City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Council Chambers

Columbia City Hall

701 E. Broadway

Thursday, February 22, 2024

7:00 PM

Regular Meeting

I. CALL TO ORDER

MS. GEUEA JONES: Good evening. I will now call to order the Thursday, February

22nd, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. If we could all take our seats.

Thanks.

II. INTRODUCTIONS

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

MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Here.

MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Dunn? Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Aye. Present.

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

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.

8 -

Present:

Sara Loe, Anthony Stanton, Michael MacMann, Valerie Carroll, Sharon Geuea

Jones, Peggy Placier, Shannon Wilson and Matt Ford

1 - Zack Dunn

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?

MR. MACMANN: Move to approve.

MR. STANTON: Second.

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

Commissioner Stanton. Can I get a thumbs up approval on the agenda?

(Unanimous vote for approval.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Unanimous.

Move to approve

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

February 8, 2024 Regular Meeting

MS. GEUEA JONES: We all received a copy of the minutes from the February 8th

regular meeting. Are there any changes or adjustments to the minutes?

MR. MACMANN: Move to approve.

MR. STANTON: Second.

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

Commissioner Stanton. Could I please get a thumbs up approval of the minutes?

(Unanimous vote for approval.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Unanimous, no abstentions. Thank you.

Move to approve

V. SUBDIVISIONS

Case # 48-2024

A request by the City of Columbia (owner) for approval of a 2-lot final minor

plat to be known as the “Cosmo Park Subdivision Plat 1” in order to confer

“legal lot” status upon the resulting parcels. The 499.62-acre property is

located northeast of the intersection of North Stadium Drive (Route E) and

Business Loop 70 West and is addressed as 1800 Parkside Drive.

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

Staff report was given by Mr. Rusty Palmer of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends approval of "Cosmo Park Subdivision Plat 1."

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

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

disclose so now. Seeing none. Questions for staff? Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Planner Palmer, was this advertised as

final or preliminary?

MR. PALMER: It was advertised as a final.

MR. MACMANN: That's what I wanted to hear.

MR. PALMER: I really forgot to change it on the staff report, and it ended up on the

slide. So I apologize.

MR. MACMANN: I just didn't -- and I would like to thank staff for -- I know it's a City

policy now. We don't necessarily have to obey all the rules and regulations, but when we

do, I think it sets a wonderful example. I have one more other quick comment. Ladies

and gentlemen, there's a lobby here. We're going to be here for a while. If you all could

respect the Chair, that would be fantastic, and we'll do the best we can to hear from all of

you. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Commissioner. Any other questions for staff?

Seeing none. We will open the floor to public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Please come forward. We allow for three minutes for

individuals, six minutes for the applicant or any groups. Only one number of each group

gets the six minutes, though. So anyone here to speak on this? Going once, going

twice. Seeing no movement, we will close public comment on this case.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there any Commissioner comment? Commissioner

MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Seeing no questions or comments from my fellow Commissioners,

I would like to make a motion. In the matter of Cosmo Park Plat Number 1, final plat --

no technical questions,

Mr. Palmer? As is, I move to approve.

MR. STANTON: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Approval has been moved by Commissioner MacMann and

seconded by Commissioner Stanton. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing

none. Commissioner Carroll, when you're ready, may we have a roll call?

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

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

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

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

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

Council. Moving on to our next case.

In the matter of Cosmo Park Plat Number 1, final plat -- no technical questions,

move to approve.

8 - Loe, Stanton, MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson and Ford

Yes:

1 - Dunn

Excused:

Case # 60-2024

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

Medicinal Properties LLC (owner), for approval of a 2-lot Final Plat of M-N

(Mixed Use - Neighborhood) zoned property, to be known as “Brushwood

Lake, Plat No. 1”. The 10.35-acre subject site is located northwest of the

intersection of Scott Boulevard & S. Brushwood Lake 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 final minor plat to be known as

Brushwood Lake, Plat No. 1, subject to technical corrections.

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

fellow Commissioners have had any contact with parties to this case outside of a public

hearing, please disclose so. Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: May I quietly and quickly and privately ask staff a question so I

can answer your question?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yes. We will stand at ease briefly.

MR. MACMANN: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner MacMann, do we need to conduct any

business?

MR. MACMANN: I have no conflict and no information. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any other comments from Commissioners related

to conflicts or contact with parties? Seeing none. Commissioner -- or not

Commissioner. We've already done you. Mr. -- are there any questions for staff? You

threw me off. I have this whole thing. Any questions for staff? Seeing none. We will

open the floor to public comment on this case.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any members of the public here to speak on this

case tonight? Again, please come forward, state your name and address for the record.

Six minutes for the applicant and groups.

MR. BUTCHER: I'm David Butcher; Crockett Engineering, 1000 West Nifong. I don't

imagine there's very many questions, but I wanted to make sure I was available in case

you did have something that you -- you know, technical, that may have come up that we

can discuss, and so just call me back if you need me.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Just one moment, please. Any

questions for

Mr. Butcher? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Any other members

of the public here to speak on this case tonight? Seeing none.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any Commissioner comments: Seeing none. Would anyone

like to make a motion? Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Seeing no questions or concerns, I'd like to make a motion. In the

matter of South Brushwood Lake Road, final plat, Case 60-2024, I move to approve.

MR. STANTON: Second.

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

Commissioner Stanton. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing -- oh,

Commissioner Loe? Sorry.

MS. LOE: Pursuant to minor technical corrections.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, thank you. Yes.

MR. MACMANN: I will accept that amendment. Mr. Stanton, is that all right with

you?

MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.

MR. MACMANN: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: The motion has been amended to allow for minor technical

corrections, and both the maker and the seconder have approved the amendment. Any

further discussion on the motion? Seeing none. Commissioner Carroll, may we have a

roll call?

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

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

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

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

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

Council.

In the matter of South Brushwood Lake Road, final plat, Case 60-2024, I move to

approve pursuant to minor technical corrections.

8 - Loe, Stanton, MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson and Ford

1 - Dunn

Yes:

Excused:

VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

Case # 260-2023

A request by Engineering Surveys and Services (agent), on behalf of

Columbia South Real Estate, LLC (owner), for approval of a PD Plan

amendment to the Cherry Hill PD Plan, pertaining to Lot 3B. The proposed

revisions include increasing the footprint of the building by 8,000 square

feet, reducing onsite parking spaces by 21 spaces, and increasing the

number of approved multi-family residential units from 10 to 24. The

0.41-acre subject site is located northeast of the intersection of Flagstone

Drive and Corona Road. The case was remanded for reconsideration to

the Planning Commission by City Council at the request of the applicant,

due to staff’s oversight in regards to a 2014 development plan amendment

and misrepresentation of the existing zoning conditions on the subject lot.

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

Staff report was given by Mr. Rusty Palmer of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends approval of the proposed major amendment to Lot 3B of

The Village of Cherry Hill PD Plan, pursuant to minor technical corrections.

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 any questions for staff?

Seeing none. We will open the floor to public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Once again a reminder, name and address for the record, six

minutes for groups, three minutes for individuals.

MR. KRIETE: My name is Matthew Kriete; I'm with Engineering Surveys and

Services, offices at 1113 Fay Street here in Columbia, and I am the civil engineer on the

project. So again, thank you for letting us present this again. I know we've been back to

-- to look at this again, and quite a few changes have occurred since then. So, first off,

just again, some of the same summary here, but, you know, I want to go through what's

changed, some of the history on Cherry Hill. I want to look at Cherry Hill more as a

whole than just -- even just Lot 3B. Again, look more at the plan, the parking, and the

new building elevation, and we actually have a new one than what you've seen in your

report, as well. Just some more feedback we got from the association, some additional

changes to that that we'll show you tonight, as well. So first off, you know, like we

mentioned, I think we had a little bit of inaccurate history. That 2014 revision, I think, was

a pretty critical piece. I had a client who purchased a property that was zoned fully for

residential. And so I think that was an important piece that was not properly presented

last time. So, you know, we were talking not about a change of use, but really just a

change in building area and residential density. But since then, again, we've changed the

building elevations and there has been meetings with the HOA and association. Again,

you've seen this letter, as well. I believe it was in your packet -- the approval letter.

Again, same thing. Several revisions have occurred along the way, and I -- you know, we

talked about the original approval in '99 and the other revisions that have impacted lots

3B. So looking at the overall development characteristics from those original plans, you

can see from '99 the retail size, the parking required, the parking provided, and there

you'll see that 33 percent reduction that was approved with the original plan as -- as was

mentioned earlier. And as you can see as this time has progressed, you've seen the

density and intensity of the development actually reduced, but, overall, the parking really

hasn't changed, so the actual amount of parking on Cherry Hill has been increasing. You

know, so for -- for us, you know, what are we asking for? Ultimately again, it's a change

in the residential density on Lot 3B. It's a change in the building area, and it's a larger

footprint, and it's a reduction in the parking on there to allow, again, the use of the shared

parking on the site. It's those -- those items only. This is nothing about use. So

specifically, you know, what's the density change? Well, there's ten units approved;

we're looking for 24. The building, though, again is -- is not -- not that much of an

increase, but again, it's just another 8,000 square feet. It does cover a larger footprint,

and again, the parking is available in the area, so again, that piece is being removed from

the site, you know, as a whole. So, again, this is important, I think, to look at it as more

than just being Lot 3B. I think Cherry Hill -- the Village of Cherry Hill is a bigger plan.

There has always been shared parking as part of this development, and we're asking just

to continue on with that and the walkability and the intent of this development. And with

that, I mean, the -- the proposed revisions, you know, fit with what was proposed with

Cherry Hill originally. Again, same table, now we've added our proposed amendment

here, and you can see again that reduction in retail across there, the change in the

parking. And what's interesting to note here is when you look at '99 and you look at now,

the different in the, you know, the required parking and the provided parking is exactly the

same. And, in fact, I'll admit I forgot to update the number. We actually are providing

630 stalls; we're providing more parking as a ratio than we -- than it was in 1999 overall in

Cherry Hill. So again the density is down, but that overall parking is very consistent.

Likewise, when you look at Cherry Hill, I've highlighted lots out there that had buildings

that don't have the required parking on their actual lot. This was always part of the Cherry

Hill plan to have that. You know, again, we're not asking for anything new that wasn't

already present in this development. Lost a page there. All right. So with that, I think

we had seen an overlay, I had another paper to overlay, and that didn't transfer over when

I uploaded this. But overall, our plan again is -- I lost my page -- the changes we've

talked about, we've added the additional three stalls where the ATM was over to the left.

We've -- working with the HOA, there's, you know, been the addition of removing the

locust trees on the association's property and adding additional buffer there. This is on

top of the buffer we're already required to install, and we will install, so it's, you know,

more or less doubling the buffer up. And that will enhance the landscaping in that

association area, as well. We've added the drop-off area. It's hard to see on the -- on the

screen, but it's actually over by the accessible stalls behind the building. I think that the

original request was, hey, put it out in the street, but that's going to take people upstairs

and more grade change. I mean, this is really, if you want to unload groceries, this is

right next to the building, right next to the door. This is a much more practical space for

it. That's not included in the parking count, by the way. It's -- you know, we didn't

include that. Again, one stall, not making a big difference, but it's not included. So

again, looking at the required parking, again, as a whole, was 509 required by the Cherry

Hill plan. If we were to apply it based on the current UDC standards, 610, again, there's

600 -- actually 630 stalls provided out there on the plan, so we're exceeding it, you know,

whichever way you look at it in Cherry Hill. Just to further look at it, we've started

monitoring the parking in the area, so we've highlighted -- what we've highlighted in the

yellow, we've monitored that parking for just about two weeks, and found that about 17 of

those 55 stalls were used on average. Peak rates were in the afternoon, and even at the

peak time, there was enough parking to accommodate what we need. The rates make

sense looking at what's in Cherry Hill, the businesses that are there. They're pretty much

all 8:00 to 5:00 businesses with a few exceptions. So again, the use of shared parking

makes a lot of sense out here. You know, when the residents are home, businesses are

closed. The parking study, we show highlights the same thing. Again, here's your

updated rendering, and you can see that gables have been added to it, so again just a

request of the association, add a little more character to the building. So it's a little

different than you see, but, again, what else is updated. It's all brick and stone exterior

now. It is four-side architecture. It does tie into Cherry Hill and the architectural style of

Cherry Hill now. And now you can also see in the context of it. And one nice thing that

you can't see now, it's not on there, but behind that building is the -- you know, the sited

building that's behind it now, you know. So it does cover that building, and it kind of does

stick out a little bit from the Cherry Hill standpoint. With that, I would be happy to answer

any questions you all might have.

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

Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. First off, A bit of a kudos there, Matt. I

thank you for the four-sided architecture. I participated in building the downtown area

many years ago, and not all of them have four-sided architecture. My question is as

follows. And again, there was a lot of misinformation previously, and I'm glad we've had a

chance, as painful as this may be and as expensive to this client this has been, to review

this. You've obviously talked to the residential HOA and the more commercial oriented

thing in the City. My -- my question is kind of a Commissioner Stanton question. Is --

what do you think are the strong points and weak points of this? Have you addressed the

issues that you feel the people have had problems with this before?

MR. KRIETE: Oh, absolutely. I think we did. Architecture is obviously one of the

big ones.

MR. MACMANN: Uh-huh.

MR. KRIETE: You know, I think we -- you have a building now that has been well

vetted, you know. The association has an architect that reviews it, so that's where a lot

of these comments came from. So it's -- I think there was a lot of back and forth from

what I saw getting to this conclusion. But yes, I think that was a big part of it. Really

looking at the parking is -- is there a concern to really get out there and study the number

of the stalls and they look at Cherry Hill as a whole, not look at this so much in a vacuum

itself, I think is also very important. And then working with the association of where is

their concern, you know, that it all -- concern that residents are -- what are they going to

do. Will they -- well, they want to be a little closer, so I'm going to park out in front of the

house down the street a little bit. Well, no. You're not going to do that. No. You're

going to -- you’re leasing here, you're going to be parked over here, or you can park out in

this area, but that's off limits over there, which is, you know, again, one of the big

concerns. And I think resolving those issues with the HOA, I think was a -- was a big

part.

MR. MACMANN: All right. I just wanted to check because that was an issue. We

were here a long-time last time.

MR. KRIETE: Yes.

MR. MACMANN: I have no more questions, Madam Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Kriete, for the context in the elevations. It definitely helps

to see how the building would be sited in the surroundings. I had a question just about

the shared parking. Am I incorrect that last time we looked at this, for some reason, I

thought we were looking at parking perhaps more remote to the north of the site? Where

were -- was it contemplated that other parking lots might be used?

MR. KRIETE: I think we're -- we're looking more at the Cherry Hill as a whole,

because it was always a shared parking.

MS. LOE: Okay.

MR. KRIETE: We've honed in tighter into an area. And it really, again, in response

to the comments we had last time and association, and really, really, where are people

going to park? We're going to park as close as we can. That's what we do. It’s what --

why we complained that we had to walk in Cherry Hill and know we're in a walkable

development or coming downhill. It was great. I get to park back here today. I didn't

want to park in the garage and walk down the stairs.

MS. LOE: If it is shared parking, and I understand some of the parking will be

shared, is that dedicated parking, or if there's future development that also wants to use

that parking, I mean, how do we know that parking --

MR. KRIETE: Consequently, one nice thing, a concern is we had some vacant retail

space the last time we met. When we went out to do our study, it was full. So in fact,

we had new businesses that just opened, you know. We got a little way from the New

Year's and Christmas, let people get back in the scheme of things, had some pretty nice

weather, and got out there and did some parking counts. So I think you got to see

realistic of what was there. In fact, I think with new businesses, you probably had a little

higher demand because those businesses were right in that area than what will probably

persist as we go on. And you can see a little -- a little spiking in there, but, again, it's

afternoon. This will be offset from when the residents need it.

MS. LOE: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Sorry. Before we got to Commissioner Carroll's question, so

was that a no, it's not designated? It's just shared?

MR. KRIETE: It's just shared. I think all -- everything in Cherry Hill is shared. That's

the -- that's the intent of Cherry Hill.

MS. GEUEA JONES: So, it's no, it's not designated?

MR. KRIETE: Correct.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Just wanted to make sure we answered the

Commissioner's question.

MR. KRIETE: Yeah. Uh-huh.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Commissioner Carroll?

MS. CARROLL: You said that you had -- that the association had an architect to

look over the plans.

MR. KRIETE: Yes.

MS. CARROLL: Is that the Commercial District Association?

MR. KRIETE: Yes. Yes.

MS. CARROLL: Okay.

MR. KRIETE: Yeah. It's part of the requirements in the association that it would be

approved by their architect.

MS. CARROLL: And the approval that we have, the letter of support that we have

comes from the commercial district?

MR. KRIETE: Yes. Yes.

MS. CARROLL: Thanks.

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

you very much.

MR. KRIETE: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I did have one more. I didn't look down at

my own notes. Which association will you be joining then, or with the -- no you, but the

owners be joining then or will the -- not you, but the owners be joining?

MR. KRIETE: I think I'll leave that question to another presenter here.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MR. KRIETE: He can explain that better than I can.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Fair enough. Thank you very much.

MR. KRIETE: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: The next person who would like to speak on this case, please

come forward. Don't be shy. Okay. There we go. Name and address for the record, and

six minutes for a group, three minutes for an individual.

MS. O'KEEFE: Individual. Beth O'Keefe, address 2203 Cherry Hill Drive. My lot

backs up and overlooks directly the empty lot that will be developed, as well as the lot

where the parking would be supposedly taking place. I say supposedly because I think

that's a little ridiculous to assume that will take place there. Our big concern as

residents is that I have a private driveway or an alleyway in the back that is right next to

the sidewalk that will be encroached upon with this building. If you go back to the

pictures there that the -- excuse me. I am suffering from a cold. The -- so some of that

shared space is also going to encroach on our end of our alleyway, end of our common

shared space that we have to maintain, as well. So we're worried as residents about, first

of all, the value of our home being impacted by this ginormous building being put on that

very small lot without any sufficient parking for it. The parking across the street is shared

parking. I can look out my back deck and see there are cars constantly in that lot all

day. That means you can't say that there's enough lots or enough parking spaces there

24/7 for 20-odd units here. They -- people aren't just going to park there at nighttime,

they're going to park there all day long for residents. They're going to park and encroach

upon our residential area, which is going to encroach upon our HOA covenants and

provinces. So we're worried about that, as well. It's a further concern, it's always been a

concern. We have kids who play there, and we've seen an increase in residential thefts,

we've seen an increase in attractive nuisances with cars being unattended. This is going

to increase that. So, in short, I mean, this is just going to increase the problems we're

seeing in our neighborhood by increasing these attractive nuisances in our neighborhood

with these multitude of cars just sitting out there. We have a lot of concerns in the

homeowners' association and in the residence -- residential area part of Cherry Hill. So

thank you.

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

Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Well, have you -- has the, I guess, the residential HOA has

expressed their concerns to the owner of this property and the other commercial HOA,

I'm assuming?

MS. O'KEEFE: The residential HOA, I've expressed my concerns to them because

my husband is the new president, but there was a change in the HOA Board on January

1st of this year. Some of the prior HOA Board members had heard those concerns, but I

believe there were some other deals made by the prior HOA Board that -- I don't know -- I

wasn't privy to.

MR. STANTON: Okay.

MS. O’KEEFE: So I'll let them speak for themselves.

MR. STANTON: Do you have a solution? If the -- put yourself in the owner's

footsteps.

MS. O'KEEFE: Right.

MR. STANTON: How would you fix it if you were hearing yourself?

MS. O'KEEFE: In the original 2014 plans were sufficient with the spaces that they

had allotted that were next to the building. There doesn't need to be an expansion upon

that. That would be solution is to leave it as it was when it was previously approved.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I'm sorry, ma'am. Could you talk directly into the microphone.

MS. O'KEEFE: Oh, I'm sorry.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. It's for the transcript.

MS. O'KEEFE: Here's -- yeah. That's fine. I'm saying the original -- the plans that

were approved back in 2014 were sufficient with parking spaces next to the building

themselves. They allowed for correct parking and not trying to push parking across the

street or onto the street and into residential areas.

MR. STANTON: Thank you, ma'am.

MS. O'KEEFE: Yes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Anyone else to speak on this from the

public? Oh, I'm sorry. Ma'am, would you mind coming back for Commissioner Wilson?

I'm sorry, Commissioner Wilson. Thank you very much. Go ahead.

MS. WILSON: I apologize. I was looking at the 2014 plan trying to remember if that

still had retail space in it.

MS. O'KEEFE: It did not.

MS. WILSON: Okay. So is your concern the number of units and that's because we

have more units, therefore, we have more requirement for parking? I guess I'm trying to --

MS. O'KEEFE: That's also a concern because that also impacts our shared

commodities, which is our shared pool that we have for our subdivision, but I only had

three minutes, so I was trying to stay brief, but yes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Wilson, you can continue your question?

MS. WILSON: That's -- she answered my question. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Anyone else? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: So the shared pool issue has not been addressed? Are they part of

your HMO [sic] or are they part of the commercial? That needs to be addressed.

Correct?

MS. O'KEEFE: The homeowner -- residential HOA is responsible for the pool. So

yeah, in my opinion, it hasn't been resolved. That's my opinion.

MR. STANTON: You don't know if these people will be part of that or part of the

commercial side?

MS. O'KEEFE: And I am not on the board, so I can't answer fully. All I can say is

from what I understand. It's not been resolved since we will have people with access, and

we don't have the space. And this would be doubling that, which was already approved.

MR. STANTON: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Last call for Commissioner questions. Thank you very much.

MS. O'KEEFE: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: All right. Next member of the public? You may need to pull

the microphone down a bit. There we go. Thank you.

MS. JOHNSON: I'm used to that, being things shorter for me. My name is Roberta

Darlene Johnson. I've owned residential property in the Village of Cherry Hill since April of

2003. My husband and I moved from The Hamlet, which is about a mile north on Scott

Boulevard into our dream home in October of 2003. Since we moved into the Village of

Cherry Hill, we've -- we've kind of noticed that there seems to be a tendency for the land

use on some of the original lots changing. And one of the reasons that we moved to

Village of Cherry Hill is we like the idea of mixed use. We like having retail, having

apartments, and/or, I guess, larger apartments in our neighborhood. Along with

single-family homes, we have town homes, we have condos. There seems to be --

originally, there was actually -- we currently have three buildings in the Village of Cherry

Hill that are exclusively all apartments. Only one of those was originally platted as being

all apartments. One of the buildings that's currently two floors of two-bedroom, two-bath,

that was the original -- that was The Verandas. That was originally that way. The Gables

was originally supposed to be a basement that had parking in it and two floors of

apartments. It is now three floors of all apartments. The Woodstock building, which is

currently two floors, they're all two-bedroom, two-bath apartments, originally was

supposed to have a basement for parking and storage, and two floors of child care. So it

looks like there has been a precedence set of changing land use from retail with

apartments and some of those larger apartments to now pretty much exclusively

apartments. One of the issues that comes to me, especially from the presentation from

the gentleman earlier that it looks like a lot of changes have been made where we've been

-- one of the things about Cherry Hill is trying to not have so many impervious surfaces.

Parking lots is why they have all this retail parking, but now it seems that the apartment

complex now that's being proposed wants to yet again decrease parking size and replace

that impervious area with a building. I don't see how that can really work with the need to

have an impervious surface. The second thing is -- and I'm glad that a couple of the

Commissioners have brought this up -- is about the 26 parking spots in the lot that's to

the west of this. From the Town Center declarations, it clearly states that owners are not

assured an individual assigned parking space, or that there will be sufficient spaces to

guarantee parking at all times. One of the issues I had with reducing the number of

required parking spaces with this lot is that it's my understanding that currently there's a

same owner of Lot 3B that owns the commercial lot across the street. And that's fine,

but it looks to me like if what they're saying is -- okay, if you approve this as it is, we

want -- we'll have 26 dedicated parking spots. Well, first of all, it looks to me, from what

the Town Center Declarations are, the only way that can be done is to have a permanent

easement attached to that commercial lot that says we will have six -- 26 dedicated

spaces. It would be nice that if the same person owns both of those, but all it would take

is the sale of one and things could go downhill pretty quickly from that.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much, ma'am. That's your time. Any

questions for this speaker?

MS. JOHNSON: Thank you. Appreciate it.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Seeing none. Thank you very much.

MS. JOHNSON: Thank you, again.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Next speaker on this case?

MR. HANCOCK: John Hancock, 2101 Corona. I don't have a problem with this

apartment building on this property. It seems to be in keeping with multi-family and

commercial on three sides of it. I've witnessed the parking on the south end of a lot

across the street for a number of years. After 5:00, there's easily 26 spaces that are

empty there, if not more. That should more than handle the spillover. This is a good use

of what I consider an infill lot now, now that we have subdivisions out by the river in

Columbia. So it's in keeping with -- with the original plans for Cherry Hill, I believe, and it

would be a good use of the property. And parking -- parking should be adequately

handled with -- with what's available. I don't see the owner doing something to damage

his existing property across the street in a commercial building, so that's all I have.

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

Thank you very much.

MR. HANCOCK: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Next speaker on this case?

MR. BARNETT: My name is Kevin Barnett; I live at 1908 Potomac. I spoke in

December, represented -- I was one of the Board members for Cherry Hill -- the Village of

Cherry Hill. So a little clarification to answer Commissioner Stanton. Residences of

apartments do have access to the pool. They do pay certain amounts of fees to use that

as part of an ownership of those apartments, so that our dues go to the HOA to pay for

those pool things. This increases the amount of people who are going to use the pool.

Additionally, it does change some things that we didn't talk about last time. It does

change the voting rights within the HOA for the residents because each apartment owner

gets a vote for every two bedrooms and a half a vote for every one bedroom. It's getting to

the point where there's almost more voting majority of apartment owners than there is for

residences. However, we did meet with the owner as a board in December, I think it was,

and he's made some changes. We have an exterior change, which is probably $100,000

worth of change. He's made an allowance for parking on some other areas of the area

he's got. He's already made an allowance for his residents to not impact the homeowner

to the south, and additionally, he's also changed the landscaping quite a bit from the

previous drawing, and he's also volunteered to contribute about $6,000 to the HOA for a

Wi-Fi card reader so that we can limit access to the pool to tenants that don't pay or

homeowners that don't pay. The HOA Board has to approve that, and I think that was

about most of the issues. But I -- I think from the presentation last time to this time, it's

not desirable in that it's not the original from 2013, but there are a lot of good things about

this. It looks very nice. It's twice as big as what people thought it was going to be, but

there are some accommodations and that being the first thing you see when you pull off

of Scott Boulevard, in my opinion, looks pretty nice.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Why didn't you consider not allowing the people in this apartment to

have access to your residential pool?

MR. BARNETT: It's in the bylaws that they have access, so apartment owners have

access. They pay a fee for that, as well.

MR. STANTON: So do you have enough --

MR. BARNETT: Do you have enough space in the pool?

MR. STANTON: -- I'm just having -- I'm thinking of a kiddie pool, and then you have a

whole -- whole bunch of people there. I mean, can you even accommodate it. Is that

something you need to address that?

MR. BARNETT: I'm not -- (inaudible) -- about the pool, because I don't go to the pool

myself. But --

MR. STANTON: Yeah. I'm just thinking of a strain on the infrastructure, which has

been an issue before, and you're --

MR. BARNETT: My opinion is apartments tend to have people in their 20s and 30s,

and those people tend to go out to the pool and hang out and have a beer. And usually

those are the ones that are breaking the rules with the smoking and the bottles in the

pool area, so to a certain level, it causes more problems, but that's my opinion.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Commissioner Ford?

MR. FORD: Are you supporting this design?

MR. BARTLETT: As a residence, I am -- a resident. The HOA Board decided that

their position would not be to endorse or speak negatively about it because they didn't

feel like they had the power to. It's a different board than was in December, so we

changed over two board members.

MR. FORD: But you personally are supporting this?

MR. BARNETT: Yeah. Yes.

MR. FORD: Okay. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? So I have a question. Does that mean

that the Board that was in existence in December is the one that made the agreements

that are shown on the PD Plan.

MR. BARNETT: A little clarification. It was presented, and we were going to get

back to him, and we never got back to him.

MS. GEUEA JONES: So an official vote has not been taken.

MR. BARNETT: We had a discussion, and we never actually formally agreed that

this is everything that we always wanted.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Got it. And do you know whether -- it sounds like what you

are saying is they will be quasi-members, associate members, something like that, or

will they be full members of the HOA?

MR. BARNETT: The owners of the apartment buildings will have voting rights. I think

it's one voting right for every two-bedroom and a half a voting right for every one-bedroom,

and so it changes it from, I think it was ten voting rights to now it's whatever that number

is. I’d have to do the math, but I think it's 18.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And that's despite the fact that I think that lot was originally

going to be a commercial lot in the Town Center Association, not the residents

association?

MR. BARNETT: I don't understand your question.

MS. GEUEA JONES: So I guess my question is, my understanding, and I haven't

read both associations' full bylaws. My understanding is originally and maybe even in the

2014 amendments, that lot would have been part of the Town Center Association.

MR. BARNETT: Right. But the apartments of that would have been --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MR. BARNETT: -- getting voting rights to be, because they're residents, they're

just apartment owners.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Got it. So it doesn't matter -- so there is a scenario in which

there are some rights of the owner of that lot in both associations?

MR. BARNETT: Correct.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Got it.

MR. BARNETT: And he's here, so he may be able to speak to that.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I may have to ask him that. Thank you very much for your

help. Any other questions for this speaker? Thank you very much, sir. Next speaker on

this case?

MR. MCGUIRE: I'm Jim McGuire; I live at 304 Russell Boulevard. I was one of the

original building condo owners at 2011 Condo -- or 2011 Corona Road. I currently am

representing them. We fully support this plan, and I've been on the Board of the Town

Center Association for a number of years, probably 15 years. We have very vigorously

debated this project for probably three years. And in answer to Commissioner Loe's

question about parking, we're very concerned about parking because all of the Town

Center Association shares all those lots. And as we mix the use, the dynamics of when

people park change quite a bit. The southwestern corner of the Town Center Association

that is basically across to the west gets very little use. And there's been an ATM that

was actually removed probably a decade ago, and that's going to be reconfigured so it'll

free up parking. That was our primary concern, and we think there's adequate parking as

an association. The board finally issued its full support for this project because that was

our concern. We represent a lot of important businesses in the community, and that was

-- that was our big concern. And by the way, we spend tens of thousands of dollars a

year in concrete work maintaining those parking lots, and that comes out of the Town

Center Association, and it's never ending. Until we find a solution for better concrete

surfaces, that -- and we continue to do that. That's just -- that's part of the deal. So

anybody have any questions for me?

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

none. Thank you very much.

MR. MCGUIRE: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Next speaker on this case?

MS. RUBINSTEIN: I'm Paula Rubinstein, resident at 2208 Potomac Drive. And a

couple of things that I've heard -- our association, as you are understanding are -- there's

two different ones. They don't always talk very fluently back and forth, and so there's a

lag time between getting information. So I know that sometimes some -- one doesn't

know what the other one is always doing. But I can say, having been on the Board

before, we have been concerned about the pool issues. I used to help be in charge of

keeping the pool maintained in the summers, and I asked the same question that -- that

Commissioner Stanton asked about can we just not let the residents of the apartments

be at the pool, because it usually causes a lot more trouble with maintaining and lots of

repairs, and all the things. But I was told and it's in a bunch of the bylaws that when all

this community was initially established, that's not how it goes. It was established so

that any new apartments and owners or rent tenants would be allowed to come and, yes,

they have some fee that they pay. But there’s concern of parking. So we're assuming

that the tenants of the apartments are not going to be there during the day a lot of the

time so that when anyone at Town Center and as it's becoming more populated, there's

Therapy Unlimited, Focus on Health, several -- there's eye doctors, there's salons, there's

people coming and going. So I know that some of those are still adding, they're growing.

Therapy Unlimited is growing. So there's got to be parking for their employees, all the

different therapists, and the clients that are coming. And so right now I know the square

gets really busy during the day when all that's happening. So I'm imagining if the tenants

of the apartments happen to park on the square because they can, it's shared use, and

then we're going to have patients and employees and clients coming that use the square,

and I can anticipate difficulties with parking spaces. So it would be -- my solution would

be it would be better if there were more designated parking spaces. And I don't see how

it's going to be monitored if they do go ahead and branch out into the neighborhood. It's

going to be very crowded. Right now we have trouble with our buses getting through in

our neighborhood because we have a couple of roundabouts that they kind of have to drive

around or over. And then when people are parked on both sides of the road, it's not very

easily a two-way pass, and that would also be a concern. So parking, in my opinion, is

of concern. It just needs to be a little more designated parking. So I can't imagine that

big of a building allowing enough. That's all.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. I'm sorry, ma'am. Just one moment. Are there

any questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much for your time. Next member of the

public?

MR. SMITH: My name is Kirby Smith.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Could you pull the microphone up? I'm sorry. Thank you.

MR. SMITH: My name is Kirby Smith, and I live at 403 Stallworth Court. It's about

mile from Cherry Hill. I manage the Town Center Association, the commercial part, as

you described it, sir. So there's a neighborhood association and there’s a commercial

part. I've been managing that property for 17 years, and we've been fortunate to have one

of the founders, which there were three when this was originally built in, oh, around 2000,

I believe. We've always had a founder on the Board, and so there's maintained

consistency for the vision that those people have had. One of the founders, I met with

him and Travis McGee, who submitted this application, and we found Travis to be very

congenial, very easy to work with. He went through quite a process with our design

review board, our town architect, in order to get all the revisions that were required from

our design review board approved. And once those were approved, they went through the

full board, and the full board passed it and approved it, and we're very delighted with what

the finished product was. I, myself, as manager do not have the opportunity to vote, so

I'm here to say that I strongly support this project. And as far as the pool issue goes, I

can see what they're saying as far as the pool, and I don't have anything to do with that,

but they are getting a substantial amount of money coming from these apartments to be

able to support the pool, maybe expand it, maybe build another one, I don't know. As far

as parking goes, again, there's plenty of parking on this development. This will get

developed someday. There's going to be parking in it whether it's retail, office, or

apartments. The southwest corner, I've been involved with this for 17 years. That

southwest corner, which is directly across the street to the west, is probably the least

dense, least used space in the entire development. So I do believe that a point of

additional parking there to take care of this. If anybody has any questions, I'll answer

them.

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

none. Thank you very much for your time. Next speaker?

MR. O'KEEFE: Madam Chair, good evening. My name is Chris O'Keefe; I'm a

member of the Cherry Hill Neighborhood Board, the homeowners side of things, not the

commercial. I just wanted to come up and express my opinion. I didn't expect to speak

tonight. The most vocal member of our Board wasn't actually here. What I'm hearing

from people I speak to from other homeowners, from everybody I interact with, my

neighbors and people on the other streets, is that they are largely concerned about the

fact that in our neighborhood we have a very significant pride of ownership, and we're --

and the concern largely boils down to with more -- with more tenants as opposed to

homeowners in the neighborhood, will that pride of ownership continue? Is it going to

affect the neighborhood, the walkability, the common areas? Is it going to affect our

property values? Those are the things largely that I think that are concerning our

homeowners. And, yes, it does have to do with parking, which I don't really want to get

into. I haven't counted the spaces myself. And it does have to do with the behavior at

the pool, it has to do with the common areas, it has to do with the magic tree, and

whether or not you can get through the neighborhood on your drive home from work, and

whether or not the school bus can get through in the morning, it all plays together about

is this the neighborhood we moved into. Thank you.

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

none. Thank you very much.

MR. O’KEEFE: Thank you very much.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Next speaker on this case.

MS. PETRIE: Hi. I'm Deana Petrie; I live at 2206 Potomac Drive, and I actually was

the board president when we met with the owner of this property, and we did discuss a lot

of compromises. But we didn't feel like that would be fair for just five of us to represent

our entire neighborhood, so we went back for discussion. In the meantime, we went

through a board election. We had a turnover which started in January. And we just did --

well, the prior board did not feel it was fair to represent our entire neighborhood, so we did

not have a neighborhood-wide association meeting to discuss this. So we really didn't

come to an agreement with the owner, even though we did talk about the ways that this

project could improve from the prior plan. And another thing we're worried about is there

is another plat that will be developed on -- probably in the future. I don't know the exact

details of that, but what I do know is parking was removed from that one, as well. So

that's just going to impact parking more in the future, this one and the next one.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Commissioner Loe, go ahead.

MS. LOE: Ms. Petrie, you mentioned that you discussed some opportunities for

improvement. Have any of those been incorporated into what we're seeing today?

MS. PETRIE: Yes. Yes. The visual look of the building, yes. There was -- we just

talked about, like, improving, you know, the security of our pool through a key-card

system, improving some landscaping. But the improvement with the -- the gate at the

pool, that's a capital improvement which the whole entire neighborhood will have to vote

on anyway, even if we do get the funding from the owner. So, yeah.

MS. LOE: Thank you.

MS. PETRIE: You're welcome.

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

go ahead.

MS. CARROLL: As an individual, do you support or oppose this?

MS. PETRIE: Well, the only reason -- I mean, the parking, I understand, but the only

reason I would oppose it right now is, well, two reasons. Our pool -- our pool is tiny, and

it's old. It needs a lot of work and it's busy, it's so busy now. And with this and the new

possible apartment, I am -- and the lot that's not even being developed yet, that's just --

it's just going to make it that much busier. And as Kevin said, the kids in these

apartments, you know, they're younger, and they don't follow the rules. And we actually

have an interest in this pool because we are homeowners, so -- and also the voting rights.

I mean, it's almost going to come, like, half apartments, half residential, and that's just

not what we envisioned when we moved in the neighborhood.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Yeah. Just let me get it straight. The representation and the powers

of different groups. You referred to homeowners, the owner of the building, and then the

tenants in the building. What are the relative hours of each? That is, does the owner of

the building have the power within the HOA?

MS. PETRIE: Yes.

MS. PLACIER: Whereas the tenants --

MS. PETRIE: No.

MS. PLACIER: Their only deal is they have to pay a fee and that's --

MS. PETRIE: Yes. That's -- yes.

MS. PLACIER: That's their only -- they aren't even organized or represented in any

way?

MS. PETRIE: No.

MS. PLACIER: Okay. I just wanted to be clear.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further questions? Thank you very much. Next speaker?

MS. O'KEEFE: Hello. My name is Eleanor O’Keefe. I live on 2203 Cherry Hill

Drive. And I would just like to point out the fact that as one of the kids here, I've noticed

that a lot of the time, especially with the elementary school buses, they go around the

magic tree area, and especially whenever they do go through, it is -- I have noticed that

the buses have difficulty getting around the cars. And I would like to address the parking

because there is a lot of kids in this area, and this area is, like, I've noticed that it's very

difficult for large families to move in or families with a lot of kids. And a lot of these kids

don't know any better to look whenever they cross the road, and a lot of these backyards

and front yards border the areas that if the parking does overflow, it would overflow into

those areas. And my concern is that maybe some people might not notice the cars

coming and there might be accidents happening. And also with the pool thing, I have

noticed that especially whenever I'm there with, like, my friends, or I'm just there with,

like, my family, there is some people there that I don't feel safe around, especially

because of the way they're acting. And it is like other people have mentioned, a very

small pool, so everyone is kind of close to each other whenever there's a lot of people

there. And it just doesn't feel very safe whenever there's people there that aren't maybe

following all the rules or anything like that. And I have seen people also break into the

pool.

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

Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Yeah. In terms of the rules, is there anybody there at the pool when

it's open to say, hey, these are rules?

MS. O'KEEFE: Honestly, whenever there's kids there and even when there isn't,

there is no one there. There is a sign on the gate of the pool that says there is no life

guards here, swim at your own risk. And the only people that ever address that is the

parents of these children or just, like, adults.

MS. PLACIER: So if the parents are around, they might say something, but if they

aren't --

MS. O'KEEFE: Yes. But otherwise -- other than that, there is no person in charge

of the pool that's there, like, hey, you can't be doing this.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Loe, did you have anything else? Okay.

MR. ZENNER: Commissioner Wilson.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, Commissioner Wilson, go ahead.

MS. WILSON: Thank you for coming up. When you're observing the parked cars

and the school bus having difficulty, is it just in the circle, in the roundabout?

MS. O'KEEFE: It's not just in the circle. I'm in sixth grade right now, but whenever I

was in elementary school, that's when a lot of the people would be coming back from

their jobs and parking at their apartments. And I have noticed that not just with that, but

our bus also passes by the neighborhood adjacent to Cherry Hill, and there is also

parking there that I've noticed. And I don't know if that has anything to do with the

apartments, but I have noticed that it does overflow quite a bit already.

MS. WILSON: And would that be in the morning and in the afternoon?

MS. O'KEEFE: Mostly in the afternoon, but it is slightly a problem in the morning,

yes.

MS. WILSON: Awesome. Thank you so much.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Seeing none. Thank you for coming

forward and giving your perspective.

MS. O'KEEFE: You're welcome.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Everyone else here is a full-grown adult who does this all the

time, and we appreciate you.

MS. O'KEEFE: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.

MR. FORD: Good job.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Next speaker on this case?

MR. MCGEE: Good evening. I'm Travis McGee, 308 Ninth Street. First off, I

appreciate you hearing this case again, and giving -- affording us this opportunity tonight.

Since our last meeting in October, you know, we've been through quite the process with

both associations, mainly with the Town Center because, formerly, that's where the

approval needed to come from in order to build the structure through that association, so

we did that. We've been through multiple drafts with our town architect, and a lot of that

is what you see on the screen here. So the new building that we've -- that we've

designed, you know, it incorporates the aspects of Cherry Hill. I know we talked last

time, you know, the other rendering that I had come up with before, after our meeting, we

went back and looked at it, and, you know, I started looking at it myself and started

thinking we can do better. And I feel like we -- we presented that tonight. I was able to

hire an artistic rendering gentleman out of St. Louis to show the other buildings behind it.

I know there was a comment from the Commission last time, so I wanted to -- to do that.

But the brick and stone is consistent with the colors of Cherry Hill, and we went through

that process. I think there was four or maybe five revisions with the Town architect in

order to get ultimate approval, and so we did that. And then, of course, you know, you've

heard tonight, I met on December the 2nd with the neighborhood association, and a lot of

those -- all of those comments from that meeting, we sat a round table at one of my other

projects, and I wrote down a list of every concern that they had, and every single one of

those concerns is incorporated into the plan. I did reach out multiple times to -- to reach

out to meet with the new board. I wanted to ultimately get their, you know, formal

support, even though I didn't need it to actually build the building, but I wanted to have

that, and I didn't obtain that, but I feel like I did everything I could to try to do that with the

previous board. It just happened that there was an election between, you know, when I

met with them the first time and tonight. So that's where we're at tonight, and I'm happy

to answer any questions.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Questions for this speaker? Sorry. You probably

said it, and I was -- just missed it. Are you in both associations? Are you a formal

member of Town Center, and voting rights member of the residents? How does that

work?

MR. MCGEE: Well, again, Mr. MacMann knows a lot about this, but, you know, so,

yes. I mean, the Village of Cherry Hill is one big association. The Town Center is the

commercial portion with the mixed use. In commercial -- you know everyone said, you

know, commercial, but it's really commercial and mixed use, you know. So that is one

portion, and then there are voting rights in the neighborhood association for the

apartments. And then the apartments in the Town Center do have access -- you heard

tonight about the pool that's been, you know -- you know, something that, you know, I've

had some questions about. But, you know, formally, I'm in the -- you know, we're in the

Village of Cherry Hill, all of us, but, formally, I'm in the Town Center Association and then

that's where I needed to get my formal approvals to build this structure. However, I do

pay dues as a residential owner to the neighborhood association for the pool every year,

and I think it's $150 per unit per year for not -- not just this building, but, you know, the

other apartments that I have next door. So we're going to be contributing $5,400 a year

forever to the pool. We offered to do some things to help improve the pool, too, with the

previous Board, but I didn't get this -- you know, solidify those agreements with the new

board.

MS. GEUEA JONES: But to answer the questions of when it comes to the shared

parking that is a privilege of being part of the Town Center Association, you are formally a

member of Town Center Association?

MR. MCGEE: Yes, that's correct. That's correct.

MS. GEUEA JONES: That's what I needed to know. Thank you. Any other --

Commissioner Ford, go ahead.

MR. FORD: Your other apartments, are they two-bedroom, one-bedroom?

MR. MCGEE: They're all one-bedroom apartments.

MR. FORD: Can you, if possible, describe average tenant over the last five years?

MR. MCGEE: You know, Mr. Ford, it's a mixed bag, you know. We have -- mainly, I

would say young professional would be -- would be most of our tenant base, but, you

know, we have individuals that are in there, you know, 50s and 60s, you know, and we

have, you know, single mothers and fathers that units. And so the market rate

apartments, you know, we -- we lease apartments to everyone, but, you know, mainly 25

-plus. But, you know, I heard some, you know, comments tonight about younger people.

We don't lease many to any college students at all, specifically undergrad. I mean, we

do have some college students that are in -- maybe in grad school or nursing school, or

maybe in their -- you know, their senior year or something like that, but very rarely do we

-- you know, even out this side of town do we have, you know, undergrad students as

tenants.

MR. FORD: Could you, if possible, describe the number of cars per bedroom

average over the last five years, just a guess?

MR. MCGEE: Well, for the 12 units I have? I mean, they’re single, they’re

one-bedroom apartments, so, you know, we do have some people that it would just --

most of the tenants are one car, but there are some that have two. So I would say your

average is always going to be -- 12 is going to be your minimum, and then I would -- I'm

going to say it's going to be, you know, 15 to 18, Mr. Ford. I don't have the data on that.

I don't get them. My office staff probably does. Actually, I know they do, but -- you

know.

MR. FORD: Okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much.

MR. MCGEE: Appreciate it.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other members of the public to speak on this case?

Going once, going twice. I'm not seeing any movement. Okay. We will close public

hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comments? Are there any Commissioner

comments on the case? Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to give a little perspective.

We've gone down a rabbit hole of owners and business associations. As the gentleman

said before, I knew the founders, I know the founders. And part of the issue that we're

dealing with here is a PD. They made it a PD to make it what it is. And part of the

problem that we have right now is it's a PD and they can do, well, I don't like the parking.

It's communal parking. You kind of know that going in. The best I could say with some

of you folks to have the new apartment coming in, Mr. Petty -- Petty, was it -- whatever

the name. I'm sorry; I've forgotten your name. You guys have to look at that hard and

see what you want to do, and the same thing with your pool. I know that -- I'm

addressing all of you all, too -- that HOA regulations are very difficult to change. I

appreciate that. But there's not a whole lot of playing Solomon that we could do up here.

I mean, there certainly are some things that we can address, but many of the issues that

you presented or perhaps the intensity of issues they presented are related to internal

issues that are kind of beyond our scope. That said, I do appreciate that Mr. McGee and

his fellows did address the look of the building, which was my terrible problem. I remain

skeptical about the parking, but I -- we're kind -- our hands are tied there pretty much. As

long as they meet a minimum, they're okay. And that would be for you all folks out there

-- that would be the lever that we would have, but we don't have a lever here because it's

communal parking. That said, I think I'm planning on -- I'm going to support this unless

you all can convince me otherwise.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other comments? Commissioner Ford?

MR. FORD: I really like the look of the building now. That was my biggest concern

before. I've -- I drive all the time in Columbia, and every time that I've been going by

Cherry Hill since the last meeting, I've just scanned over and looked at the parking. There

seems to be adequate parking, especially on the Scott Boulevard corridor, so I'm

planning to support this.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton, did I see your hand?

MR. STANTON: You did. Yeah. I think the -- the applicant jumped all the hoops he

could and that we demanded of, and took into the account the feedback from the previous

visit to us. I don't know what's more he can do. I think Commissioner MacMann is right.

I think some of these things, I really would have liked to see the HMO's address,

especially with the pool. Me, I wouldn't allow them to be in -- have access, but it's in your

bylaws that any resident does. We can't do anything about the intensity use of the pool.

Parking is addressed. All the -- all the boxes are checked as far as our side of the coin.

And my big thing with this anyway is I've watched Cherry Hill, like this inspired me to get

into urban planning and all this anyway. I watched them when the first building went up

out here, and watched it grow. This is the -- this is how they used to build cities, like,

original cities. This is new urbanism, basically, is what this is called. And so you have

the commercial and then you have more dense right on the outside, and then you get

less dense the further away you get from the town center. So, you know, some of this --

some of this stuff is just how towns and cities are naturally designed to grow, and those

that are on the periphery, you know, they kind of catch both worlds. But the change of

use in this building, I think, is beneficial for Cherry Hill. I kind of seen it kind of the shops

kind of dying out, and then they'd pop back up, but it never had the vibrancy that I thought

it would. I think that more people means more customers, especially for the shops that

exist now. So I think it's a good -- a good use of the land, a good adaptation because we

don't want Cherry Hill to die. We don't want it to just stay stagnant, you have empty

residential or empty commercial space because you're trying to hold onto a dream. I

think you'd rather have it be a functioning community, and function means adapting to the

market and what people need and don't need. And I think this will help Cherry Hill in the

long run.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: I also agree that the applicant has made changes that have addressed

some of the concerns that were brought up previously, including the appearance and

materials that we discussed. The crosswalk with the bump-out should help some of the

safety -- or those bump-outs work. I've got them in my neighborhood. I'm actually

thinking this building might attract older residents in that, if I'm not mistaken, some of the

apartments that Mr. McGee has were more adaptive reuse of retail space, whereas this

has a more -- has a more residential appearance. And just as Ms. Johnson attracted to

Cherry Hill because of the walkability and closeness, I mean, a lot of my friends who are

getting to a point where they don't want to take care of houses, are looking for this type of

community to move into. So I agree Cherry Hill is a true urban planning project. I don't

think it's reached its full potential yet. I do think there are some growing pains that are

going to happen. I really wish it were on a bus route. I don't think we're going to get it on

a bus route till we get a bit more density, and I think this is a step in that direction, so I

do plan on supporting it.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other? Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Yeah. I'm agreeing. I don't think at the rate that these are going for,

they're going to attract a lot of, if any, undergraduate students. I have a former colleague

who lived there, and she wouldn't put up with it. So the -- but the issues that we were

getting into that are none of our business, like the pool, can be dealt with through wise

apartment management and contracts and that kind of thing. So make some

agreements with the tenants, and I think you’ll enjoy living here.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other comments? Okay. Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN; If there are no other comments or concerns, I have a motion.

Seeing none. In the matter of Case 260-2023, Village of Cherry Hill PD Plan major

revision, no technical corrections? No technical corrections, I move to approve.

MR. STANTON: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Approval has been moved by Commissioner MacMann and

seconded by Commissioner Stanton. Is there any further discussion on the motion?

Seeing none. Commissioner Carroll, may we have a roll call?

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

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

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

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

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any other motions to be made on this

case? Just double-checking; seeing none. That recommendation will be forwarded to

City Council. Thank you.

In the matter of Case 260-2023, Village of Cherry Hill PD Plan major revision, no

technical corrections? No technical corrections, move to approve.

8 - Loe, Stanton, MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson and Ford

Yes:

1 - Dunn

Excused:

Case # 78-2024

A request by hdesigngroup (agent), on behalf of Grindstone Acres, LLC,

etal (owners) and Capital Land Investments and Diventures of Columbia

(contract purchasers), for approval of a PD Plan and design exceptions for

Lot 101 of the “Copperstone Corner Plat 1”, to be known as “PD Plan -

Diventures of Columbia”. The 1.57-acre site is located approximately

530-feet southeast of the Scott Boulevard and W. Vawter School Road

intersection. A concurrent final plat will confer "legal lot" status to the

1.57-acre site.

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 proposed PD Plan for Diventures of

Columbia, inclusive of the design exceptions, subject to minor technical corrections.

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

fellow Commissioners have had any contact with parties to this case outside of a public

hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Commissioner Carroll, and then

Commissioner MacMann?

MS. CARROLL: Is there an existing sidewalk along Vawter School Road on the site

of this development?

MR. ZENNER: It ends -- and I apologize. That sidewalk presently ends -- if I can get

to a good aerial. That sidewalk presently ends at the end of Addison's. And then there

would have been some sidewalk that was built, if I am not incorrect, along the throat, the

westbound end of West Vawter School Road as a part of the capital project when we did

the roundabout, but it is missing in between. There is a small retaining wall section that

has been shown on the construction plans for the subdivision that will be built to retain

the approximate middle section of what is shown from the corner from the roundabout to

where the sidewalk is, but there is a fully compliant five- or six-foot wide sidewalk. There

is also within the improvements for West Vawter School Road, which were a requirement

of the development agreement, there is also a dedicated bike lane. So that's the -- with

the plat, we'll have some other road-widenings and some realignments on the West

Vawter School frontage in order to accommodate the anticipated trips that will come with

this particular project.

MS. CARROLL: So the applicant is building a sidewalk?

MR. ZENNER: The developer --

MS. CARROLL: It's hard to tell on the plat.

MR. ZENNER: The developer -- so the applicant will build a -- will improve their

frontage. The owner of the property, which is the Capital Investments, Capital Land

Investments, the contract purchaser from Green Acres, they will be responsible as a part

of the road improvements on Vawter, as well as the construction of Capital Drive, to also

make improvements.]

MS. CARROLL: Okay. Thanks.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Zenner, I am fine with all these

exceptions, except the last one. If I recall during the UDC, we even bumped up the

parking maximum at the very end at the request of one of our large parking lot users.

This is a lot of stormwater -- a lot, a lot, a lot. Excuse me. I appreciate the extra green

space -- fantastic. So it gives me great pause, because every time we have a lot and

stuff, we get a critical mass. And I'm concerned is there anything that's going to assuage

my concerns?

MR. ZENNER: Well, what you don't see is -- is what may assuage your concerns,

Mr. MacMann. So let me go back to this. This is maybe a good example. You will

notice --

MR. MACMANN: I see that. I see it in the ground.

MR. ZENNER: So --

MR. MACMANN: So I go look -- this is how nerdy I am. I go look when these things

are dug.

MR. ZENNER: I completely understand and I appreciate that. So this particular site,

and I will let the project engineer with Olsson answer this question for you. But as I

understand this, the site does drain from the north to the southwest, so the catch basins

that are in the lower right-hand -- lower left-hand corner of this diagram, the site has been

designed in order to accommodate that there is also -- and it comes back around the

site, if I am not incorrect, to some additional underground storage that is up here that is

discharging to the existing channel. So the design of the project for the infrastructure

side of this, which is being designed by A Civil Group on behalf of Capital Land

Investments, it has gone through our view process at this point. Our review staff is -- is

comfortable with what is being proposed here. Notwithstanding, I think the point that

you're making, but, yes, we are increasing impervious surfaces.

MR. MACMANN: It's just so large in and of itself. That's my concern.

MR. ZENNER: And what I am hopeful for, and I think we can look at this as projects

come online further to the west, is that there is some opportunity to not continue to

increase parking, but we allow some flexibility for shared arrangements. You will notice

in the very lower left-hand corner, again, this stub that is leading to the adjoining parcel

that is currently not being platted, but this is going to allow for cross-access. And so as

we continue to build out projects, we will continue to monitor the excessive nature of

parking that's being installed and continue to work to utilize the UDC's shared parking

arrangements to the maximum. This particular area, of course, is just to the south of Mill

Creek, and our playing field is the MKT access at Dix Park -- Dix Recreation. All of that,

when we do get substantial spring time rains or summer rains even, is prone for flooding.

And so those issues are not something that we are not aware of.

MR. MACMANN: This entire area. This is --

MR. ZENNER: But those are -- those are considerations notwithstanding your -- your

observed concern here. Those are things that we are looking at, as well. And I -- I am

assured at this point, from what our staff has reviewed, nobody has said that what is

being proposed here overwhelms -- overwhelms the situation.

MR. MACMANN: All right. I just -- I needed to bring this up. I was displeased with

the expansion in 2017, because that kind of fit the needs of one property owner. And my

concern here is not just this unit, but as we start going along and building out this corner,

it looks like --

MR. ZENNER: The mall?

MR. MACMANN: A mall. It can look like a mall if you bring it to the road and make

small parking lots, and we have public transit. Unfortunately, we don't have all those

things in place. Thank you for your forbearance, Madam Chair. I am done.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: Mr. Zenner, when the report included the design exception for the front

entry, I fully expected it to be -- the proposal to be along Capital Drive, that you would be

moving it from the public street to the private drive with the explanation that it's being

constructed to the standards of when -- of that to a public street and UDC hadn't taken

into account that developed commercial developments may have internal streets that

meet that same. But it appears that they're asking for the entrance to be moved to the

parking lot, and we have turned down projects prior to this with that being one of the

reasons. So I'm having a little bit of difficulty with that one. I'm also having -- the

explanation that the Vawter School Road exit, it that's an emergency exit, it will require

an exit discharge, which is a paved route to a public way open space drive, and I'm not

seeing that in the site plan. So I feel like we don't have a fully developed proposal for

what the access might be and I'm not fully comfortable with the explanation for why the

entrance can't be on Capital Drive.

MR. ZENNER: Well, it is on -- the -- the entry faces and is visible from Capital Drive

on the very east of the building. So let's -- it's before you get to the bottom of the parking

lot, the bottom corner of the site, it faces Capital Drive, and it is visible from that

right-of-way.

MS. LOE: Okay.

MR. ZENNER: To address your other concern, so this is one access point that is on

the back of the building for emergency ingress and egress.

MS. LOE: Yes.

MR. ZENNER: You also have emergency access that leads out to the sidewalk

segment that comes back to the parking lot, as well as -- I would imagine this will be a

controlled access point, but that would also lead out to the paved access to the side of

the building. This site plan has not been fully approved --

MS. LOE: Uh-huh.

MR. ZENNER:

-- from a construction perspective at this point. That would likely

be part of the analysis -- the Code analysis based on the space, based on the necessity

for ingress and egress that our site development department would be reviewing and

requiring them that if this is to be an emergency access/egress door, it needs to be tied

back to the pavement that is on this side of the building. And that would be consistent

with, I think, with the concern that you're having, because all of this is paved all along this

side of the building. So if we're adding a door --

MS. LOE: Right. If they're capping it as an egress, it has to have the --

MR. ZENNER: Yeah. But that, I think, is -- that yet is not to be -- that hasn't been

fully finalized at this point. And if that is a concern, that you would like to have that

shown on this plan, I'm sure we can have that as a minor amendment, if you, as a

Commission, would like to have that added, if you believe that's necessary.

MS. LOE: My -- my observation is more in keeping with how we're looking at

entrances. Thank you for the clarification on the entrance facing Capital Drive. I'm going

to mull that over now.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Other questions for staff? I do have a question. I understand

that Diventures is -- I don't want to use the word chain, because that sounds dismissive,

but this business with this building design exists in other municipalities. But my

question is, is there anything in the PD Plan, Statement of Intent, anything that requires

the fenestration along Vawter School Road? I love that word.

MR. ZENNER: You love that word?

MS. GEUEA JONES: I do love that word.

MR. ZENNER: So let me answer the first question.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yes.

MR. ZENNER: Yes. They have multiple locations in various cities in various states.

The architectural renderings package that we received by staff, you did not receive the

entire, it was a marketing package. I extracted out the applicable elevations for you for

this evening. The marketing package that was provided to us shows buildings in each of

those jurisdictions that are significantly different. So this is not a prototype. This is a

building that's been proposed in this location suited to this site. So to the second point,

the building does not actually trigger, because it is -- the scale of the building does not

trigger the architectural design requirements that we have within the Code in 29-4.6.

Trust me, that was a question and an identification that I made early on when I got the

plans.

MS. GEUEA JONES: My question is in exchange for not having to put their entrance

there.

MR. ZENNER: I believe you will -- you can ask that question of the design team, and

I think they have an answer prepared for that this evening, because that was what I told

them to expect.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Seeing -- oh,

sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner Ford.

MR. FORD: Mr. Zenner, you mentioned some road improvements.

MR. ZENNER: Yes.

MR. FORD: Can we talk about those?

MR. ZENNER: So let me go back to our overview. Yeah. I'm going to go back to

this one. Hold on. I went too far. So -- and this ties into some comments that we

received late this evening, as well -- after 5:00 tonight. So there was a traffic study that

was performed for the original Copperstone Corner development, the 14 and a half or so

acres. Associated with that, there was a development agreement that was generated.

That development agreement had some very specific triggers that would be tripped based

upon particular development activities, and those triggers covered roadway improvements

not only in regards to road dedication. There's a tremendous amount of the Scott

Boulevard dedication was acquired through a street easement, so when the property is

platted along the particular roadway frontages, we're actually converting street easements

to platted right-of-way. And then, based upon the total number of lots that were being

platted, there were particular triggers that would then require certain site improvements,

off site transportation improvements. The first was triggered if you platted anything

beyond the subject lot, and the common lot that was needed to accommodate Capital

Drive. Now when this project came in, one of the first things I identified was the fact that

it included not only the subject lot, it included two additional lots and it included the

common lot. First conversation to the applicant was you do realize the first phase of all

of the transportation improvements has now been triggered. Shortly thereafter, we

received the final plat for the platting in this lot in the three, plus the common lot, and on

that plat does show the actual dedication of the road right-of-way along Scott -- or along

Vawter from, basically, where the Addison's property is back to just before we get into

the right-of-way for the roundabout. That includes the relocation and installation of the

retaining wall for the sidewalk to be accommodated, expansion of the road right-of-way to

accommodate a turn lane and a shift in traffic, and it goes all the way through the main

entry at Front Gate Drive to provide additional improvements of Front Gate over to

Creekwood, which is across the street to serve this portion of the developments with a

crossing, a HAWK's -- a HAWK's activated crossing flashing beacon, and some other

improvements. All of that, pursuant to the way that the development agreement is

written, all of those improvements must be installed, or we will have to have a security

assurity by which to have them installed before this development plan can ever be

presented to Council for approval. The platting action right now is in final plan review for

construction plan approval. Once that is prepared, we will be able to take the final plat

forward. But the other really interesting caveat to this is is this property still is not

transferred from Green Acres, LLC, and its collection of four owners to Capital Land

Investments. And before we can process the plat, the transition of that land sale has to

occur, and the recording of the development agreement is a requirement. So we're not

seeing any of what's being proposed or discussed here this evening being brought online

probably or being brought to reality, through the Council process for, I would say, at least

another month to two months, as we go through that plan review process and the closing

of the land. That's phase one's improvements. When we plat the additional development,

which will include the remaining seven lots, that will trigger some more significant

improvement along Scott Boulevard. The dedication of additional road right-of-way will be

part of that, but the bigger improvements there will result in the installation of a slip lane

right bypass on the -- on the corner here that will allow individuals that want to head north

through the roundabout on Scott Boulevard to do so without having to be impacted by

turning movements onto Vawter School. And so that was the other major component

associated with the development agreement, which again, is tied in to a phase one and a

phase two. We've looked extensively at this before we did the zoning on it understanding

how the PD was being set up, and wanted to be assured that those initial and critical

transportation infrastructure improvements were nailed down. The development was

proposed at a full build-out with intensities on it, so that traffic study incorporated the

most intense use that would be, and that is how it was designed. What may end up

coming here may have far less trips, but the improvements that we've agreed to through

the agreement are based on an intensity that is possible, but may not be at the reality.

We're comfortable with what the design of this project is, the improvements that are

corresponding to the platting action for this improvement. And as new development

comes in, requisite improvements will be brought along accordingly.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? And quickly, I was trying to look it up

and I'm not fast enough. What would the maximum occupancy of this building be?

MR. ZENNER: That, I do not know off the top of my head, ma'am.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Thank you.

MR. ZENNER: They -- they have a capacity limitation based on the number of

teaching stations that they have.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah.

MR. ZENNER: And the applicant can probably address what their anticipated

occupancy load would be based on their operations.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Their maximum.

MR. ZENNER: Yeah. Their maximum. I don't know what our official fire code

maximum would be, but they know what their maximum would be based on how they do

their business.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Does your gut tell you whether their maximum would be more

or less than our fire code maximum?

MR. ZENNER: I -- it can't be more -- I don't believe it will be more than ours --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MR. ZENNER: -- but my gut doesn't -- since I don't look at the fire code and I

don't know what occupancy is, this is low.

MS. GEUEA JONES: That's okay. All right. We'll do some research.

MR. ZENNER: Okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Sorry. Commissioner MacMann, go

ahead.

MR. MACMANN: Before we go any further, I have a little forbearance. I'm always

asking for forbearance. It'll just take a second. Do we have law students with us this

afternoon or this evening? Thank you very much. Thanks for being here. I'll address that

later.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any further questions for staff? Seeing none.

We will open the floor to public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Please come forward.

MR. GARDNER: My name is Dwain Gardner, and my address is 1414 Rangeline,

which is also Captain Nemo's Dive Shop. I might be the reason that we're all here

tonight, so I guess I'll take the blame for it. My wife and I owned Captain Nemo's for 37

years here in Columbia. And for those of you that said I had no idea there was a dive

shop in Columbia, please don't say that. So when it came time for retirement, we had

some choices. We could just close the doors, or we could find somebody to take our

customers. And we know a lot of people in the diving industry, and Diventures was it.

We've known them -- sorry. We have known them for a long time. So we contacted

them, and they agreed to come to Columbia. And one thing that is pretty interesting, I

think, about the whole thing is they have stores in Omaha, they have stores in

Springfield, they have stores in Atlanta. Columbia just barely made the cut. We didn't

beg, but we knew the owner of the enterprise, he knew us. He was familiar with our

business. And so the point I'm trying to make is it's been mentioned a couple of times

that this is an out-of-town organization. The -- the way that Diventures grows is they're

invited into communities, and we invited them. They -- they could have just come in and

absolutely stomped us -- you know, building a pool, building the facility, and we -- we

would -- I mean, there would have been no defense. But they only come with permission.

We were store number six. They now have 18. And so another thing is you feel like it's

a new business, and it's not. I mean, my wife and I are still actively involved, and at this

point, I mean, we've got 40 years here in Columbia. So it's -- it's not a new thing. I

mean, it's -- it's -- they know that it's a well-worn path and going to the number of spots

that you need to park in, they know what they're talking about because the primary

driving force of this business is the swimming classes for kids. And so that's -- it may

seem like they need a few more parking spaces than what you would normally see, but

that's why. They have a lot of traffic in and out of that building. But I just wanted to take

my few minutes to -- to stick up for them and kind of explain who they are and why

they're here, and their manager is here, Connor. I don't know if he'll have anything to say

other than that. You can ask the engineers the questions.

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

MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Just FYI, sir. I am aware of your business, because several of my

friends have taken lessons from you.

MR. GARDNER: Hallelujah.

MR. MACMANN: Business models. You heard my entire diatribe with Planner

Zenner about parking?

MR. GARDNER: Yes.

MR. MACMANN: The 200 percent cap is already high. Sixty-seven, that's a lot of

parking. Is that a deal breaker?

MR. GARDNER: I'm not one that can answer that, and I'm not putting you off

because I'm not the one that makes those decisions anymore.

MR. MACMANN: And I appreciate that some businesses are very automobile driven

-- kids’ lessons. I appreciate that. I've had children. I'm sure many of us here have had

children. It's -- and I'm fine with everything else. I'm fine. You have a surety bond to put

up and all that stuff. That's fantastic. I'm sure it will be fine. We know the builders and

developers. That's all great. I'm -- I love -- we've had significant -- you've been here for 40

years. We have stormwater problems. I'm very hesitant to move forward with this much

asphalt, so I'll ask the engineer or whomever is here --

MR. GARDNER: You’ll have to.

MR. MACMANN: -- but I just wanted to get something from you. Thank you very

much, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair.

MR. GARDNER: There is one thing about the parking that I do know is from the

scuba point of view, absolutely the parking is important. I mean, all these years, I always

kind of wanted to have a business downtown. Well, that just wasn't possible, so we've

always been up on the north side of town. You can't carry scuba tanks two blocks to get

air put in them, so that's -- that's all I know about the parking as far as being close to the

building.

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

MR. GARNER: Yes?

MS. CARROLL: When I came through scuba training with MU actually --

MR. GARDNER: What year was it?

MS. CARROLL: 2004.

MR. GARDNER: Oh, that’s recent. I took that class in '79, so I'm familiar with

it.

MS. CARROLL: Yeah. There was a lack of locations that could -- of indoor pools

that could support scuba instruction.

MR. GARDNER: Correct.

MS. CARROLL: Does that still exist?

MR. GARDNER: It's worse than ever.

MS. CARROLL: Yeah.

MS. GARDNER: In the time that we've been here, we've never had our own pool. So

at this point, we use Hickman High School pool, we used the pool at the University, and

Conner just recently got the University scuba program, so that's exciting. So we have

access to that pool, but we'll have, you know, during those classes, that would just be for

them. Columbia, Missouri is a swimming pool desert. The Stephens College dozed

theirs, Columbia College dozed theirs, and so this is something that we've been fighting

our entire career because you can't train people, you can't teach them to snorkel, you

can't teach them to dive, you can't teach them to swim without water. So that is

Diventures' plan when you go into a town. Now the stores that they're buying pretty much

already have pools on site. But when they bought us, we were still kind of early in their

acquisition process, and they bought us with -- with no water, and here we are with three

and a half years later. Land is -- buying land in Columbia is like pulling teeth. I mean,

they were ready on day one to sign a contract. And it's -- it's going to be almost five

years before we get into a building.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Seeing none. Thank you for being here

tonight.

MR. GARDNER: Okay. Thanks.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Next speaker? Yeah.

MR. HENDRICKS: I’m looking for the presentation.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. Where it says Brandon Smith.

MR. HENDRICKS: While he's getting that set up, I'm Connor Hendricks; I live at

1815 Lovejoy, here in Columbia, and I am the store director for this store. So I would love

to educate every single one of you on the ins and outs of every part of our business as I

would love to welcome you and we would have a great time. But I guess I want to speak

to kind of the function of the building, so keeping out a lot of the fluff. But, of course, our

main business, as you've already heard, is going to be swim. So in terms of I know

parking is going to be the hot topic, and it's completely understandable. And our number

one priority is safety. Our number one goal is fun. With safety being our priority, we all

have kids, we want them to be safe. We want -- we don't want them traversing roads,

sidewalks, anything. If we can house them, the better we can do that. The reason why

we need to have so many isn't necessarily because we're going to have 500 kids in the

pool at one time. That's not what's going to happen, but the big concern is going to be

between lessons. So you have your course from 4:00 to 5:00, and then you have your

kids from 5:00 to 6:00, 6:00 to 7:00, and then you've got that transition of parents coming

in with their kids and doing this back and forth in between. So priority being safety, my

two cents of this, Will Monroe, who is our general manager of all Diventures, can speak a

little bit more clarity on it for you, but that's going to be a main concern for the parking.

Of course, as you can see there, we will have swim stations, so based on safety, we only

have so many students per swim instructor, and we're not going to be filling the pool to

the absolute max because there's going to be a deep end so that we can do some diving.

So, again, we're not going to be just seeing water flying all the way up to the ends of the

ceilings on these in terms of capacity. We will be training everything and everyone --

excuse me, everything is the wrong term -- from months old to full adults. Any level of

training, any level of swimming. Scuba, what Dwain and Mary have done for 40 years,

this is what they've been doing is teaching scuba, so that's going to be the other part of

our major business, bringing in students, trying out scuba for the first time, doing actual

lessons, doing specialties, and then traveling with us internationally, doing several trips

every year like Dwain had mentioned just a minute ago. We will have retail as we do sell

gear, as we do scuba training and swim training, so there will be a full retail space.

Travel, I had just mentioned. I'll let the designers talk about the building layout as it's

been molded over time. But that's why I wanted to mainly speak to is kind of the function

of the building, primarily in the swim.

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

MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for patience. Hi. I think

the model is quite lovely. I really think it's amazing. Some quick questions, if you can.

About how many employees will you have on site at any time; do you know?

MR. HENDRICKS: We will have three managers, we will have maybe one retail

associate, and then it will be the lifeguards and swim teachers that will probably make up

an additional four or five. I would -- and then we do have some dive instructions, so we

would probably have concurrent classes going on, so --

MR. MACMANN: Eight, ten, somewhere-ish?

MR. HENDRICKS: Yes. Yes.

MR. MACMANN: All right. Next question, how many folks are you going to have in

the pool at once?

MR. HENDRICKS: I would need to get -- I can get that answer to you in 24 hours.

MR. MACMANN: I would love to have that answer, because you know -- you know

where I'm going with this. Right?

MR. HENDRICKS: Absolutely.

MR. MACMANN; And I -- I'm, like, okay. Let's give them two, let's give them one out

and one in. But you don't have the rest of the answers to my questions right now, so I'm

going to stop asking them. Thank you, Madam Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Commissioner. Any other questions for this

speaker?

MR. HENDRICKS: If you do have those more specific questions, please -- and that

way I can forward them on.

MR. MACMANN: How many people would be there, and if you gave every one of

them car, even the four-year-olds, how much parking would we need? That's where I'm

going with all that.

MR. HENDRICKS: Yes, sir.

MS. GEUEA JONES: So my questions along the same lines, but perhaps less

specific. So your classes, you don't have down time, cushion time between?

MR. HENDRICKS: Between, like, swim lessons?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Because you're saying, like, if -- if there's a class at 4:00,

does the next hour-long class start at 5:00, or is there, like, 15, 20, 30 minutes between

the end of one and the beginning of the next?

MR. HENDRICKS: There's not -- no. they start right in, so we'll have students come

in, and then they'll be with their parents getting changed and getting prepped and

everything ready before. There will be a bell that goes off, and that's the five minutes that

we spend with our kids, saying, hey, great job. Let's talk about what we need to improve

on, and then there will be a second bell that goes off. It's, like, all right, Now, you're out,

you go change, and the kids that were already on deck ready to go are now getting into

the water.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I guess my concern is this is not a minor increase over the

maximum that, as Commissioner MacMann mentioned, we've already increased. This is

a massive increase. This is more than 300 percent of the minimum parking. So what I'm

trying to figure out is, is that actually needed, or is it a convenience because that way

you don't have down time in between where people could shuffle in and out of the parking

lot. And -- and those two very different things, because if you come in and said, okay,

the maximum is 42, we actually need 50, that's a very different question than we need 67;

you see what I'm saying?

MR. HENDRICKS: Certainly. So some -- I haven't ran a swim school, so just kind of

take that as you will.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MR. HENDRICKS: From the numbers I've seen from other locations, Springfield

being a bigger -- so take to understand, they've had 1,000 students a month, so you can

divide that by 30 days, and that's going to give you a number. North Liberty, which is

more around or similar to the Columbia population has been anywhere from 400 to 800,

depending on the season that they're having. So I didn’t mean to answer kind of

indirectly, but I would rather give you someone who has seen the actual business to give

you a real straight answer.

MS. GEUEA JONES: So you're just managing the dive shop part? You haven't

actually managed the swim school's part?

MR. HENDRICKS: Right. So when --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Then we will hold our questions for someone who can.

Sorry to grill you when you're not the person.

MR. HENDRICKS: That's okay. Absolutely. That's just my two cents, but if you

had those questions, I can certainly forward those to Will, and that way I can get those

back to you in under 24 hours.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Next? Oh, sorry. Anybody else?

Seeing none. Thank you very much.

MR. HENDRICKS: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Next person, come on up.

MR. SMITH: Hello. My name is Brandon Smith; I'm a designer at H Design Group.

We're at 5039 South National Avenue in Springfield, Missouri. We are the architectural

firm working on this office. I think, thank you, Pat, first of all, for doing such a good job.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Sorry. Can you stay close to the microphone. Sorry. Thank

you.

MR. SMITH: Oh, sorry. Thank you for putting such a good presentation together. I

feel like I don't have a whole lot to add at this point, but I do want to provide a few

clarifications. So I can answer, just from my conversations that General Manager, Mr.

Will Monroe, he's not here today, but I can answer some of those questions about the

students in the classes. So my understanding is that the classes will run with 12

teachers, and we'll have four students in each -- with each teacher, so we're looking at

roughly 48 students in each class or each session, and that's 96 coming and going every

-- every swap. So -- and I do want to just kind of add, you know, on the parking, it's not

entirely about, you know, having an efficient business or, you know, eliminating down

time. It's also about, you know, having adequate space for -- for, you know, people to

park and access the building in a calm manner. It's -- it really is also about safety for the

kids walking across the parking lot. So they want to make sure that they have adequate

parking. The number that we were given to design towards is actually 75, so we are

down from that number. I realize that's a lot of parking, but that's the way that the

business works. I'll let Mr. Hoey, who will come up after me, talk about the stormwater

issues. Other than that, I do have one clarification. Technically, it is a prototype,

however, their prototypes evolve very fast. The last location was in North Liberty, and if

you look at that building, it looks quite a bit different. So we have designed this prototype

although, admittedly, we are early in the design process around this location. However,

you know, there's still a good ways to go in the design. We're not quite at that stage

where we're looking at construction documentation just yet. So with that, when we're

talking about, like, egress, and things like that, you know, we have egress planned into

the building, but some of those doors that are shown are not necessary shown because

it's the final plan, but because we wanted to have them in there for discussion regarding

this front entry piece. And then I think that's all I have.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Commissioner Loe, go ahead.

MS. LOE: Mr. Smith?

MR. SMITH: Yes.

MS. LOE: Hi. Question for you. What occupancy or use is the parking based on. I

see that it's based on one space per 400 square foot gross floor area. That seems -- I'm

just -- what was --

MR. SMITH: So we had calculated a little bit differently, I think. I think you were

showing 42. Correct?

UNKNOWN: Yes.

MR. SMITH: I can't remember. So we were looking at simply dividing the building. I

don’t know if you have that mark-up in the -- any of the documentation available today.

But if you -- if you split the building up between recreation and retail, respectively, where

recreation is pool and changing rooms and things like that, and retail is obviously the rest

of the building, you're looking at around about 50 spaces with that.

MS. LOE: So -- and that's sort of where I'm going with this, because I would think

that the -- do you know off the top of your head -- I don't have my Code pulled out. The

parking requirement for retail space?

MR. ZENNER: The parking requirement for retail space is one to -- one to three

hundred, and then the pool, which is the calculated space, at one to four is what is

typical in the Code. So this was a hybrid, as Mr. Smith has pointed out, and this was a

question that Mr. Hoey had also asked from the engineering side. Early on in the

concept review process here, how would we address the parking requirement by taking --

would we require the whole building to be parked as retail or as instructional space/office,

or would we break it down into its components, it's part components. The conclusion

was that we would break it down into a part components, and that is how I think we

arrived at the 42. And the 42 spaces is actually the 200 percent, so let's make sure that

we establish the parking requirement. Twenty-two is all that this building, based on its

UDC code requirement would require as a minimum, and that's based on how the building

was calculated in its parts. Forty-two -- or, I'm sorry -- 21 -- no. Yeah. Twenty-one is

the minimum and 42 would be 200 percent. So we are parking, when you look at the

minimum, we're parking 300 percent over what the required minimum is. Be that as it

may be, but this is being taken based on the parts of the building. That's how we arrived

at the parking standard. Because otherwise, you would have only required -- I mean, if

we parked the entire 8,000 square feet at one per 400, we would have parked this building

with, like, 25 parking spaces, or 12. So, I mean, that was not reasonable, given what

was going to be happening here. So we had to look at a hybrid model, and that's

something that we occasionally do. We don't do it very frequently, but in this particular

instance, it seemed to be the most appropriate way to handle the parking that would be

generated out of the -- out of the structure.

MS. LOE: Great. So we're seeing that general retail is also 400 square feet, but, I

mean, it seems to me that this is -- this is classroom to some extent.

MR. ZENNER: So you have to take school. If we took classroom space out of

school, that's based on a different calculation of seats. A pool is different. Retail floor

space would be different. And if I'm not incorrect, the 400, the one to 400 is based on a --

on a retail business that is larger than general retail which is one to 300.

MS. LOE: Got it.

MR. ZENNER: A medical office is one to two. So -- and this is indoor recreation,

actually that's the technical definition of it is indoor recreation. I believe we also have pool

is called out, and I cannot recall right off the top of my head about the specific with how

we calculated it. But what I -- what I'm saying is, it was calculated based on a -- a broad

mix of the uses. We calculated it based on the individual areas to arrive at what the

minimum requirements were, and then went 200 percent of that.

MS. LOE: Right. I guess where I'm going is a better understanding of what the base

calculation was, and I guess the number -- I mean, as shown on the plans, the required

number is 20.

MR. ZENNER: Twenty-one.

MS. LOE: Twenty-one. So doubling that is 42. And 21 seems low. I mean, that's --

that is based on the 400 square foot --

MR. ZENNER: Yeah. And that's part of the problem this has got because of the

generation, it becomes low. I -- and, again, this project has evolved probably over the last

MS. LOE: Right.

MR. ZENNER: The original submission on this project was in the beginning of our

fiscal year 2023. And so it has evolved since that point. I just -- I do not have those

numbers specifically with me as to how we arrived at that. I do have very specific

diagrams, though. And the allocation of space in the building between the original

submission and today has not changed substantially.

MS. LOE: I'm -- I just wonder if we're really talking about 300 percent of what the

actual use is. I don't either, which is, if you remember -- sorry. We're getting into a little

bit of discussion here, but we've gone through some of these exercises before, so --

thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? I wanted to talk a little bit about what

you were saying about safety in the parking lot. I'm not seeing specific internal

sidewalks, crossings. I think I see maybe speed bumps, but how are you imagining,

especially given how deep and narrow this parking lot is, how you're imagining the

pedestrian.

MR. SMITH: So, generally speaking, Diventures parking lots, they -- they try to

design them in a way so that we eliminate cross traffic through the lot, so all of the traffic

is internal to Diventures. That said, we do have that cross access up front, but you'll see

that we don't have through traffic going through the site. So it is designed in mind that

people will be walking across the lot, but -- but part of what we're doing by -- by adding

the parking or making that number a little bit higher is -- is trying to make the parking lot

a little bit calmer and a little bit less hectic.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Got it. And last question, and then I'll let you go, unless there

are others. But I see you've got an internal sidewalk across the green space that goes in

front of your main entrance. Would it be a consideration, given that we've got some

heartburn about the front entrance being -- facing the parking lot instead of a main street.

I grew up in Springfield. I can just tell you we have a very different idea about car usage

and what makes the neighborhood looks good than Springfield does.

MR. SMITH: I think that's fair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. If -- I'm wondering about a sidewalk going from your

secondary entrance across that green space, or across the front where you would just

extend where it's already existing across the green space so that it connects with that

side of Capital. Does that make sense?

MR. SMITH: You're saying connect the -- the east side of the sidewalk running

across the south facade to the sidewalk --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. Yeah.

MR. SMITH: -- along Capital Drive?

MS. GEUEA JONES: The Capital Drive.

MR. SMITH: I think that’s a good compromise.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. And we'll --

MR. SMITH: The grading is a challenge.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I see. I see. I'm just trying to think of what would create the

sense that if you were walking from one of the residential areas that are there, either

across Vawter School or from the neighborhoods behind, where would that pedestrian

traffic go, and especially given the lack of good pedestrian access internal to your parking

lot. I'm wondering if that would be a compromise so that you've got, yes, a very clear

main front entrance, but also a secondary entrance. Just keep that -- that's in the ether.

Perhaps other people will have thoughts. Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: If I can just piggyback on that. On the Site Plan with grading, this would

run parallel to the contour, so it should actually be fairly level to connect directly east

from the edge of the parking there to Capital Drive. The other reason that I think I would

like to see that connect is we have a bike trail system here in Columbia, and it has a big

network that comes just north of here, and you do have those bike stands just east of the

entrance. And right now if someone wants to bike, they would be brought all the way

along, around the south side, through the parking lot, and I think it would be much safer if

they could actually just come up through and connect right there.

MR. SMITH: Okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Seeing none. Thank you for your

patience as we worked it out, but having you here is easier than pulling back up later, so

thank you very much.

MR. SMITH: Thank you. ]

MS. GEUEA JONES: Next public speaker on this case?

MR. HOEY: I’m Will Hoey, 550 St. Louis Street, Springfield, Missouri. I'm going to

start kind of a little bit higher level to try and address your question directly, and kind of

maybe domino into the rest of the traffic parking lot. I don't think you can overlook the

added green space. I could go in and meet your parking requirement and make my drive

aisles 45 feet wide and give you the same problem you're -- you're discussing. I'm not

saying that's something we would ever want to do or do. Right? But essentially, we

could look at adding more sidewalks to increase the pedestrian. So as far as defending

yourself from the future against other developments, that's your play. As Mr. Zenner

mentioned, there's -- they're required to uphold a certain percentage, and the fact that

we're exceeding that addresses the stormwater issue beyond the fact that we'll have

underground detention, and whatever flow rate is currently running off will be at or under,

so I think that's a really valuable piece to even know that the parking and the impervious,

the numbers are higher, that green space part plays a huge role in that argument, if you

will. And then I also wanted to note kind of more back to the sidewalk question, all

accesses connect around the building, and then we have an ADA access that runs all the

way down the west side of the parking lot. It might be clear if we added the striping, and

it might be safer. It might be a way to delineate that, but that comes down and connects

again to another sidewalk that wraps all of Capital Drive, so there is connectivity from a

pedestrian standpoint. I don't disagree with you at all that I -- I -- initially our first concept

had a sidewalk coming off in that exact same location. The most recent preliminary

grading we received, that's eight feet of fall, so if I do put a ramp in there, it's going to

switch back, so it may not be so efficient for a biker. If I'm trying to gain that eight feet, I

have a feeling to meet ADA, I'm going to end up having to do at least one bend. I could

be creative with it and maybe do it more of a V-shape instead of a hard 180 degree turn

each time, but if -- if that's a stipulation, there's no issue with us looking at that and trying

to come up with a solution to get connectivity to the east. That's not an uncommon ask

in general, so I'm -- regardless of it being a stipulation or not, I'll probably go back and

look at being able to do that. Again, part of the issue is that normally at this point, I

would have liked to have some preliminary grading, but we are waiting on that final

grading from the developer. The fact that we're kind of running concurrently, it doesn't

help this conversation as much as I would like it to.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions? Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate everything you said. I also spent

five years in federal court suing this city over stormwater. So you appreciate my focus on

this particular issue and your desire to be a successful businessperson. So I have to be

hyper cautious because we have fecal matter in houses when it rains. We have roads

that are destroyed with stormwater. So if I may be seeing overly careful -- and maybe

your -- I don't know you. Maybe you're the best engineer and your stuff is rock and roll.

You replace that, so you don't like the way it perked when it gets six feet down, so you

bring in a quarter million dollars. Maybe you do. That would be awesome. I still need to

be quite cautious. Thank you.

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

MS. PLACIER: Yeah. Is there anything that can be done about the imperviousness

of the parking lot, and could that be a point of negotiation?

MR. HOEY: I don't know what your experiences are here. I -- my understanding is

there is a lot of clay up here underground, and that's how we are in Springfield, as well.

Those pervious surfaces that, you know, I -- you've probably seen videos of a -- a water

truck just dumping water straight through the parking lot. That works for six months, and

then it doesn't, and then you have a bigger problem. So trash gets in, it gets infilled.

They're really hard to maintain, especially when the soil layer is below or a clay,

something that holds water, prevents water from going through fast enough. Outside of

the pervious pavement, the ADA underground retention basin system that we'll put in, it

has a lot of filtration. It'll -- it'll do a pretty good job of hiding that water and then again

discharging it at a rate that is equal to the current or below. I would be open to hearing

anything that you've had success with here that we could run by and evaluate, by all

means. But I -- I will say that the ADS system hides it, it's gone, it's out of sight. It

requires an annual maintenance to clean it out and make sure it's free of debris. That

manual stays in the store. They bring a superintendent on site that the manufacturers

themselves inspect it. It's a very good quality system. Again, as far as outside of the

pervious pavement, I don't know that we've dealt a lot with any other alternatives to

making it feel more pervious, because then you turn into -- you're asking a maintenance --

it turns it into a maintenance. The owner, from my perspective, people stay away from

that, lead certification, things of that nature, because it becomes so expensive to

maintain and keep up.

Junior High --

MS. PLACIER: I know one of our local schools, didn’t Jefferson

MR. MACMANN: Correct.

MS. PLACIER: -- install a parking lot with pervious surface? I haven't heard

anything about what's going on with it, though.

MR. MACMANN: If I may, point of order. They never maintained it, so they spent

about $35,000 putting it down and it doesn't work, and it still floods just as badly. The

problem is it's really expensive -- in your defense, sir -- pardon, Madam Chair -- really

expensive to put down, and if you don't maintain it, which is very expensive, you're

wasting your money, so --

MR. HOEY: Uh-huh.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Oh, actually,

never mind. I was going to make a very unreasonable ask of you, do you know numbers

off the top of your head, and I'm not going to do that.

MR. HOEY: What would that be? Give me shot.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Do you know what square footage is the pool area versus the

rest of the space?

MR. HOEY: It's a great question that I don't know the answer to.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I realized before I asked it --

MR. HOEY: If you take me outside the building, if you just --

MS. GEUEA JONES: -- it would be unreasonable.

MR. HOEY: -- if you left the building alone, I'm good outside of the building.

MS. GEUEA JONES: It’s okay.

MR. HOEY: But you get me in that building, that's out of my realm.

MS. GEUEA JONES: It's okay. We're -- it's okay.

MR. HOEY: I believe -- awesome.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I'm trying to get my brain wrapped around what's actually

going to be going on. It is not important enough for you to go back and do it. Do not

worry about it. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Oh, I'm sorry.

Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: It looks like the occupancy of this building in relation to parking in

relation to parking is probably going to be important. Again, just a hint, as I see people

stirring around up here. I mean, if I was, I might be -- there’s somebody in the line right

now.

MR. HOEY: I was sitting over here trying to do it a little bit myself.

MR. STANTON: Okay. I'm just throwing that out there.

MR. HOEY: Obviously, we won't be able to exceed whatever the fire -- you know,

rated fire occupancy of the building is. But again, and maybe the parking count that

we've delivered of the 12 teaching stations, four kids a class, 48, 96 total. At a -- the

ideal model is a 30-minute class turnaround. My kids attended lessons at Diventures in

Springfield in a 30-minute class turnaround. In the ideal model, those are the numbers.

I'm not going to say that that is going to be the numbers on day one, but that's where

they want the business to be, and they don't want to go tear out all this landscaping five

years from now to put in 15 more parking stalls.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much.

MR. HOEY: Thank you.

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

MR. ZENNER: Madam Chairman?

MS. GEUEA HONES: Yes, Mr. Zenner?

MR. ZENNER: The documentation that we were provided by Mr. Monroe as it related

to the pool size, it is a -- the pool is 60 feet in length, so when you look at that -- when

you look at the floor plan that is here, it was a 60 by 12-foot-deep pool, so that's a 60-foot

long pool, apparently. The building itself, if I'm not incorrect, is just under 80 feet in total

length, 80, 85 feet. That's why it does not trigger the requirements for architectural

treatment. So I would not be -- you know, 60 by probably about 20, maybe 25, is what

the area is of the pool. And then to Mr. Stanton's question as to the total number of

individuals, and we'll go back to -- we'll go back to give every child a car, as well, because

every parent driving a child probably drives or has -- has a vehicle. So if you're looking at

48 -- if you're looking at 48 students, plus 12 instructors, plus staff, you're at about 65

people in the building in one period of time. So that is -- that -- the number that they are

asking for when Mr. Hoey indicated they originally wanted 75, the 67 is probably with

what they offer in a full training session is probably pretty tight at this point for what they

would prefer. So just as a -- as a point of additional information as you deliberate on this.

And my utmost apology for not being able to give you a cleaner answer as it relates to

how we calculated parking. I'm looking at it now and I'm thinking what we must have

recommended was use the one to 400 because it accommodated what we needed,

though that does still again seem low, and I would agree that your observation intuitively

is likely correct.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Mr. Zenner. I'm sorry. With the indulgence of my

fellow Commissioners, could one of you come back up and answer questions about

windows real quick? I don't care which. Pick one. I just want to make sure that we're

not going to end up with a completely solid side facing Vawter School Road. Is there any

assurance you can give us? Like, this isn't a theoretical project. You're going to break

ground as soon as you can. Right?

MR. SMITH: Yes. And I can tell you that the owner is very -- what's the way to put

this? They want the natatorium to have as much natural light as they can, and what

we're showing is probably as much or less than the windows we'll put in the final design.

So if that's something that we need to make as stipulation, if we need to provide a square

footage on the facades or however we need to do that, but yes, our intent is as shown,

that's how we want to design it.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Appreciate that.

MS. THOMPSON: And for the record, are you Mr. Smith?

MR. SMITH: I am.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Becky. Thank you very much.

Any other questions before I let him go again? Thank you. Okay.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comment? Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: I have a question.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Microphone.

MR. MACMANN: Sorry? Oh, I'm sorry. I have a question. Adding a fenestration

requirement to the Vawter School side; is that what you're thinking?

MS. GEUEA JONES: I'm more thinking saying something along the lines of

substantially similar or more windows than shown in the plans we were given.

MR. MACMANN: Which we've done something similar to that before.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. Yeah.

MR. MACMANN: I am -- I have made these people's lives a little painful. It is me.

It's not you, it's me. And I would -- and it would have been my hope that City Council

pays attention to this one, and the staff paid attention to this one. I can vote for this if we

can show some close supervision going forward. I know you don't control all of the

departments. I appreciate that. The rest of the site is going to develop. It's a corner. If I

have a drive-centric business model, this is where I want to be where it's fast-growing

down there. I am -- if these guys do what they say they're -- guys and gals do what they

say they're going to do, it will be fine, if they do what they say they're going to do and if it

stays maintained. There shouldn't be much maintenance requirement. I'm a little upset

about the precedence and I'm still upset about the 2017 going to 200 percent. That said,

what does everybody else want here? I've consumed this entire case.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Commissioner Loe, do you --

MS. LOE: Sure. I'll go.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Go ahead, Commissioner Loe.

MS. LOE: So when we looked at parking -- was it repair shops -- yeah. So we've

gone through this. We -- we did take a closer look at how the spaces were being used.

And I do feel as if we may be applying some uses that may not match the use or -- or not

have a use that's appropriate. So in examining our parking table, I do see that for outdoor

recreation, swimming pools have one space per 200 square feet of pool surface area. So

I started with that. And based on the dimensions of 60 by 25, based on my trained

eyeballing of the drawing, we have 1,500 square feet for the pool area, divided by 200

equals eight parking spaces. Taking 1,500 feet off the remaining square footage, or the

total square footage results in 6,856 square feet. I'm going with the general retail small of

300 square feet, and I get 23. So that gives me a total parking of 31 as a minimum, or 62

MR. FORD: Sixty-two, two hundred.

MS. LOE: -- would be 200. So and this is where I did the math wrong. Sixty-seven

divided by twenty-eight is 240 percent of -- no. Sixty-seven by thirty-one. Sorry. That

was the previous number I came up with -- 216 percent. So they're basically asking for a

16 percent increase over what I think makes equal sense to what we were originally

shown. All right. That was my parking. Sidewalk, understand the grade, understand I'm

looking at the natural grade of the site in the plan. If you were going to buy that that's the

front entrance of the building, I do think we need a connection to Capital Drive on that

east side. So I would ask for that to be there -- included.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Other Commissioner comments? Actually, I usually wait and

go last, but I'm going to say one thing and then I'll go to you, Commissioner MacMann.

So thank you for your indulgence and -- and please believe that all of our secret

whispering is to try to get to a good spot for you. I'm looking at our parking use table,

and I can get myself to the idea that this is more of an assembly lodge hall educational

space, something like that. All of those are in the 200 or 300. If we were super generous

in determining our basis and went 100 to 200, you're -- you wouldn't even need to have

the exception. So I personally -- and I hate big parking lots. I hate them, I grew up with

them, I hate them. I can get myself to a place where this is a reasonable number of

spaces given your use. So that honestly takes care of my major concern. I do want to

put something in that says substantially as much, if not more, fenestration as what was

shown in the site plan. I think that's something we do pretty regularly. And with that, I

mean, I'm happy for this. I think it's a good way to start developing the site as a whole

so -- Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Just real quick, and I want to kick it to Commissioner Stanton. I

could follow that on a motion. How would you want your walkway, entryway? Think

about that because Commissioner Stanton has something to say.

MR. STANTON: I hate disagreeing with my fellow Commissioner, Ms. Loe, but I

disagree about connecting to Capital Drive. This is a school. It's not a place that you're

going to be riding your bike and going up there -- this is not a place you're going to ride

your bike and go up there and go swimming. This is an instruction. This is a scuba

instruction school. It is a swimming -- a swim school. This is not Hickman. This is not

Douglass. This is a school. Am I correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. STANTON: So the first thing I'm thinking about is this gives you access. I

could just see little kids running down this sidewalk and right into the road. I think -- I

don't want to make a big deal out of it. I disagree with the sidewalk being connected to

Capital Drive. I'm cool with it as it is. My two cents.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Carroll?

MS. CARROLL: I am going to throw in my two cents now. I didn't think I was going

to. It's a swim school and a scuba school. It's adjacent to trails and there's a bike lane

existing and being added to on Vawter School Road. People ride their bikes to this thing.

I ride my bike to swim lessons for my kid, and I ride my bike to swim lessons for myself.

That said, I don't think that bikes use the sidewalk from Capital Hill to access the site,

especially not given the site, especially not given the site layout that I see here. They're

going to turn either into the drive or onto the sidewalk and then access it from the parking

lot. I don't think that they're taking a small pathway to a door. It's just not an

advantageous turn. That said, I do agree with the need for a sidewalk based on that

being your main entrance to your addressed entrance frontage to the road. It just doesn't

make sense to not have a sidewalk for the frontage of your main entrance.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: As much as I actually disagree with that, we've been through this

front-door thing. The definition is function. Right? The definition is functional. If you

can’t get to the door, it's not functional. I don't think it has to be a superhighway. I've

walked this site. I don't know if any of the rest of you have. It's got some -- there are

some elevation issues here. That's the reason why they're not going to go down. So --

MR. STANTON: That's another issue.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton, go ahead.

MR. STANTON: Yeah. That was another issue. I didn't have the numbers in front of

me, so I didn't -- I couldn't -- I couldn't argue that point, but that is -- I'm thinking he may

even have to have a landing to break that lower, yeah, whimsical sidewalk to get it there

and keep it safe, keep it ADA. I don't know. It could be done, but is it cost effective? Is

it really necessary? Is it -- that's where I'm at.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other comments? Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Yeah. My comments basically don't have anything to do with the

proposal exactly, because I think you've all have done a good job of discussing various

aspects of it. I think we're going to have to decide if we're going to include the sidewalk in

the -- as a condition. But this is very autocentric because of the location and because of

the business model. And my problems are with having 96 kids doing this. I mean, doing

this switcharoo between classes and trying to have enough cars lined up outside to take

care of that. It -- it's the business model that is concerning me more than the -- the other

technical aspects. And that's not something that we have anything to do with.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other comments? I will -- the more I look at it, I would

prefer an additional sidewalk. I don't want to make that a make or break on the plan. I

want to strongly encourage it. I mean, we could -- Commissioner Loe, what do you want

to do?

MS. LOE: Can we vote on that prior to making a motion whether or not to include it

in the motion?

MS. GEUEA JONES: I'm looking over at legal.

MS. THOMPSON: You -- I mean, if you want to make a motion as to whether or not

you include as a condition to the PD Plan the inclusion of a sidewalk, if, assuming again,

I would open it up to the applicant and make sure that they are comfortable moving

forward. I think they indicated that they were with that, but you may want to have some

discussion to make sure they want to move forward with their PD Plan with that

condition.

MS. LOE: All right. They did previously indicate that that was reasonable, but yes --

MS. THOMPSON: I agree.

MS. LOE: -- we can open up the floor again.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton, were you asking to open the public

hearing?

MR. STANTON: Yeah. I was going to say if we could bring that -- and make a deal.

Now, I'm looking at that grade, so -

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. Whoever is responsible, please come forward, and

name and address again.

MR. STANTON: Oh, I would -- I would question with this --

PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED

MR. HOEY: Will Hoey, 550 St. Louis Street, Springfield, Missouri.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton, I think wanted to ask you one thing

first.

MR. STANTON: Okay. So I see is that 26 feet, and you have eight feet of rise in

that 26? What am I -- what's your -- what's your cross slope?

MR. HOEY: So I'm going to -- I'm going to back up a little bit and try and give -- so

off Vawter, it's 18 feet from Vawter to finish floor. They're cutting that road all the way

down, and so it's climbing all the way up till it gets to the high point, which is our access,

which is why our ADA, our sidewalk connection out to the -- the right-of-way, the private

street, is going down to that point. That's going to be our flattest location across the site.

And so as you're coming into the property, that 18 feet is slowly being made up per the

grade of the street. So it's my assumption -- again, we don't have the final grading.

That's why I said I would love to look at it and vet it out. I would hate to add it as a

stipulation.

MR. STANTON: Things change from day to day.

MR. HOEY: Because if it's eight to ten feet of fall, I don't even think you're going to

be happy with what it looks like. We're going to have a big, massive concrete --

MR. STANTON: Yeah.

MR. HOEY: -- correct facade exact ramp to make it work. But I would love to

vet it out once I have that final grading. I hate for it to be a stipulation of the PD Plan, but

I would love to work with the Planning Department and then -- and the rest of the staff, as

we go through the CD process to get to final plans, and now to be something we

evaluate.

MR. STANTON: So we're almost looking at, like, a 30 percent grade?

MR. HOEY: Yeah. Which is three to one --

MR. STANTON: Like that.

MR. HOEY: -- which is the max you'd want in the green space.

MS. LOE: I'm familiar with grades.

MR. STANTON: So I'm just saying. I love concrete. I do concrete. I'll give you all

the concrete you want, and we can go all the way up around and all. Is it practical, and

that's -- that's what I was trying to get my colleagues to understand, but thank you.

MR. HOEY: In all likelihood, it's -- it's a switchback ramp with four to five turns, or a

set of stairs.

MR. FORD: I'm not taking that on my bike. I'll just go down the road.

MR. STANTON: Yeah. And turn into the driveway. That's where I'm at.

MR. ZENNER: If -- if I may add, as well. Based on the platting action that is before

us that we're concurrently reviewing, there is a public utility easement that is running

along the western side of Capital Drive. So not unlike the same problems we have along

Vawter, with a public utility easement with major infrastructure, the sanitary sewer, as

well as storm sewer, that is on this site is in that same location, which again, foundations

for any type of stairs, retaining walls, or the like are not permitted in those easements.

So the ability to be able to do any type of staircase or anything that would require

retaining walls is really out of the question. That -- that's what presents another technical

issue here.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Could we include something that says if feasible, or is that too

vague?

MS. THOMPSON: I mean, I would encourage against, like, conditional conditions.

Right?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Very good.

MS. THOMPSON: I just don't think that it gives us really any ability to enforce those,

or any assurances.

MR. FORD: Can we put a bike lane on the road?

MS. CARROLL: There is.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Well, there's -- yeah. There's -- there's going to be quite a bit

of improvements on that road. And if I'm reading the plan correctly, there is a connection

to -- let's see -- that would be the south bend of -- what are we calling it -- Capital Drive.

MR. ZENNER: Capital Drive. Yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Correct?

MR. ZENNER: Correct.

MS. GEUEA JONES: But down at the bottom of the plan that's on the screen.

MR. HOEY: You can -- you can take a sidewalk path all the way from Vawter to our

front door, and it all meets ADA.

MR. MACMANN: I don't think --

MS. LOE: It's -- I mean, it's a part -- the access in part, but it's also about this being

the front door. And right -- we, again, we have not approved projects that have their front

door off the parking lot. And right now --

MR. HOEY: If I may, I just wanted to note with the front door issue, too. We keep

saying that Capital Drive -- I mean, as far as your frontage and your primary frontage, I

know a lot of municipalities, we've worked across a few, say that it's the narrowest side if

you're on a corner lot. So not the -- so I mean, Capital, I just want to clarify. Capital

Drive is east and south, so we -- if we are addressed off Capital Drive, you could argue

that that's to the south where our access is, so you could even almost argue that that

door flips and faces south to the parking lot. Instead, we're not facing it at the parking lot.

Facing it to the east, so it's kind of like a balancing act, if you will.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And there is sidewalk around that southeast corner of the

building.

MR. HOEY: Yeah. The door on the east and the door on the northwest all connect

to that front door.

MR. FORD: This is a tough lot.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah.

MR. HOEY: There are some challenges to it that still haven't even vetted out yet, so

MR. MACMANN: You guys haven't closed on it yet, either, have you?

MR. HOEY: No, but we can't close on it till the developer closes on it. I know

there's an agreement in place to complete that, but holding pattern.

MR. MACMANN: I do construction for a living.

MR. HOEY: We know.

MR. MACMANN: I appreciate how that goes. So does Anthony.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Given that statement, question for staff.

MR. ZENNER: Yes, ma'am.

MS. GEUEA JONES: We have a PD Plan in front of us. Is this actually the PD Plan

or is this just a potential PD Plan and we're really just doing a statement of intent?

MR. ZENNER: This is the PD Plan that is compliant with the overall statement of

intent for Copperstone Corner.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Right.

MR. ZENNER: So this is the site-specific development plan that was identified as

being a requirement when the entire acreage was approved. And the reason that this is

being brought before you is is because we needed to get through this stage and the final

plat, which is being reviewed right now, concurrently. They will go together, they will

marry up, but our process required the review to be complete. So we will hold this, as I

said earlier, this would be held until the final plat and all of the contractual and other

aspects of this property have been resolved. And everyone is aware of that, and I have

been informed that the closing of the property was supposed to be occurring before the

end of this month, which --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Will we have to vote on changes? If changes are

necessitated, how major will they have to be for -- of this PD plan? What I'm trying to get

to --

MR. ZENNER: Yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: -- is we've already been told, well, the -- the windows and

some of the door -- like, there may be some changes to the exterior of the building.

We're talking about you don't have total grade yet, so you may find out that it's got to

move one way or another. I'm just wondering where in the process are we truly?

MR. ZENNER:

So --

MS. GEUEA JONES: It sounds like there are a lot of questions.

MR. ZENNER: So as it relates to probably substantial enough changes that would

necessitate coming back to this body, I think what Mr. Hoey and the -- the Olsson and H

Design Group have prepared at this point, short of some final modifications to the

architectural look, which I think what the proposed recommendation would be to address

it the way you have discussed, substantially compliant with the design provided, with

fenestration and openings, and if we have to, we can get calculations of what all of that is

today so we catalog it, and then when the final plan --

MR. MACMANN: And we've had success with that motion in the past.

MR. ZENNER: We have. And I think there -- again, if you -- if that's what you want, I

can take that direction and we can make sure that we have comparables. What would

trigger a major amendment on something of this nature is a substantial reorientation of

the building on the lot as a result of grading. But to the extent that the grading for the

roadway improvements is going to alter what you're seeing on this plan, that is probably

highly unlikely.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MR. ZENNER: So I don't think you'll get this back if you take the actions that you

have discussed up to this point to ensure that the design elements of this building are

addressed. As Ms. Thompson has stated, conditionally requesting something upon a

condition as an extra site improvement, it would be very difficult for us to track. I'm good,

but I would much rather prefer that if get run over by a bus, somebody else isn't going to

follow what happened here. And I think really the problem that I see with this, just based

on what we've had elsewhere, is all of the conflicts with the easements that are along this

right-of-way, that's really going to limit the ability to be able to adjust -- to adjust any

future improvement that would require foundation work. And that, I think, is what does

detract from the ability to do the sidewalk connection. So I don't believe you will be

seeing this again if you approve this this evening.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Do we have any more questions for Mr. Hoey, or

can we let him sit back down for the moment? I have one. Do you have any other

thoughts that would help us? You've heard all of our various discussions.

MR. HOEY: I don't know the -- no. I think -- I think this has been a really good

discussion, especially for a Planning and Zoning meeting. Normally, we don't get so

much back and forth. This is great. This is a good thing. I will say that with the mic and

the opportunity to say something, I will say excellent job. It's -- working with your staff

has been fantastic. It has been a lot of -- there's been a lot of work compared to other

jurisdictions, but it has been very efficient. So I -- it's been very appreciated. He prepped

us to be in a good spot for this -- this discussion, so --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Tell your friends.

MR. HOEY: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Mr. Hoey. Okay. Back to Commissioner

comment. Oh, I’m sorry. We’re going to close public hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING RECLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comment. Commissioner Loe, what are you

thinking? I don't think I could support a sidewalk condition, given what we know.

MS. LOE: I think we've documented the difficulties well enough that this precludes a

-- making this a precedent, which was part of my concern.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Carroll?

MS. CARROLL: Yeah. So on this subject of the sidewalks, and just given the site

and the limitations of the site and the grading and the existing utilities, and even the

layout of the site, you know, it's my opinion that the -- most of the pedestrians and

cyclists are going to use the sidewalk along Capital Drive and access it from the back of

the parking lot. I don't want to make this a stipulation, but what I find would, based on

the site plan, be more useful than a sidewalk would be some marked crosswalks in your

parking lot, something to direct pedestrians and traffic to reach the building, whether it's

the front door or the side door in this case. I do also want to point out as we discuss

walkable environments and location of doors, doors facing the front, it's not just about the

size -- the side of the street or the access. It's about the walkable environment of the

street that's in place. Part of the reason for doors in front is so that we don't move

pedestrians along blank buildings where there's no visibility, no exchange with properties,

and so, I see this as a sufficient limitation of the site to not have a door facing the front. I

would, as the rest of the site is developed and others in the area, I would hate that -- for

that to become the norm because we're still going to have people using that sidewalk,

just given that it already exists for the other properties. So we've -- we’ve got to keep in

mind that that actually not only detracts from walkability, but safety.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Given that we have now made a full record of how this is a

unique site, would anyone like to maybe make a motion? Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: I will try it. Let me make sure I get this. We have the motion that

is clean other than what we're about to do; is that right, Mr. Zenner?

MR. ZENNER: That is correct, sir.

MR. MACMANN: Okay. So Commissioner Loe, could you restate your brief version

of the fenestration statement?

MS. LOE: Fenestration is all Commissioner Geuea Jones.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I would say substantially the same or greater fenestration as

provided -- as in the provided drawings.

MR. MACMANN: Stand by with that verbiage. Commissioner Carroll wanted some

lot lines or crosswalks?

MS. CARROLL: I don’t want --

MS. GEUEA JONES: I don't think we need that here.

MS. CARROLL: -- to stipulate.

MR. MACMANN: You don’t want them --

MS. GEUEA JONES: No.

MS. CARROLL: I specifically don't want to stipulate crosswalks.

MR. MACMANN: Madam Chair --

MS. CARROLL: I think they can --

MR. MACMANN: -- I have a motion.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner MacMann, please?

MR. MACMANN: In the matter of Case 78-2024, Diventures of Columbia PD Plan,

with the following amendment. Would you put your words right here, Madam Chair?

MS. GEUEA JONES: That the amount of fenestration be substantially the same or

greater than that which was provided to the Commission in drawings by the applicant.

MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to approve.

MR. STANTON: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Approval has been moved by Commissioner MacMann,

seconded by Commissioner Stanton. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none.

Commissioner Carroll -- oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Stanton -- or Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: Do we need to include the associated design exception for parking?

MR. MACMANN: It's in there. It's already in.

MS. GEUEA JONES: It's already in there.

MS. LOE: All right.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah.

MS. THOMPSON: By approving the PD Plan, you're approving the design

exceptions that are stated there.

MS. LOE: Got it. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Commissioner Loe for keeping us honest. In that

case, Commissioner Carroll, whenever you're ready, may we have a roll call?

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

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

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

MS. CARROLL: Eight to approve; the motion carries.

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

Thank you very much for your patience. Sometimes our process can be a bit, but -- I

think we're --

MR. MACMANN: Done.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Done, yeah. So I've been scribbling all over my thing.

In the matter of Case 78-2024, Diventures of Columbia PD Plan, move to approve

subject to the amount of fenestration be substantially the same or greater than

that which was provided to the Commission in drawings by the applicant.

8 - Loe, Stanton, MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson and Ford

1 - Dunn

Yes:

Excused:

VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any general public comments? Anyone at all?

Seeing none. Excellent.

VIII. STAFF COMMENTS

MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Zenner?

MR. ZENNER: Yes. Thank you very much. Your next meeting will be on March 7th.

We will have a work session preceding the 7:00 p.m. regular meeting. During that work

session, we will talk about small lot integration and have some visualizations, hopefully,

for you at that point. If not, I will break legs to get them, as well as some definitions as

discussed in this evening's work session relating to the same topic. And we will be --

hopefully, being able to move on and discussing other matters associated with that text

amendment that we're working on right now. We do have several items that are on the

agenda for the March 7th public hearing. Those include three public hearings. We have

a returning item that's a CUP. This is the Storage Mart request for approval for a storage

building greater than 14 feet in height off of I70 Drive Southeast. We have a revision to

the Crosscreek Planned Development Plan for Lot 108A. This is at the southwest corner

at the on ramp onto U.S. 63. It is immediately adjacent to the Zaxby's parcel. This was

a former hotel site. It is being proposed as a -- to be developed with two retail business

buildings. The real retail business building potentially incorporating second floor

residential. The SOI revision to this is given that the building that will be closest to

Stadium Drive on the east side of U.S. 63 is proposed to accommodate a comprehensive

marijuana facility, which is considered a retail use. The current Statement of Intent that

governs Crosscreek does not have that use within it. It actually specifically excluded

head shops and drug paraphernalia sales locations, so this -- and that was done in 2008.

So times have changed, so have State laws, so the applicant is seeking to have the PD

Statement of Intent amended for all of Crosscreek. This is very similar to an amendment

we took through last year as it related to increasing the maximum development area

within the same development, so the PD Plan is required and it is specific to Lot 108A,

and it shows the improvements. The Statement of Intent will be discussed as a part of

the staff report, however, there is a -- the process that we will follow for the Statement of

Intent is a general amendment to the initial enabling ordinance for Crosscreek, so you will

not have a separate Statement of Intent that specifically says these uses, plus

comprehensive marijuana facility. It's the same process that we did when we did the

increase in square footage, but the Planning Commission does need to give consideration

to both within their recommendation. And then the final item that is on the public hearing

docket is the changes to the accessory dwelling unit standards. These are the three

amendments that have been previously discussed, previously directed to advertise for

pursuant to Ms. Stolik's request for relief to stimulate hopefully ADU construction within

the City's corporate limits. Those are the three items that we have on the agenda, and as

I said, we will talk at work session as it relates to our small lot integration project. This

evening is an opportunity for us to have celebrated Ms. Thompson's time as our staff

liaison with the legal department for the Planning and Zoning Commission. It has been

an absolute pleasure spending the last three years, two of which, seemingly more,

dealing with a single topic, however, she was a trooper throughout it, an excellent legal

mind, and a great colleague to have. She has accepted our inaugural director's position

over at Neighborhood Services in our housing department that was created earlier this

year. So while she will not be far away from us, and she will probably make guest

appearances such as Mr. Cole does from CHA, we will have an opportunity to continue to

work with her. We wish you the best.

MS. THOMPSON: Thank you.

MR. ZENNER: -- and we will be welcoming Earl Kraus as our interim staff

attorney while the law department seeks to fill Ms. Thompson's position, but it has been

a definite pleasure. Our staff has enjoyed working with you.

MS. THOMPSON: The feeling is likewise. Thank you, Pat.

MR. ZENNER: That is all I have. It's a late evening. Thank you very much for your

attention and your guidance this evening during our work session. And I would especially

like to thank Ms. Loe for the creativity in looking through the Code and the parking

standards. Your diligence and understanding what we look for in finding those solutions

is greatly appreciated. It also identifies areas where we know we can make

improvements. So my pleasure having had the opportunity to have you figure that out for

us and the applicant.

IX. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Given the late hour, thank you, Becky, and ditto

to all that. Thanks.

MS. THOMPSON: Thanks.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other Commissioner comments? Commissioner

MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Before I make that final motion, we have had and do have, and will

have again some law students.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yes.

MR. MACMANN: They are working to get an edumacation [sic]. Just want to let you

know -- all know that they were here and we're going to be here.

X. NEXT MEETING DATE - March 7, 2024 @ 7 pm (tentative)

XI. ADJOURNMENT

MR. MACMANN: I have a motion. I move to adjourn.

MR. STANTON: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Without objection, we are adjourned.

(Off the record.)