. Moving on to our last case of  
the evening.  
As it relates to Case 45-2024, 209 South Providence conditional-use permit, move  
to approve the requested CUP to permit a drive-up facility with the proposed  
7Brew Coffee restaurant subject to substantial compliance with the site plan  
dated 12/29/23 PD Plan revision, and installation of a traffic control device if  
required and approved by MoDOT that would restrict northbound turning  
movement in or out of the backage road north of Elm Street.  
4 - Stanton, Geuea Jones, Wilson and Ford  
4 - Loe, Carroll, Placier and Dunn  
1 - MacMann  
Yes:  
No:  
Excused:  
Case # 47-2024  
A request by Crockett Engineering (agent), on behalf of P1316, LLC and  
Discovery Business Park 1, LLC (owners), for approval of a PD Plan  
amendment to Lots 2 & 3 of the Discovery Business Park PD Plan.  
Proposed changes include revision of the uses on Lot 2, change of use on  
Lot 3 from office/artisan industry suites to a 4-story, 48-unit residential  
building. Lot 3 is also to be divided to accommodate a regional stormwater  
facility. Revisions impact the northwest 4.86 acres of the overall PD plan  
(Lots 2 & 3 only) with Lot 1 remaining unchanged. The site is located  
northwest of Nocona Parkway and Artemis Drive and includes the address  
4900 Artemis Drive.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?  
Staff report was given by Mr. Pat Zenner of the Planning and Development  
Department. Staff recommends approval of the requested PD Plan and preliminary plat  
revision to the Discovery Business Park PD Plan.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, would any of  
the Commissioners like to recuse themselves from this case? Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Madam Chair.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. We'll let you know when we move on. If any of  
my fellow Commissioners have had any outside contact with the parties to this case,  
please disclose so now. Seeing none. Thank you. Are there any questions for staff?  
Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: You mentioned in the staff report that they're working with staff to  
ensure continued compliance with total buildable square footage and impervious  
coverage. Given that we have a lot of continued development and we're revisiting this plan  
all the time, I'm wondering if you can kind of walk me through, I guess, how that is  
revisited and what -- what takes place to monitor this?  
MR. ZENNER: So as each -- so as a process that was established early on when  
development began at Discovery, the project has gone through multiple engineers over  
the course of its development. We established a procedure on the front end of tracking  
the development plans as they were being brought in, impervious area table that defines  
each of the development tracts. This particular development, if I recall correctly, has  
eight development tracts associated with it, so the spreadsheet identifies all eight  
development tracts, and it accounts for each of the developments as they are brought in.  
So first floor area is inclusive, of course, of the footprint of a building, and then it includes  
any vertical construction above that. That gross into the gross floor area limitations that  
are associated with each development tract. Impervious coverage is also tracked the  
same way, but impervious coverage will only include the footprints, sidewalks, parking  
areas, and public streets. Each time a development plan is submitted, the spreadsheets  
are updated by the applicable applicant's engineer, and we are maintaining those  
spreadsheets at this point. We have also prepared and we are analyzing GIS data as it  
relates to the impervious covers through our data and comparing that against data that's  
being submitted to us by the consultant firms that are working within the project. We  
also are going to be going back and ensuring through plan review again of all of the  
approved development plans as to where we stand. Staffing challenges that I have had  
within the division and the department, we have not been able to get to that, but we do  
have a process by which that is possible to do, and we will be as quickly as we possibly  
can going back and reverifying. The concerns with the last two projects that have come  
in and for the last about a year and a half, almost two years, Crockett Engineering has  
been the engineer of record working with the Odles here in Discovery. We have had  
lengthy conversations as it relates to the accuracy of what is in these development  
tables. We are aware collectively that we are nearing the maximum limitations in certain  
tracts. The unique nature, however, of the way that the development -- the annexation  
and the zoning entitlements were provided to this property exist is that there is a lot of  
sharing between -- you can share impervious, and you can share gross floor area  
coverages between tracts in two different groups. And so as development is occurring in  
one tract and it may exceed what that tract says it can have, it draws from another tract  
that's underutilized its particular allocation, and that is where the concern really is coming  
to a greater head. At some point, we're going to end up potentially with a very significant  
portion of a development tract that has not been developed at this point or significantly  
developed with no possible development intensity left on it because everything else that's  
built within the project has been absorbed. It is that eventuality that we are continuing to  
have ongoing discussions with the current project engineer and the owner of the property  
as to how they want to proceed. The annexation of this project occurred in 2004 and it  
predates, of course, our storm-water ordinance. Many of the criterion that are  
established within the statements of intent with each development tract were prepared, of  
course, in the absence of a storm-water ordinance. Our current storm-water ordinance is  
superior to some of the monitoring requirements that the current zoning entitlement has  
with it, and so we have to balance any potential expansion against the underlying  
purpose of the original request and what our current code requirements would yield, and  
that is -- that's a little bit more of a significant conversation and an analysis that we just  
are not there yet. But to assure the Commission, every time we've looked at this project,  
we are looking at what is being absorbed. So that is -- that's the crux of how we're  
approaching this. We don't provide you all the table because there's a lot of -- we're going  
to have to do a lot of explaining of what the table means, not that you're capable of  
understanding that, it's just we've chosen that it's really not the principally relevant  
component of what you're here to review.  
MS. CARROLL: Thanks.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for staff? Seeing none. Public  
comment?  
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED  
MR. STEPHENS: Hello, there. Jesse Stephens, Crockett Engineering, 1000 West  
Nifong. And I do have a quick -- we have Jack Cardetti with me here today who is a  
representative of the owner and might be able to answer certain questions if you have  
them. So Pat did a great explanation on generally what we're trying to do, but as an  
overview, this is only pertaining to probably two-thirds of an original PD Plan that was  
approved. The one lot is not being touched, and that's the lot that is adjacent to  
Discovery Parkway. The main intent of this is trying to reorient the building in a way  
where we can put a residential unit and share -- and share a parking lot. The other thing  
is that, and having looked at this in great detail, we do have a need for another regional  
storm-water facility, and this is the desired location to put that for several reasons --  
topography, relation to the discharges, et cetera. And then one thing that Pat did  
mention is we're continually monitoring this impervious area. One of the reasons why  
we're proposing this change, it actually does reduce the impervious cover for this PD  
Plan, and I'll show you a couple of pictures here. So here's kind of the original plan that  
was approved. It's pretty highly impervious and even behind the building that's built, that  
was intended to be, basically, access drive lanes for, you know, garage doors and the  
like for -- for service vehicles. The concept of the use has changed in a way that they  
don't think that's necessary and is opposed to building unnecessary impervious area that  
counts against us every time. We’re choosing to reallocate that in a different way. So  
the shared parking makes great sense in terms of this overall idea of -- of trying to cut  
down on best used what impervious surface we had to work with. So you can kind of see  
-- Pat has already showed you this, but one of the challenges with the existing plan, too,  
is the grade of the street fell in the way that long -- what was originally proposed as a very  
long building that didn't work very well with the topography, and flipping the orientation  
this way works -- works much better. Obviously, we've got to do pretty extensive  
landscaping along the Artemis corridor, and, generally speaking, these storm-water  
detention facilities, they -- the end product is going to be probably something more than a  
weedy mess that you're used to seeing in a lot of places. The -- the one that's been built  
over further inward on the development has been turned into a very nice feature, an  
amenity with a walking trail, benches, landscaping. So when -- when done up, it can be  
very attractive and then the residents like it. So the parking lot will probably be deferred  
for some time that -- the goal is to get the regional facility up and running, but subsequent  
to this, we would submit a plan revision to eliminate the parking in the back of what's  
called 5,000 Artemis or Lot Five, and then a residential building, which will probably  
happen in pretty close proximity to one another. Utilities are in good shape here. It's all  
been master planned. We haven't really changed the utility scheme here other than the  
storm-water management feature of it. So no real issue in that regard.  
MR. DUNN: I apologize. Can you speak into the mic?  
MR. STEPHENS: Oh, yeah. No problem.  
MR. DUNN: Thank you.  
MR. STEPHENS: So I know there was a lot of discussion in the last project about  
traffic. Traffic is not an issue here, and we do have -- you know, we're trying to provide an  
area that is -- is walkable, has green space amenities for residents that are -- the idea of  
having this green space amenity and a nicely done pond behind these residential units is  
actually an attractive feature. And with that, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to  
answer them.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any questions for this speaker? Seeing none. Thank you  
very much. Anyone else here to speak? Seeing none.  
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comments on this case? Seeing none.  
Anyone want to make a motion?  
MR. DUNN: Go back to the --  
MS. LOE: Yeah. If we can get back to the slide.  
MR. ZENNER: Our folks back in the camera room do that for us.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. If we could get back to the staff slide that has the  
recommendation on it, that would be great. Thank you. Commissioner Dunn?  
MR. DUNN: In the matter of Case Number 47-2024, as it relates to 4900 Artemis  
Drive PD Plan revision, I move to approve the requested PD Plan revision.  
MS. LOE: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion made by Commissioner Dunn; seconded by  
Commissioner Loe. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none.  
Commissioner Carroll, may we have a roll call?  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.  
Dunn, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier, Mr. Ford, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Loe.  
Recused: Mr. Stanton. Motion carries 7-0.  
MS. CARROLL: We have seven votes to approve; the motion carries.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation will be forwarded to City  
Council.  
In the matter of Case Number 47-2024, as it relates to 4900 Artemis Drive PD Plan  
revision, move to approve the requested PD Plan revision.  
7 - Loe, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Dunn and Ford  
Yes:  
Excused:  
Recused:  
1 - MacMann  
1 - Stanton  
VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any general public comments? I don't know if  
Commissioner Stanton can hear my voice. Yeah. Here he comes. Excellent. Seeing  
no general public comments.  
VII. STAFF COMMENTS  
MR. ZENNER: Yes. Your next meeting will be January 18th. We will have a  
regularly scheduled work session. Hopefully, you enjoyed your evening off, and my  
apologies again for arriving late. It's been somewhat of a chaotic week after a holiday,  
and, of course, the content associated with the conditional-use permit was quite  
extensive in order to pull that together. We do have a number of -- the topic for our work  
sessions will be a discussion of the small lot standards. We will have information to  
provide you that's more substantive, other than trying to regurgitate what we've discussed  
over and over, with analysis provided on some lot area related calculations. Ms. Loe did  
provide some observations after the end of the last meeting. We will look at those, as  
well, and determine if we can work something in along those lines. I understood what  
was being asked, so we will take a look at that and bring you back something. Due to  
the delay that I had in being able to prepare to get down to you this evening, we have a  
number of items on the agenda. The two most significant that are carry-overs from the  
December 21st meeting will be the request at 708 Russell Boulevard, the proposed  
preliminary plat approval that Ms. Wax has brought forth, and the design adjustments.  
We will have the continuation or the presentation of the deferred item which was the CUP  
for Storage Mart off of I-70 Drive Southeast, as well as potentially the Parkside plat which  
we had talked about, our Cosmo Park plat. It was hung up with some internal review  
comments, interestingly enough, the City surveyor prepared, and we still made  
comments against him. So just for the public to understand, we -- we even treat our own  
challengingly occasionally. We have other projects, as well, not nearly as complicated,  
hopefully, as this evening's, but we will bring those to you as part of the course of our  
next meeting. Thank you very much for your attention and your time. That is all I have  
for the night.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Zenner.  
VIII. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any Commissioner comments?  
IX. NEXT MEETING DATE - January 18, 2024 @ 7:00 pm (tentative)  
X. ADJOURNMENT  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Loe, go ahead.  
MS. LOE: Move to adjourn.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, excellent.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: There was a motion to adjourn made by Commissioner Loe,  
seconded by Commissioner Stanton. Without objection, we stand adjourned.  
(The meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m.)  
(Off the record.)  
Move to adjourn