City of Columbia, Missouri  
Meeting Minutes  
Planning and Zoning Commission  
Columbia City Hall  
Council Chambers  
701 E. Broadway  
Thursday, January 6, 2022  
7:00 PM  
Regular Meeting  
MS. LOE: I will now call the January 6, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission  
meeting to order.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Carroll, may we have roll call, please.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Rushing?  
MS. RUSHING: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Present.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Geuea Jones?  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Kimbell?  
MS. KIMBELL: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: I am here. Commissioner Loe?  
MS. LOE: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Present.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Burns?  
MS. BURNS: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: I have nine; we have quorum.  
MS. LOE: Thank you.  
9 -  
Tootie Burns, Sara Loe, Joy Rushing, Anthony Stanton, Michael MacMann, Valerie  
Carroll, Sharon Geuea Jones, Robbin Kimbell and Peggy Placier  
MS. LOE: Mr. Zenner, are there any adjustments or additions to the agenda?  
MR. ZENNER: No, there are not, ma'am.  
MS. LOE: Thank you.  
MR. MACMANN: Move to approve.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. LOE: Moved by Mr. MacMann, seconded by Mr. Stanton. I'll take a thumbs up  
approval of the agenda.  
(Unanimous vote for approval.)  
MS. LOE: It looks unanimous. Thank you everybody.  
Move to approve.  
December 9, 2021 Regular Meeting  
MS. LOE: Everyone should have received a copy of the December 9th meeting  
minutes. Were there any corrections or changes to those minutes?  
MR. MACMANN: Move to approve.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. LOE: Moved by Commissioner MacMann; seconded by Commissioner Stanton.  
I'll take a thumbs up approval on those.  
(Unanimous vote for approval.)  
MS. LOE: It looks unanimous. Thank you.  
Move to approve.  
Case # 43-2022  
A request by the Law Firm of Haden and Colbert (agent), on behalf of  
Columbia's Woodcrest Chapel (owner), to rezone property from A (Agriculture)  
to M-N (Mixed Use-Neighborhood) to allow additional commercial use of the  
property. The approximately 9.56-acre property is located at the northwest  
corner of Nifong Boulevard and Sinclair Street, and includes the address 2201  
W Nifong Boulevard. (A request to table this item to the February 24, 2022  
meeting has been received).  
MS. LOE: Are there any additional comments on this from staff?  
MR. SMITH: Nothing substantial. The delay would be -- after discussing it with the  
applicant to potentially look up some additional data on some of the existing conditions  
out there before we bring forward a recommendation at the second February meeting. So  
I -- but I do think the applicant is -- is in the audience.  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Depending on where you were going next, I do have my standard  
question, and it does relate to something Mr. Colbert wrote in his letter, as in if February  
2nd [sic] will be enough time.  
MS. LOE: Well, I was going to open up the floor to public comment.  
MR. MACMANN: All right.  
MS. LOE: So perhaps you could ask Mr. Colbert that if he came forward.  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you.  
MS. LOE: All right. We'll open up the floor to public comment.  
MS. LOE: If you can give your name and address for the record, that would be great.  
MR. COLBERT: Sure. Madam Chair, Caleb Colbert, attorney, at 827 East  
Broadway. We do believe the February 22nd -- or 24th date would give us enough time.  
MR. MACMANN: Okay.  
MR. COLBERT: I believe the -- the Sinclair project submitted their traffic study last  
week, so that should give us plenty of time to get that updated and submitted to the City.  
MR. MACMANN: Just in this supplemental report from Woodcrest Chapel, was that  
enough time for both of those things?  
MR. COLBERT: It is.  
MR. MACMANN: So you said the 24th, the second meeting in February?  
MR. COLBERT: Yes, sir.  
MR. MACMANN: All right. I think that -- thank you.  
MR. COLBERT: All right. Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Any additional questions for Mr. Colbert. I see none. Thank  
you. Any additional speakers on this case? If there aren't, we'll close public comment.  
MS. LOE: Commission comment? Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: If my colleagues don't have any additional questions, I would like to  
entertain a motion. As it relates to Case 43-2022, I would move to accept the table  
request till the February 24th, 2022 meeting.  
MS. RUSHING: Second.  
MS. LOE: Moved by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Rushing.  
We have a motion on the floor. Any discussion on this motion? Seeing none.  
Commissioner Carroll, may we have roll call, please.  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms.  
Rushing, Mr. MacMann, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier, Ms. Kimbell, Ms. Carroll,  
Ms. Loe, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Burns. Motion carries 9-0.  
MS. CARROLL: We have nine votes to approve. The motion carries.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Recommendation for tabling will be forwarded.  
As it relates to Case 43-2022, would move to accept the table request till the  
February 24th, 2022 meeting.  
9 - Burns, Loe, Rushing, Stanton, MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Kimbell and Placier  
Case # 25-2022  
A request by SSE (agent), on behalf of TS Storage, LLC (owner), for  
approval of a new PD (Planned Development) Plan to be known as the TS  
Storage PD Plan, a revised statement of intent to add a new permitted use  
of Self-service storage facilities, and design exceptions to Sec. 29-4.1 for  
reduced side and rear yard setbacks. The 1.79-acre property is located at  
the northeast corner of Grace Lane and Richland Road. (This case was  
tabled at the December 9 Planning and Zoning Commission  
MS. LOE: May we have a staff report, please.  
Staff report was given by Mr. Clint Smith of the Planning and Development  
Department. Staff recommends denial of the TS Storage PD Plan and the associated  
revision to the statement of intent to include a self-service storage facility as a permitted  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Before we move on to questions for staff, I would  
like to ask any Commissioner who has had any ex parte prior to this meeting related to  
this case to please disclose that now so all Commissioners have the same information to  
consider on behalf of the case in front of us. Seeing none. Are there any questions for  
staff? Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Planner Smith, thank you for your  
in-depth and clear report. When it becomes time, this will be a two-motion thing?  
MR. SMITH: I think so. The crux here is you -- you cannot approve the PD Plan  
without approving the statement of intent because if you don't improve the use, the PD  
Plan is for a use then that hasn't been approved. I think it's safe to do two motions.  
MR. MACMANN: Two motions with the SOI first. Thank you, Planner Smith.  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions for staff? If there are not, we will open up the  
floor to public comment.  
MS. LOE: If there is anyone who has any comment to share in this case? Give your  
name and address for the record.  
MR. SIMON: Hello. My name is Keenan Simon, 210 Park Avenue. I'm with SSE,  
the civil engineer representing the owner for the property.  
MR. SMITH: Yes. We -- we do have a PowerPoint the applicant wishes to show.  
MR. SIMON: Yeah. Thank you, there. So I think to understand this PD Plan, it's  
really important to kind of review the storage business model that TS Storage is  
presenting. You know, the last few years, there's been a surge in recreational  
equipment. That's RV motor homes, boats, campers. The sales have boomed. There's  
been a lot of outdoor activities with families and such. And the City of Columbia really  
has a minimal amount of storage options for indoor storage options here in Columbia.  
You know, HOAs don't allow boats, RVs to be parked in their driveway, and the City  
doesn't allow boats, RVs, and motor homes to be parked on the street. So really the  
target client that TS Storage is going after is owners that are desiring a safe, private,  
indoor parking option to store their -- their motor home, RV, or boat. In general, they're  
looking to target a larger motor home for 13 units of the -- of the site, which would house  
a Class A type motor home. That would be 40 foot in length, 12 foot in height, and that's  
why we have the height adjustment to the 14-foot limit for those units that are centrally  
located on that PD Plan. When you start doing the math and you're looking at  
clearances above a garage, a motor, and a roof, you start to get upwards of -- of a 20-foot  
height, and that's where that height request was kind of brought in with this. So moving  
forward -- or exiting, the first thing we did -- the first step we did was reach out to  
neighborhoods, reach out to the neighbors that were directly adjacent to this property.  
Being there was a fair amount of Covid going on at the time, we -- we did reach out  
directly to the owners through phone calls and e-mails. We reviewed our business  
operations and kind of our model of what we are planning on doing for the site, and then  
on top of that, we shared site layouts that showed the proposed development that  
included setbacks, screening, and landscaping that we intended to provide. With this,  
we kind of developed the PD Plan that we then took to the City. We also included to  
Clint letters of support from every one of the adjacent property owners to kind of give you  
an idea of who we spoke with directly and who we had support letters from. The property  
that is in green is the subject property we're talking about tonight. The home -- the  
duplexes that are associated in the red were the property owners that we really received  
letters of support for this project on. So really the development of the PD Plan reflects  
more of the business model that TS Storage is trying to -- is trying to do here. They're  
targeting a larger motor home. This requires additional turn radius and more  
maneuverability through the site. With this, they really felt like the circulation patterns  
through the site is greatly improved with two access points. It prevents any requirement  
for some of the larger vehicles or, you know, a truck towing a boat to have to do any sort  
of three-point turn, and I'll kind of just pull up the site plan to discuss through this. And  
then they also increased the width between the RV slips and the -- the boat, camper  
storage to a greater width to allow for cuing up and backing into the units that are located  
on the east side of the property, if -- if that kind of makes sense there. Obviously, Clint  
touched based on the two entrances to the property, more specifically the one there on  
Richland Road. If you can see with the site plan, the approach is entering the site from  
one entrance to the other allows you to pull through. There's a garage door intended on  
both sides of the RV slips so that you would actually be able to pull through that slip and  
exit without being -- needing the requirement of backing up or creating any sort of turn or  
possibly hitting anything on the -- on the property there. So the second entrance, it  
doesn't quite meet the separation requirement the City would like per their standards. I  
mean, that's obvious. But there's a couple of points I want to make. This entrance is  
existing, and it's been there since the 1960s. You know, the proposed business use for  
this property is a very low traffic demand. It's not a convenience store or fast-food  
restaurant, or one of those types of uses that could back up property leading into the  
intersection. There's 28 units, as Clint touched base on, so you're not seeing a high  
traffic flow that could really impact having the second entrance there off Richland. I know  
the City of Columbia has identified a future round-about at the intersection. You'll note  
that the two properties south of Richland Road there are kind of cropped off for this future  
round-about. There's been a few developments that are in the works that are all chipping  
in 20 to 30 percent chunks of a round-about project that will occur in the next three to  
seven years at this location. I know that the owners are willing to dedicate a portion of  
the street easement for this future round-about as long as they're able to maintain this  
access point onto Richland that's already there. So trying to go over the  
accommodations for this development for this PD Plan that -- that obviously doesn't quite  
meet some of the criteria that Clint has pointed out, some of the things we did do was  
increase the building setback from the street frontage line. We're approximately 65 feet  
minimum from the street property line to any of our structures. What this does is it  
increases the landscaping and the green space between our property line and the -- the  
buildings that are actually on -- onsite. I know -- I think the City minimum landscaping is  
15 percent. The site plan that we show actually reflects about 32 percent green space of  
landscaping. I just rounded it down to 30 percent to show that. I know Clint said 20. I  
believe the 20-percent number was just in the statement of intent that was originally  
submitted, not actually what the PD Plan shows there. We also tried to accommodate  
the future round-about or redesign the site so that we didn't -- so that we reduced the  
number of units that we could accomplish on the site to account for the future  
round-about. We actually did that in consideration for trying to negotiate the entrance  
onto Richland Road. And then on top of that, we're also trying to provide and enhance  
architectural finishes and designs for the building. The intent is to create a more  
residential appearance with the structure so that it fits in with the residential area that it  
abuts, and providing some design features such as steps in the -- step backs in the  
facade to kind of break it up and make it look less commercial in the grand scheme of  
things. So this is just kind of another shot from the other angle that kind of shows this  
stepped facade to kind of enhance that design element. Once again, these units that are  
at the central portion of the site that do have the additional height are strictly just for the  
RV slips to be able to fit a Class A motor home in. The units that are on the east side of  
the site do maintain -- do not exceed that 14-foot height, just to kind of clarify the  
difference between those and kind of where they're located at on the site.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. We are over our six-minute time limit. Were there concluding  
-- or do you want to wrap up comments?  
MR. SIMON: Yeah, I know. I think that's where I'm at right here. Just wanted to,  
you know, touch base and summarize, and look for support for this PD Plan. You know,  
we're providing architectural design aspects that are going to help make it look -- reduce  
the commercial look, you know, we increased the landscaping and green space at the  
street frontage and provided more trees and such. We also provided a setback for the  
future round-about. We're asking to maintain that access onto Richland for circulation of  
our site. And, you know, the neighbors supported this project that are directly adjacent  
to us. This shows, you know, acceptance of this project in the community, and we ask  
for you guys to approve this.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Are there any questions? I'm going to go down the line. Ms.  
-- Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: Yes. I -- I have -- I don't -- it's not so much a question as it is a  
comment, because you talked about neighbor support. We just received some  
communication from someone in the neighborhood that is not supportive. The  
correspondence included it in our packet that was supportive appeared to be a  
boilerplate. Literally, word for word statements with different names affixed. There was  
something inauthentic about that. I don't know if that boilerplate was provided by your  
company or by the owner, but it -- it did not impress me as genuine neighborhood input.  
Now, the -- I assume you've got the letter from Teresa Long.  
MR. SIMON: Yeah, I know. I just kind of read through it. It looks as if she's -- she  
believes that this is going to be an open lot for storage, similar to the lot across from  
James Fencing where materials are just placed in the open. That's -- that's not the  
intent. There is no open storage allowed on this -- on this property.  
MS. PLACIER: Yeah. I think that was her -- her fear that that might happen.  
MR. SIMON: Correct. Yeah.  
MS. PLACIER: But in general, it looks like you're trying to shoehorn something that  
needs a larger space, especially the -- the limitation of the space between this, the  
reduction of the space between this and the neighboring houses, which are really very  
close. It is troubling.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Geuea Jones?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Similarly, I -- I agree you've got property owner sign-off, but it  
looks like we've got 11 duplexes and four letters, so I'm wondering if you talked to any of  
the actual residents?  
MR. SIMON: No. I talked to the owners of the property.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: So you talked to no residents?  
MR. SIMON: That's correct.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. That was my only question. Thank you.  
MR. SIMON: Yeah.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Hi, Keenan. I had a couple of  
questions. I agree with you about the need. My parents own one of these buses, as I  
call them.  
MR. SIMON: Yeah. That's -- yeah.  
MR. MACMANN: I don't mind the need. I do agree with the previous statement  
about a little bit of shoehorning. And I don't really have a problem with the 22 feet. I  
know there's -- working construction, my parents own one of these things, you need a lot  
of space. I do have problem, number one, with the Richland Road exit. We're already  
looking -- for those of us who live on the west side, some other areas of Columbia, we're  
already looking at exits. And I agree, this -- you have a three point for those giant things  
to turn around. You don't want backing up. I get that.  
MR. SIMON: Uh-huh.  
MR. MACMANN: The concept of a busy road of a 40-foot bus or a tandem rig pulling  
out there very close to the intersection I think is very problematic. The ten to twenty feet,  
we have to think about or twenty to ten feet, we have to think about ownership going into  
the future. And it was probably going to be fine with the owners of the duplexes. They  
don't care; they don't live there. I have concern about that, and I appreciate you need a  
big footprint to do what you're doing. As the previous comment would be you might --  
your space might be a little bit small.  
MS. LOE: Other questions? Commissioner Rushing?  
MS. CARROLL: Will this site be attended?  
MR. SIMON: There is not actually intended to be an office there or anything of that  
nature. It is more of a -- you know, I guess, an app that allows you access to the units  
and stuff. The intent was never to have any sort of hard fencing at the frontage or the  
boundary of the property, but there's more -- more or less access units for your -- your  
slip, essentially, keypads of that nature that would in and out of that -- of that unit.  
MS. CARROLL: I understand that you intend for this to be used for RVs and boats  
and such. I'm wondering if there's any mechanism to ensure that that intent is what  
occurs. It seems like someone could rent a storage unit and use it for whatever they  
MR. SIMON: Yes. And that's kind of where we had -- it's kind of a unique  
circumstance as far as what zoning category it fits into, and that's why we had to go with  
the self-storage portion for the use group of this is because, yes, we can monitor who is,  
you know, in there, and we can look at -- we could potentially do checks on -- on what's  
being stored there to make sure someone is not living -- but you are right. It's not to say  
that someone couldn't -- couldn't try to do something that isn't in line with the -- with the  
use that's intended.  
MS. CARROLL: But I'm not sure. Would you be able to forbid someone from renting  
one of these to store building materials or anything? I mean, I'm not sure if that's --  
MR. SIMON: I think you -- I think the price point that's intended for indoor storage for  
these RV units would greatly exceed the cost of someone storing material use. I'll just  
be honest with you. You're looking a monthly rental rate of $700-$800. They -- they can  
go to a very low end, cheap storage unit outside of town, and they could rent ten, fifteen  
units for that price. I'm just -- I'm just being honest. The clientele that they're trying to  
target is -- is able to afford more of a higher end rental for a big toy. I'm just -- that's what  
-- that's the target for this -- this facility, quite honestly.  
MS. CARROLL: I see. Thanks.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Rushing?  
MS. RUSHING: The units in the middle for the RVs, are those drive-through?  
MR. SIMON: That is correct. They will have a garage door on -- on each side. You'll  
see that there's kind of a bump-out that represents each slip for the unit.  
MS. RUSHING: So the two entrances or exits are really necessary for those  
particular vehicles?  
MR. SIMON: It really simplifies the maneuverability through the site. It's not to say  
that someone couldn't pull through coming off of Grace and then they would most likely  
have to maneuver a two- or three-point turn after they've exited their slip to go back out on  
Grace. So correct. The intent was to try and make it as less cumbersome and for new  
drivers and owners to be able to maneuver through the site without concern or  
apprehension about hitting something.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Just to reiterate the statement Mr. Simon made, having stored  
things on -- construction stuff and lease spaces for that, this is way out of the league.  
You don't -- you're not going to spend that kind of money. There's nothing to prevent  
something -- someone who is willing to spend that kind of money from doing something  
we would rather they not do, but they could do it much more cheaply somewhere else.  
And to Mr. Simon's other point, I said my parents have one of these things, they're not  
easy to drive. And you're talking about people who don't drive stuff of this size normally.  
A two- or three-point backing up turn, I'm just -- while I am being supportive of Mr. Simon  
in this case, you might tell from my earlier comments where I'm going to end up with this  
though. I just wanted to make those points. Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Geuea Jones?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Sorry. Just one more clarification. You keep referring to the  
existing drive on Richland.  
MR. SIMON: Correct.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: That looks to me to be a residential access that just happens  
to begin where you want your driveway to be, but, right now, that goes sort of onto your  
property, but it's clearly being used by the residents. It is not a driveway, per se. It looks  
like it's a gravel access that people have kind of made a driveway.  
MR. SIMON: It looks to me like a driveway. I mean, it's --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Well, but it's -- it's not the same thing that you're trying to do.  
MR. SIMON: I mean, all I'm simply stating as a fact is that entrance has been there  
since, you know, the '60s -- the late '60s.  
MR. SIMON: And we'd like to maintain that.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: But it's not a curbed entrance that is being used for  
commercial purposes?  
MR. SIMON: You're correct. It's not an improved entrance.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.  
MR. SIMON: I mean, there's a lot of entrances off of Richland that are not curbed.  
You know, the site is not developed.  
MS. LOE: Mr. Smith, can you go back to the property plan, please?  
MR. SMITH: Excuse me. Which slide?  
MS. LOE: The site -- that -- there. The report we received identified that the request  
for a reduction in the side yard setbacks was necessary to ensure proper maneuverability  
on the site for the larger vehicles. Was that a correct assessment?  
MR. SIMON: That was -- I mean, that was the intent. It's funny you would mention  
this because we had -- we kind of looked at this site and -- and if there was an option to  
provide that 20-foot setback, we could possibly reduce some of the green space that we  
are accounting at the frontage of the property to shift everything ten feet. Bu Clint thought  
that that would not be sufficient for -- for noting or reviewing or changing at this time, kind  
of was where we're at. That would be something we could -- we would be willing to -- I  
don't know what the next step would be, but we would be willing to consider --  
MS. LOE: I -- I guess I was also curious why the parking -- four parking stalls are  
also located within the maneuverability space. And if those were -- parking stalls are  
typically at least eight feet wide, so if those are relocated, we could gain at least 18 feet  
on the long side. So can the parking go somewhere else?  
MR. SIMON: Yes. The parking could go somewhere else.  
MS. LOE: All right. Any additional questions for this speaker? Commissioner  
MS. KIMBELL: Where the parking is on that side over there, is that -- that would be  
for RVs uncovered, or what is the parking for?  
MR. SIMON: Well, it's -- no. There's a -- for self-storage standards, you're required  
to provide onsite parking.  
MS. KIMBELL: Okay.  
MR. SIMON: I know it's kind of silly because, well, all the parking is in buildings, but  
it's -- it's a requirement that is in the new UDC, so we provided that.  
MS. LOE: No. Because I have family that have RVs, and if you want to go visit your  
RV to do any maintenance or cleaning or stocking before a trip, you need to park your  
car somewhere on the site when you go into the RV.  
MR. SIMON: Yeah.  
MS. LOE: And that's what these stalls are for.  
MR. SIMON: Correct. No. You are correct.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Kimbell?  
MS. KIMBELL: As far as security issues, what is being done to keep that area safe?  
MR. SIMON: Yeah. I mean, the intent would be to provide standard lighting high  
cutoff so that it doesn't bleed into the residential district. But from the security  
standpoint, they have video cameras that are set up throughout the site that monitor the  
site. As far as -- they're trying not to -- the intent is not to create a gated community or a  
gated storage area that has an industrial look. That's why they're trying to increase the  
green space and provide more of an open site. The units are locked. They have a new  
Blue Tooth that a -- digital lock that's programmable and resettable by the person that is  
renting out the slip, and it can be changed, you know, onsite, if there is -- if someone  
would need to get into it for an emergency situation, police, ambulance, or something of  
that nature, so that is the development intent that they have for that, if that makes sense.  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions? I see none at this time. Thank you. If there  
are no additional speakers on this case, we'll close public comment.  
MS. LOE: Commission comment? Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: If none of my fellow Commissioners have any comments, this will -  
- there will be two motions here, one for the statement of intent, one for the PD Plan.  
Firstly, in the matter of the revision to the statement of intent on Case Number 25-2022 --  
thank you, Mr. Smith -- I move to approve -- I've made my motion in the affirmative. I will  
be voting no.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. LOE: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by Commissioner Stanton.  
We have a motion on the floor for the PD Plan.  
MR. ZENNER: Statement of Intent, first.  
MS. LOE: Or, sorry. Statement of intent. That was for my clarification, as much as  
everyone else's.  
MS. RUSHING: I was going to ask.  
MS. LOE: Any discussion on this motion? Commissioner Geuea Jones?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I will be very brief. I just want to point out, so that it's on the  
record somewhere, that this is an 18-and-a-half-year-old PD plan statement of intent that  
clearly has to be amended, but under my -- I really prefer straight zoning whenever  
possible so that things don't sit there for 18 and a half years on an empty lot. I just want  
to say that in a place that will be transcribed. Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Duly noted. Any additional comments? Seeing none. Commissioner  
Carroll, may we have roll call, please.  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.  
Stanton. Voting No: Ms. Rushing, Mr. MacMann, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier,  
Ms. Kimbell, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Loe, Ms. Burns. Motion denied 8-1.  
MS. CARROLL: We have eight no votes, and one yes. The motion carries,  
MS. LOE: It's denied.  
MS. CARROLL: I mean, the motion is denied. Sorry. That was --  
MR. MACMANN: Democracy in action there.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Very serendipitous on this day of all days. If there are no other  
current questions, I have another motion. In the matter of the TS Storage Plan PD Plan,  
Case 25-2022, I move to approve. Again, I'm making that motion in the affirmative. I plan  
to vote no.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. LOE: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by Commissioner Stanton.  
Second motion on the floor. This one for the PD Plan. Any discussion on this motion?  
Seeing none. Commissioner Carroll, may we have roll call.  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.  
Stanton. Voting No: Ms. Rushing, Mr. MacMann, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier,  
Ms. Kimbell, Ms. Carroll, Commissioner Loe, Ms. Burns. Motion denied 8-1.  
MS. CARROLL: We have eight no votes, one yes. This motion is denied.  
MS. LOE: Recommendations will be forwarded to City Council. That concludes our  
cases for the evening.  
Motion #1 - In the matter of the revision to the statement of intent on Case  
Number 25-2022 move to approve VOTING YES: Stanton VOTING NO: Rushing,  
MacMann, Geuea Jones, Placier. Kimbell, Carroll, Loe, Burns. Motion denied  
Motion #2 - In the matter of the TS Storage Plan PD Plan, Case 25-2022, move to  
approve. VOTING YES: Stanton VOTING NO: Rushing, MacMann, Geuea Jones,  
Placier. Kimbell, Carroll, Loe, Burns. Motion denied 8-1.  
MS. LOE: Are there any additional public comments?  
MS. LOE: If there aren't, are there any staff comments?  
MR. ZENNER: Your next meeting will be on January 20th. We will have a regular  
work session at 5:30 p.m. and, very likely, a very short January 20th meeting as we are  
anticipating the following two items that are currently advertised and scheduled for this  
meeting to be requested to be tabled. But because they have been advertised, we are  
required to conduct the public hearing associated with them in case there are residents of  
the adjoining properties wanting to address the issue. So there will be a -- most likely a  
staff -- there will be staff reports prepared and there will be a meeting; however, it will be  
short. These particular requests are both of the same property. One is a conditional use  
permit, and the other rezoning request from AG to M-C. The conditional-use permit is to  
permit a recreational vehicle travel trailer park on the subject site, which is here shown on  
the map. It is currently zoned AG. They are requesting to have the property rezoned to  
M-C. This is two parcels of property at this point, principally accessed off of Paris Road,  
although it does have the appendage on the very southern portion of the property to get  
you to Hinkson Creek Road, but you would have to cross the creek to get there. The  
improvements that are immediately to the west are Tractor Supply and Koonse Glass  
immediately across the street to the west on Paris Road. You will notice the maps are  
slightly different, and this will be a -- a problem for a while. We had a catastrophic loss of  
information related to our mapping software, and we are back to generating maps the  
old-fashioned way, so we are slowly, but surely adapting to this, and some of the  
information that you saw this evening on your aerial photography, such as adjoining  
zoning and some other things, we're trying to clean up at this point to bring it back to life,  
so bear with us. You will have your regular set of maps though within your packets,  
locator -- aerial locator, your utility map, and your topo map, they're just going to look a  
little bit different for the short term. We hope to have the previous mapping software back  
in shape by the end of, hopefully, this month at the earliest. Those are your two items.  
As I said, they will likely be tabled. If they're not, it could be an interesting discussion  
during the 20th's meeting, but we believe at this point, given we haven't received  
first-round comments back, and there are some other questions that need to be  
answered, I will have a tabling request sometime next week before we produce the  
packet. So look for that. As we discussed this evening in work session, we will continue  
to move forward with discussion of our short-term rental regulations with shelling out the  
first tier of potential STR standards, along with definitions for your consideration to which  
we can then start to put the framework together for our actual regulatory structure that we  
would utilize in the future. With that, that's all we have to offer this evening. Thank you  
very much. Hopefully, you enjoyed your break. It will be short-lived because the  
February 10th meeting is quite extensive, so what we can move through or move to a  
future agenda, like the 24th, will be beneficial.  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Zenner.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: Yeah. Similar to Commissioner Geuea Jones, I wanted to put  
something on the record while it's still fresh, and that is about annexation and relationship  
between annexation and the proposals that we see. At the December 20th City Council  
meeting, which I attended, the Council took up Hardy Plat I on Route KK. And as noted  
by Councilperson Pitzer, this was a very strange and troubling request. If you remember,  
it was this U-shaped or thing surrounding someone's home and it was very strange, and  
there was puzzlement all around, and it looked like it was coming from P & Z, and we  
had approved this strange thing, which we had not. We did not approve the annexation of  
that horseshoe. Council approved it at some time in the past, and it was all I could do to  
restrain myself from popping up and saying we had nothing to do with this. And as weird  
as that was, in this case, annexation at least preceded the proposal because we have  
also had the simultaneous request upon annexation, while we are obligated after  
annexation to assign a land use, to assign a zoning. Then it is our duty. But there is an  
assumption of annexation, it goes on the consent agenda, it's thoughtlessly approved,  
and that's how we get Hardy Plat I. So it's not good City planning, and it's making the  
boundaries of the City look like one of those impossible jigsaw puzzles that you see, and  
that I would never buy because I could never possibly work it. So I want to encourage us  
to keep bringing this forward to urge the Council to be more careful about annexation  
requests, and not to complete annexation with our decisions on P & Z, and, just for the  
record, that's my statement.  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Commissioner Placier. Commissioner MacMann, and then  
Commissioner Carroll.  
MR. MACMANN: Oh, just -- just real quick to Commissioner Placier's thing. As you  
know, I attend many of these meetings, and had I caught that, it was already -- I tried to  
clarify that on the record for them. You can see them looking sideways sometimes, but  
we did not do that.  
MS. PLACIER: Thank you.  
MR. MACMANN: Or maybe afterwards individually or something. I had another  
motion, but I think Mr. --  
MS. LOE: I think Commissioner Carroll just had a follow-up comment.  
MS. CARROLL: Yeah, if I may. Issues surrounding annexation and whose purview  
the decision is, or at least the initial vote is, have come up quite a bit over the past two  
years and perhaps before that, too, but it came to my attention within the past two years.  
And I've been trying to make it as clear as possible whenever we have an annexation  
case with zoning attached to it before us, that this body only votes on zoning. We don't  
vote on annexation. We don't review annexation. And it's for that reason that the last two  
times that it came before us, I asked to pull the associated annexation off the consent  
agenda once they're linked. So what's happening is that a zoning assignment comes  
before us and that's what we vote on, only Council votes and reviews the annexation. We  
vote on it pending annexation, should Council approve. And then after our vote, it has to  
get put onto the agenda, so they're being linked at that point and then put on the agenda.  
So that -- that is the strategy that I observed to be the most clear about what we are able  
to vote on and what we are not.  
MS. LOE: So based on the comments you've both made, it's clear Council does not  
understand this process and who is approving what. So I commend the efforts to provide  
clarification. Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: I have a comment, and then I have that final motion. There will be  
at least one, if not two or three new Councilpersons. Prior to the election, City staff  
actually sits down with them, the prospective candidates, and they're given a briefing.  
There may be a little more focus that could go in, like, in duties and things like that. I'll  
pass that along, also.  
X. NEXT MEETING DATE - January 20, 2022 @ 7 pm (tentative)  
MR. MACMANN: If my fellow Commissioners have no other comments or concerns  
at this time, I move to adjourn.  
MS. PLACIER: Second.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. LOE: I'm going to give that to Commissioner Placier -- the second. We are  
adjourned. Thanks everybody. Good to see you all. Happy New Year.  
(Off the record)  
(The meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m.)  
Move to adjourn