City of Columbia, Missouri  
Meeting Minutes  
Planning and Zoning Commission  
Columbia City Hall  
Council Chambers  
701 E. Broadway  
Thursday, June 23, 2022  
7:00 PM  
Regular Meeting  
MS. LOE: I will now call the June 23rd, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission  
meeting to order.  
7 -  
Sara Loe, Anthony Stanton, Michael MacMann, Valerie Carroll, Robbin Kimbell,  
Peggy Placier and Shannon Wilson  
2 - Tootie Burns and Sharon Geuea Jones  
MS. LOE: Mr. -- or Ms. Carroll, may we have roll call, please.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Present.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Geuea Jones? Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Kimbell?  
MS. KIMBELL: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: I am here. Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Loe?  
MS. LOE: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Burns? We have seven; we have a quorum.  
MS. LOE: Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Mr. Smith, are there any adjustments or additions to the agenda?  
MR. SMITH: No additions or amendments tonight, Ms. Chairman.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. I'll take a motion on the agenda.  
MR. MACMANN: Move to approve.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. LOE: Moved by Commissioner by MacMann, seconded by Commissioner  
Stanton. I'll take a thumbs-up approval on the agenda.  
(Unanimous vote for approval.)  
MS. LOE: It looks unanimous. Thanks, everybody.  
Move to approve.  
June 9, 2022 Regular Meeting  
MS. LOE: Everyone should have received a copy of the June 9th, 2022 regular  
meeting minutes. Were there any additions 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 minutes.  
(Unanimous vote for approval.)  
MS. LOE: It looks unanimous with one abstention?  
MS. LOE: No. Unanimous. All right. Thank you.  
Move to approve.  
Case # 181-2022  
A request by Crockett Engineering (applicant), on behalf of Central  
Missouri Sheltered Enterprises, Inc. (owner), for a one-lot final plat  
consolidating two parcels into one legal lot. The site is split zoned,  
containing M-OF (Mixed-use Office) and IG (Industrial) zoned property. The  
3.21-acre site is located approximately 1200' south of the intersection of E  
Nifong Boulevard and S Bearfield Road.  
MS. LOE: May we have a staff report, please.  
Staff report was given by Mr. Brad Kelley of the Planning and Development  
Department. Staff recommends approval of the "Sheltered Workshop, Plat No. 2A" Final  
Plat subject to minor technical corrections.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Before we move on to questions for staff, I would like to ask  
any Commissioners who have had any ex parte related to this case to please share that  
with the Commission at this time so all Commissioners have the benefit of the same  
information on the case in front of us. Seeing none. Are there any questions for staff? I  
see none. Nice job, Mr. Kelley. All right. With that, we will open up the floor to public  
MS. LOE: If anyone has any public comments they would like to share, please give  
your name and address for the record.  
MR. GREENE: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Andy Greene with Crockett  
Engineering, 1000 West Nifong Boulevard, Building Number One. Here before you is a --  
simply a consolidation plat. Central Missouri Sheltered Enterprises recently acquired the  
front lot, which was an old water-tower site, and they desire to consolidate both of the  
lots into one lot to facilitate legal lot status.  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Andy.  
MR. GREENE: I thought I was getting it. To get legal lot status for this lot and to  
allow the expansion of an office facility. Bruce Young, the executive director of the  
operation here, is here to also answer any questions, but before you with staff  
recommendation for approval, so thank you.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Greene? I see none. Thank  
you. Any other comments on this case? If there are none, we will close public  
MS. LOE: Commission comments? Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: I've been familiar with and at one time was adjunct staff over there,  
and it was very -- very long ago, Bruce. These folks do good work. This appears to be in  
order. I'm going to vote to approve it.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: If my fellow Commissioners have no other questions or comments,  
I am going to make a motion. In the matter of Case 181-2022, the approval of Sheltered  
Workshop Plat No. 2A, final plat pursuant to minor technical corrections, I move to  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. LOE: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by Commissioner Stanton.  
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: Mr.  
Ms. Placier, Ms. Kimbell, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Loe, Mr. Stanton. Motion  
carries 7-0.  
MS. CARROLL: We have seven votes to approve. The motion carries.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Recommendation for approval will be forwarded to City  
In the matter of Case 181-2022, the approval of Sheltered Workshop Plat No. 2A,  
final plat pursuant to minor technical corrections, move to approve.  
7 - Loe, Stanton, MacMann, Carroll, Kimbell, Placier and Wilson  
2 - Burns and Geuea Jones  
Case # 140-2022  
A request by Lewis-Bade, Inc. (agent), on behalf of The Overland Group  
(contract purchaser), seeking approval of a PD plan on a 1.79-acre  
property located at 5905 E. St. Charles Road. The proposed PD plan  
depicts a new, 10,640 sq. ft. Dollar General store on the site. The property  
was zoned C-P, now PD, upon annexation in 2013. (This item was tabled  
at the May 5, 2022 Planning Commission meeting)  
MS. LOE: May we have a staff report, please.  
Staff report was given by Mr. Brad Kelley of the Planning and Development  
Department. Staff recommends approval of the "Overland DG #24012," PD Plan, dated  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Kelley. Before we move on to questions of staff, I would  
like to ask any Commissioner who has had any ex parte related to this case to please  
share that with the Commission at this time so all Commissioners have the same -- have  
the benefit of the same information on the case in front of us. Seeing none. Are there  
any questions for staff? Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: I apologize if I missed this. The staff report indicated that there had  
been no additional public communication since the last plan. There had been no  
additional letters of opposition with the new PD plan. Is that still accurate?  
MR. KELLEY: There have been no letters of opposition. They have received support  
from a non-profit food pantry, I believe, who serves a lot of people who don't have access  
to cars and states that this would be of benefit to them. And I think that was detailed in  
the report, but I don't think we have a separate correspondence.  
MS. CARROLL: Okay. Thanks.  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions for staff? Commissioner Kimbell?  
MS. KIMBELL: Where is the driveway? They said it was a shared driveway.  
MR. KELLEY: Yes. Here on the southwest side to be shared with the adjacent  
parcel, so this parcel and the one adjacent to the west would utilize this driveway coming  
off of St. Charles here. So when the parcel to the west is developed, it wouldn't have  
access, I take it, to St. Charles Road. It would take access via this driveway.  
MS. KIMBELL: Okay. Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Is that currently the same owner? I  
understand this is a contract purchase that we're dealing with right now. You don't know.  
Just say I don't know, personally.  
MR. KELLEY: I don't know.  
MR. MACMANN: Sometimes there are conflict issues with sharing things, but it's  
platted out, so it should be good to go. Right?  
MR. KELLEY: Yeah. The easement is provided, yeah.  
MR. MACMANN: All right. Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions for staff? If there are none, we will open up the  
public hearing for this case.  
MS. LOE: If anyone has any comments they would like to share, please give your  
name and address for the record. We do limit public comments to three minutes. If  
you're speaking for a group, we give you six minutes.  
MR. STAUFFER: Thank you. Jacob Stauffer, Springfield, Missouri. We -- I'm with  
the development group in this matter, mainly here just to answer any questions, one with  
respect to the shared access. JoAnn Allen is not our seller in this, but we have been --  
we fully negotiated an easement agreement with her and her attorney, so that -- that's  
resolved. I think all of the owners on this planned development were aware that there  
were going to be shared accesses prior to this development, and they want to kind of  
spur the development of the master tract. Again, our intent is to be a good neighbor.  
With that, we made the concession of the nine -- approximately 900 feet of eight-foot  
sidewalk that we will install for the entire -- the entire block to block there, which I'm going  
to guess is probably to be about an $80,000 investment. Also the vinyl fence we're going  
to do to provide screening to the residential properties around us and as well as the  
landscape buffer. So I'm happy to answer any other questions you might have. Yes, sir?  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Are you aware the last time this came before us?  
MR. STAUFFER: Yes. Our engineer was here, as well, and we are aware there was  
quite a bit of opposition.  
MR. STANTON: Well, between then and now, you have had intense engagement  
with the neighbors and have come up with these adjustments due to the feedback?  
MR. STAUFFER: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Our site locator and as well as our broker has  
been in contact with every neighbor that they could be in contact with. And some -- you  
know, these are -- there were additional requests. There were requests for facade  
upgrades and requests for sidewalks. Within our budget, we could do one or not the  
other, and so I thought the sidewalk would be more beneficial to the -- the entire  
MR. STANTON: So you worked with the neighbors?  
MR. STAUFFER: We've done our best. We can't do -- we can't do everything --  
MR. STANTON: Okay.  
MR. STAUFFER: -- but we've done more than what we were going to do before.  
MR. STANTON: Okay.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Just a comment. I'm glad you guys addressed -- a couple of  
comments. I'm glad you all have addressed the neighbors and we'll hear from them in a  
moment. They were rather vocal last time, and that's fine. I would like to comment on  
something that you propose to do and something we constantly fight. You offered to  
build more sidewalk. Just FYI, everybody and their brother wants to get their sidewalk  
waived, so I find this, in and of itself, kind of remarkable. Just a comment.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: Thanks. You said you were able to talk to each of the neighbors.  
Were you able to hold a neighborhood meeting?  
MR. STAUFFER: So what we did, in lieu of holding a neighborhood meeting, we got  
phone numbers and we called. So I've got a spreadsheet of everyone we called. I think  
the only one that I don't know that we were able to get in touch with that I've -- that has  
been reported to me -- again, it was my broker and my site locator doing this, was  
Vanessa Vaughn and Sarah -- Sarah Frazee. That phone number provided didn't work  
there, but otherwise, we've got -- you know, I'm happy to provide staff with minutes of the  
conversations that were held.  
MS. CARROLL: Thanks.  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions? Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: Yes. One of the comments that are not addressed in this plan -- I  
don't know how they can be addressed in this plan, but that was the fear that people from  
the streets behind this would walk through the two remaining lots to get to the Dollar  
General, and then impinge on their -- they're still residences at this point. I don't know if  
you have any ideas. Obviously, they can't go over the fence to the rear, they'd have to go  
around, but any thoughts on that?  
MR. STAUFFER: Well, we've got screening on three sides, other than to the stub  
shared access with Ms. Allen's property adjacent to us. So it -- and then we're building  
the sidewalk, so I think we've -- we've created, and if you've been out there, it's relatively  
overgrown at the moment. So what we've -- we've created a -- a more amenable  
pedestrian path than walking through other people's yards, frankly, or climbing the fence.  
So --  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions? I see none at this time. Thank you.  
MR. STAUFFER: All right. Thank you so much.  
MS. LOE: Any additional speakers on this case?  
MR. KEMP: How are you doing? My name is Greg Kemp; I live at 1306 Lake of the  
Woods Road. As you all know, I'm not happy about the Dollar General that backs up to  
my property. I want to say I talked to the gentleman that was sitting in his seat. I don't  
remember his name, and he gave me a list of all the people that were supposed to  
approve this being rezoned. Well, I went and did some foot walking, and half the people I  
seen said that they never received anything on it being rezoned that lived there in 2013,  
which I lived there, and I didn't get anything. There are some people back here, too, that  
said that they never received any. So a little funny stuff, it seemed like, in my head is  
going on. The other thing is Dollar General -- well, let me back up. There's a sign posted  
right down on the property. It states -- there's a number on there, but it has no date and  
no information. It's just saying a hearing, and it has no date and no information about  
when it is, and it has a phone number. I called this phone number seven times, never got  
a return call back, and there's some other people back there that called it, too. And it's a  
Ms. Henry -- the last name is Henry, but nobody returned nobody's calls. Now, the Dollar  
General, I just talked to Dollar General about a week ago because I haven't heard from  
them, and I didn't want to get caught with the ball -- dropping the ball on my end, so I  
called, and I was informed that they were supposed to have started notifying us about  
what they want -- our concerns. And it just so happened when I was talking to them, the  
realtor guy calls him. So we finally started getting calls just in the past week. I concern  
-- I confessed my concerns with the Dollar General and my property. Now, I understand  
that it's been approved for an eight-foot fence; is that right? Am I right on that?  
MR. KELLEY: Yes. There's an eight-foot fence on this plan.  
MR. KEMP: Okay. Well, one of my concerns was I looked at it, talked to my lawyer  
about it. Eight foot ain't really too tall. I wanted a ten-foot fence -- vinyl fence that goes  
the distance on my property, and backs up to my shed, you know, my shop there, you  
know. That's what I wanted, because I don't want to have nothing to do with Dollar  
General. I've got a beautiful backyard, you know, and stuff. And my kids and the  
grandkids love it. The other thing is the traffic. He just mentioned they're putting a  
sidewalk in, and this fencing is supposed to stop people from cutting through. Well, they  
-- if everybody's yard is not fenced off, we're going to get people cutting through because  
all of the condos, the houses are back there, you know, be on that side street in the back  
of the store where the store is going. So I want to make sure that my property is totally  
closed off from anybody's cutting through, you know. And I'm at the -- I'm on the Lake of  
the Woods Road side, you know, and the back of it -- the whole side of the store backs  
up to my property. I was told to play chess, and I never played chess before, but I played  
it like I was playing checkers. Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: I wanted to get an idea. Is it the site plan in particular that you have  
problems with, or is it the use, or is it both?  
MR. KEMP: Well, it's the site plan and the use -- the main thing with me, I hate it  
that my property value of my property, my house is going to drop. You know, I spent so  
much time and work on it, you know. And like I told you all, would you all want a Dollar  
General in your all's back door, you know. And like you said, you don't see them out in  
The Highlands, you know.  
MS. CARROLL: I don't disagree with you.  
MR. KEMP: No. And it -- it's actually in my backyard, you know. And so I'm -- I'm  
into, like, I can become a good neighbor of Dollar General, whether I wanted to or not, I've  
got to be a neighbor, you know, unless I move, you know. But at least I would like Dollar  
General to work with me and doing stuff that might increase -- you know, kind of keep my  
property value up, you know. Kind of help me out with a little of this and that around my  
property, you know, since they're going to make it drop, they can help me try to build it  
up. But I haven't had a one-on-one conversation other than a phone call with Dollar  
General conversing my concerns about what's going on. But actually it's -- those are the  
two things. You hit it on the nail head. Those are the two things that I'm really  
concerned about.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann, and then Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. If it's all right, I'm going to express  
some of your concerns and questions to staff. Planner Smith, can you address some of  
these issues about the reach of the letter, the timing of letters, and I -- if I understand it, a  
lot of times those public notice signs are not much more than call this number. There's  
usually no -- sometimes there are dates on those, though, aren't there?  
MR. KELLEY: Our current sign right now does not have a date. It has a number that  
you would call our offices, and we direct you to the project manager for that site. So if  
there's an issue with that, we'll -- we'll double check into that, but that generally should go  
to staff at some point.  
MR. KEMP: There's -- there's several people back there that have been calling in.  
MR. KELLEY: The question regarding a list -- I'm not sure. Mr. Palmer is the project  
manager for that case, and he was not able to be here tonight. I would presume he may  
have supplied the list of the notice address list that's the list of people that we would  
notify within 185 feet of the site. Per ordinance, we will send them a letter when there's a  
public hearing involving the property next to them or within 185 feet. There is no  
requirement for everyone on that list, though, to approve a plan, but it would be, obviously,  
our hope in that the best-case scenario is that everyone surrounding that area could  
come to an agreement on plans and revisions, especially in this case. But I was not  
aware of any -- any specific approval requirement for that.  
MR. MACMANN: Just to follow up on that a little bit, the thing that does concern me  
is when they do reach out, and there are other people who are going to testify to this, we  
can tell. The non-return phone calls on an issue that's already been expressed is a  
public concern, and we already spent, you know, an hour on this a while ago and tabled it  
to address these concerns, and then the folks reach out and don't -- our level of  
community engagement looks poor, and we don't serve the public when that's the case.  
And I'm sorry that that happened to you because on something like this, everyone should  
be clearly heard. That's all of my questions and concerns at this moment.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Let me get this clear before I get to chewing. You did not get a  
letter from the City relating to this meeting. Correct?  
MR. KEMP: Yes. We got a letter.  
MR. STANTON: Oh, you did?  
MR. KEMP: Yeah. We got -- we got -- we got one letter, what was it, last week?  
That's when we got it.  
MR. STANTON: Okay. So you got one?  
MR. KEMP: For this meeting. For this meeting.  
MR. STANTON: The number on the sign did not work as far as getting a return call  
concerning that property. Correct?  
MR. KEMP: Right. This sign just come up there this week.  
MR. STANTON: Okay.  
MR. KEMP: Or I take that back, last week.  
MR. STANTON: Okay.  
MR. KEMP: It was posted last week on the property.  
MR. STANTON: Okay. Three, all the discussion and community interaction we had  
at the last meeting, and advice and debate that went on, are you telling me that no one  
from this gentleman that was at the last meeting and anybody above concerning Dollar  
General has not talked to you since, but other than, like, last week?  
MR. KEMP: When -- nobody had talked to me until I made a phone call --  
MR. STANTON: To them.  
MR. KEMP: -- to the City -- to them. And I think it -- wasn't it you I called? Yeah. I  
called him to see where -- what's going on, you know. I knew this time was coming --  
drawing near, and I didn't want to get caught dropping the ball on my end. So I made a  
call to him to see.  
MR. STANTON: And we exchanged -- but didn't we exchange numbers at the end of  
that evening?  
MR. KEMP: Yes. Yes, we did.  
MR. STANTON: Okay. Fourth, I understand your concerns about the Dollar General  
being here. You don't want the Dollar General at all, so let's just --  
MR. KEMP: Yeah. I don't want it at all.  
MR. STANTON: That's your position?  
MR. KEMP: Yeah. I don't want it at all, but I've got to deal with it.  
MR. STANTON: Okay.  
MR. KEMP: I want to be happy.  
MR. STANTON: So now we're playing chess. Okay? So you -- they made their  
move, you're making yours. Right?  
MR. KEMP: Right.  
MR. STANTON: The plan that you see now, is it better than what was proposed the  
last time we met? Is it -- say, it's not -- it's not 24-carat gold, it might be 18. Can you  
live with what you see here?  
MR. KEMP: No. Me, personally, I can't live with it because it's not making me  
happy. And -- and the thing is -- the only thing that I -- I agree with on this plan -- well,  
the whole thing, the total thing is -- is wrong where they're doing it if you sit down and  
think about it. Fire station, roundabout, traffic from high school, medical clinic, it's -- it's a  
big jumble there, you know. They could have went to the other side of the road and  
plenty of room and everything. Backed up to a residence. But the only thing I see good  
out of it is the sidewalks because there's no sidewalks there. And right now we deal with  
kids walking out in the road now. And the other thing is my doggone property value, and  
the way my property is going to look and stuff. And I don't want -- far as them, sir, I know  
I've got a 25-foot buffer between my place and Dollar General. All I want is my fence and  
stuff, what I asked Dollar General for, and I don't care what they do on the other side of  
the property. But I know it's -- it's a done situation to fill in that idea right now because  
the how many of us back here don't want it, how many that was here last time don't want  
it. We're fighting a losing battle, I feel.  
MR. STANTON: Well, I don't want you to feel that way, but what I want to feel is that  
you had -- before I get to chewing, I want to know that there has been a communication  
between the City, these guys here, you expressed the ten-foot to them, they can only do  
eight. This is business. This is business. You know, I want a Lamborghini, I've got a  
Crown Vic, you know, I -- you know, money is, you know,  
MR. KEMP: They want to give me eight foot. They want to give me eight foot, and  
all I want is ten, you know.  
MR. STANTON: Okay.  
MR. KEMP: I just want -- I just want to be secure, you know. And like I say, Dollar  
General, once I made that call, I guess they started making the moves. They started  
MR. STANTON: Okay.  
MR. KEMP: And like I say, it was just last week, and then some of the people tell  
me that they called, and then my other neighbor, she never got a call, you know. Right  
here and stuff, you know.  
MR. STANTON: But you were proactive and got the ball rolling?  
MR. KEMP: Yes. Yes.  
MR. STANTON: Okay.  
MR. KEMP: We're trying -- we're trying to do the right thing.  
MR. STANTON: But the bottom line, you don't want it there anyway?  
MR. KEMP: I mean --  
MR. STANTON: So that's just what --  
MR. KEMP: I don't want it there, but if I have -- I don't want it there, but I'm going to  
lose this battle, but at least I want to try to be good neighbors and a happy neighbor.  
MR. STANTON: And you hold them to the fire as far as your fence and making sure  
it stays maintained and all that good stuff, so I don't want you to feel like you lost. I just  
want to make sure you was in the fight.  
MR. KEMP: Oh, yeah. Yeah.  
MR. STANTON: All right. Okay.  
MR. KEMP: Believe me, I feel the bruises coming.  
MR. STANTON: Thank you. Thank you.  
MR. KEMP: Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: So what I think is a very valid concern, it's been stated twice, but I -- I  
want to ask you, as a homeowner, landowner in that space, what is, in your opinion, the  
likelihood that people will be transversing [sic], trespassing on your property to get to  
Dollar General? Because, for me, that is a no go.  
MR. KEMP: It's going to -- it's going to -- I have -- it's -- I have already put up fencing  
to stop traffic from cutting through my backyard. Okay?  
MS. WILSON: So it's just going to get worse?  
MR. KEMP: And it's going to be -- it's going to be worse. It's going to be worse. On  
my half, if I get things the way I want, I can contain them to just the front of my house  
heading across on St. Charles Road. Then the only thing I have to deal with --  
MR. MACMANN: Speak into the microphone, please.  
MS. WILSON: You've got to speak into the mike, please.  
MS. LOE: Sir, we need you to use the microphone.  
MR. KEMP: Oh. Oh, sorry. So I -- the only thing is, I have to do is if they cut  
through the front of my yard and cut between the three houses, my neighbors that's on  
St. Charles Road, you know, instead of going all the way to corner, they take a shortcut,  
you know. And these are kids and stuff -- a lot of kids, teenagers and stuff like that that  
you see walking up and down the road. And then far as the front goes, you know, you've  
got Demaret over there and stuff, and you see -- we never had crime in the neighborhood,  
but lately we've -- you know, in the past couple of years, it has picked up.  
MS. WILSON: To your point, you know, it would not in my thoughts, be acceptable  
in some neighborhoods to create a scenario where people are going to be transversing  
across my property. And so, for me, this does not work.  
MR. KELLEY: I'm sorry. We have to -- we have to wait until a microphone is  
available for public comment.  
MS. LOE: I'm sorry, ma'am.  
MR. STANTON: Do you want to give up the mike if she wants to talk?  
MR. KEMP: Oh, baby, you can have the mike. Come on. Here.  
MS. LOE: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, ma'am.  
MR. STANTON: We need your name and number and address.  
MS. EDWARDS: I have a big voice. I’m Mary Edwards, 1306 --  
MR. KEMP: She's with me.  
MS. EDWARDS: But can you show her where our property at 1306 is going to back  
up against the Dollar General. There's really nothing there. I mean, it's just in our  
backyard. We have grandkids and cats, dogs, and I want my family to be safe. And with  
traffic cutting through, you don't know who's going to come through your yard. At  
nighttime, we're maybe in bed. We have to get cameras and spotlights out, so we know  
we're safe, and I don't want that for my family at all or for my grandkids. That's my  
concern. I want to be able to let my kids go out and play in the backyard and be  
comfortable and safe.  
MS. WILSON: That's fair.  
MS. EDWARDS: And not worry about who's coming through or -- and I have to stand  
there with them all the time. My youngest one is one.  
MR. SMITH: Can you clarify? You're directly east of the red box. Correct? On the  
north half?  
MR. KEMP: Right -- yeah. Right there.  
MS. EDWARDS: That's us. Yeah. That's our whole backyard.  
MS. WILSON: And so literally --  
MS. EDWARDS: Yeah. That whole backyard --  
MR. KEMP: Yeah. That whole backyard. And I basically come all the way over  
to the three houses. My property butts up to the three houses on St. Charles Road.  
Yeah, those three there. My property comes that far.  
MS. EDWARDS: So unless you block off the whole area, there's -- they're always  
going to cut through. And my kids -- grandkids should be able to play out in the pool and  
be comfortable and not worry about, oh, my God, Grandma, somebody is out here they  
don't know.  
MS. WILSON: So are you worried about -- I mean, obviously, you didn't sign up for  
this. So are you worried about the enjoyment of your property?  
MS. EDWARDS: Yes, we are.  
MR. KEMP: Yes.  
MS. WILSON: And, of course, the long-term effects of this, as well. I think are you  
saying you're worried about that, as well, because 20 years from now, you know,  
somebody else may have this property in your family, and it's just going to keep getting  
worse and worse and worse.  
MR. KEMP: And Dollar General is going to be going downhill.  
MS. EDWARDS: We keep -- we keep very good of our property. We have things  
nice --  
MR. MACMANN: Ms. Edwards?  
MS. EDWARDS: What? I'm sorry.  
MR. MACMANN: I'm sorry. I have to -- point of order, Madam Chair. Our recorder  
needs to record everyone's voices, so I know that you're all impassioned, and that's  
awesome. Try to pause between the different speakers and speak more slowly because  
she's having difficulty recording both of you, and this is for the public record.  
MR. STANTON: No record, no evidence.  
MS. LOE: Actually, we can only have one speaker at the podium at a time, so if you  
can decide who is going to speak.  
MS. EDWARDS: Okay. I'll just finish, and I'll talk slowly. My concerns are is I want  
my family to be comfortable and safe, and not to have any fear at all. We raise our kids  
to be comfortable in their environment and not to have any fear, but you be careful and  
mindful of strangers. Well, we're going to have strangers walking through our yard, and  
we do -- we entertain our kids. We have a big backyard, as you can see, but we can't  
even be comfortable entertaining. If we wanted to entertain, we have strangers come up  
that want to eat or whatever. It's just not safe. And that's what I'm concerned about  
because it's right back up against our yard.  
MS. LOE: So there will be an eight-foot fence between this property and your yard.  
MS. EDWARDS: Yes. But then if you continue on around where it's going to go  
onto St. Charles Rock [sic] Road where Dollar General is going to be, that's not going to  
be blocked off.  
MS. LOE: So they're going to go through the neighbors' yards --  
MS. EDWARDS: Which will also, with the backside is the only thing that's covered  
now, but we have that side on St. Charles Rock[sic] Road which they're going to walk  
through. So they’ll get the edge of it, but it's still -- you should be able to be comfortable  
and safe in your own backyard.  
MS. LOE: I'm going to go to Commissioner Placier, and then Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. PLACIER: Yeah. Just a point of clarification. As the staff report pointed out,  
these three property owners there, those three lots, back in 2013 elected to be annexed  
to the City with the zoning -- of commercial zoning.  
MS. EDWARDS: Right.  
MS. PLACIER: C zoning. And so a lot of very intensive commercial uses could go  
into that --  
MS. EDWARDS: I understand that.  
MS. PLACIER: -- including Dollar General. It's -- this one has started right next to  
you. I think that somebody remarked last time that their plan was to go together as all  
three and plan something bigger, but that never has -- obviously, these three property  
owners saw an -- that this was becoming a more commercial area, and that they would  
plan for that or -- but that has not happened since 2013, so everybody was kind of  
thinking that this is residential.  
MS. EDWARDS: In 2013, we did not get a notification. I mean, I double-checked.  
He didn't get notified in 2013, so it was all new when this just actually started happening.  
MS. PLACIER: That's interesting. I don't know what the -- what the notification  
possibilities or requirements are if someone has not asked to be voluntarily annexed to  
the City, and then I don't know what happened with the rezoning at that time. So that  
would have to be somebody who was here in 2013 who could answer that question, but  
this has been like a train that was coming down the tracks, but now it's here and --  
MS. EDWARDS: Yeah. Correct.  
MS. PLACIER: -- and you and the County are surrounding our being affected by it.  
MS. EDWARDS: Yeah.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: Thank you. So Commissioner Placier hit the nail on the head here,  
and that is that this parcel of land has a statement of intent that's already approved for a  
commercial use. We can't do much about that.  
MS. EDWARDS: I understand.  
MS. CARROLL: What I'm looking for is what type of site plans could you be happy  
with that would make you more comfortable, because I can say that I have not seen a lot  
of applicants make changes that are this beneficial to neighbors, and I'm concerned, you  
know. Commissioner Stanton suggested that you need to play a game of chess here,  
and I feel like I'm looking at a game of chess that has been well played by you all. I'm  
afraid that if you reset the chess board, you might get something that you like less, and  
this direction, even -- I have problems with the communication. I have problems with the  
communication that I've heard from the City with unanswered phone calls. But with the  
site changes, I'm seeing some good changes. I want you to get a property there that  
would benefit you.  
MS. EDWARDS: I agree.  
MS. CARROLL: I'd like to get you in that direction, so my -- the summary of all this  
still has been --  
MS. EDWARDS: I understand. I understand.  
MS. CARROLL: -- what site aspects can make you more comfortable?  
MS. EDWARDS: Okay. I understand. I just think they are doing what, you know,  
whatever they asked for our back property, but I can't say, okay, I want you to fence the  
whole around the corner of my -- that's not even in my -- my area, it's in the neighbors'  
area. So they're going to cut through.  
MS. CARROLL: Yeah.  
MS. EDWARDS: So if they block off our area, there's still an access and cut  
through, which is not going to be on my property, but it's going to be on someone else's  
property that lives next door, but mine is still on the edge. So I can't request something  
for someone else on someone else's property.  
MS. CARROLL: Yeah.  
MS EDWARDS: I can't.  
MS. CARROLL: That is understandable.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: I’m about solutions. We've got to get to a solution here. Eight foot  
is what they're going to propose. You guys want ten. If they pull out of the game, they  
could do whatever. You guys are at the table now; you get what I'm saying? They can  
pull out of here and you wouldn't get anything, zero. They could put a strip club right  
there; do you hear where I'm coming from?  
MS. EDWARDS: Oh, I agree. They can put anything they want to there.  
MR. STANTON: You guys are at the table, and this is what they've got.  
MS. EDWARDS: Right.  
MR. STANTON: Eight-foot fence all the way around this way. Push too much, they  
jump out of the game, you get zero.  
MS. EDWARDS: I'll let him speak.  
MS. CARROLL: Thank you, guys, very much.  
MR. STANTON: Okay.  
MR. KEMP: Greg Kemp, 1306 Lake of the Woods. You say this is negotiation. So  
these are the Dollar General guys, so I can look at these guys and they can tell me  
they're going to give me my -- my -- are you all going to give me my fence?  
MS. LOE: Sir, I'm sorry. We can't do negotiation on the floor here.  
MR. KEMP: Oh. Oh. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.  
MS. LOE: You can -- you can give us your comments at the podium.  
MR. KEMP: I'm thought we’re going to handle it now.  
MR. STANTON: This should have been happening before we got here, is kind of  
where I was at.  
MR. KEMP: Okay.  
MR. STANTON: But they agreed to eight. Better than nothing. After this, maybe  
you can discuss. I'm really --  
MR. KEMP: I need to know what I'm getting at my -- what eight am I getting?  
MR. STANTON: Along that fence line, you see --  
MR. KEMP: I want -- I want -- I want everything to correspond with what I've got. So,  
basically, what I need, I need it to go to the fence line, and I need it to turn the corner,  
and butt up to my shop, and I'm totally secure like I am now.  
MS. LOE: All right.  
MR. KEMP: There's trees and woods and everything on the back half, and then I had  
to put a fence up to cut people off from cutting through.  
MS. LOE: Okay. So we have the plans of what they're proposing. If there's anything  
specific -- you've identified you would prefer a higher fence. Is there anything else  
MR. KEMP: Just -- just -- just to cut the corner so everything blends in together.  
And the corner will be -- I don't know. We need the other picture up on my property so  
you can see where the corner cut -- can you zoom me in?  
MS. LOE: You mean the southeast corner?  
MR. KEMP: That -- you see the back -- you see the back corner. You see that  
road, and you see the Lake of the Woods -- yeah, that road there, well see, there's a  
short little -- where he's at right now, there's a short little fence right there that goes to the  
back of my shop. And I would like it all to be --  
MS. LOE: Beyond their property?  
MR. KEMP: Yes. It just cuts like this, because most of it there is their property,  
then it's just a short fence right there with a gate in it, you know. I just want everything  
the same.  
MS. LOE: All right. Any -- any other comments?  
MR. KEMP: No. I mean, if I'm going to have to negotiate with -- I guess I'm going to  
have to sit down and talk to -- to these guys over here, you know.  
MS. LOE: I think talking to them is where we're at. Yeah.  
MR. MACMANN: If I may redirect?  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you, ma'am. Two things. You have other neighbors who  
need to speak. I think we can let them speak. And after we're done here, whatever we  
do, say we were to pass this, in that case, it does go to Council.  
MR. KEMP: Uh-huh.  
MR. MACMANN: Okay? And then they approve it. The reason I mention that is  
if this does go that far, you all could talk to Council, and this would be in Councilperson  
Skala's ward; would that be correct, Mr. Smith? That would -- it's in three?  
MR. SMITH: Restate, please?  
MR. MACMANN: Were this to go to Council, this property currently sits in the Third  
Ward; is that a correct statement? I think that's where --  
MR. SMITH: I think that is correct, yes.  
MR. MACMANN: Okay. If we get that far, that's where you all would go next time,  
just to let you know. This is not your last bite at the apple. This is your biggest bit at the  
apple because Council directs us to do -- to go down the rabbit hole to talk about your  
fence height, to talk about the distance, the things, want to talk about the phone calls to  
ask these gentlemen to do different things. We do that dirty work, not that it can't be  
done up there, but this is everyone's opportunity to express the depth and breadth of their  
concerns and their needs. I'm just letting you know that there's another step after this.  
So I'd like to hear from the rest of the neighbors and see what they think.  
MS. LOE: Yes. Yes.  
MR. KEMP: I would too.  
MS. LOE: Yes.  
MR. KEMP: Thank you. Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Thank you.  
MR. YOUNG: Hello. My name is Bruce Young; I live at 1550 -- 1551 North Lake of  
the Woods Road just right up the street from this. I testified -- I didn't even know about  
this hearing tonight. I came on behalf of Giving Gardens, and the other -- what we just  
were on a few minutes ago, so I knew nothing about this hearing tonight. Anyway, my  
biggest opposition to this is its Battle High School. If you come there at 4:00 in the  
afternoon when school is in session, there are cars backed up as far as the eye can see.  
I mean, more than probably three-quarters of a mile long, high -- high school kids trying to  
get through that turnaround. I just think having a store right at that intersection when we  
just had a Schnuck's just less than a football field away, a huge mega-store put in, why  
do we need a Dollar General? Again, my biggest concern is, you know, I'm sitting at that  
turnaround for a long time waiting for those high school kids to get through there. And,  
again, we're talking about high school kids. I see it as a safety issue more than  
anything. You know, those high school kids are wanting to get out and get going. That  
turnaround is just -- boy, putting that -- that Dollar General there, I just -- I think it's a  
safety issue. That's my biggest concern.  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Young. Mr. MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Just real quickly. Bruce, I didn't recognize you with your mask on.  
Good to see you again after 30 --  
MR. YOUNG: I've aged a little bit.  
MR. MACMANN: No. No. You look just the same. Thank you for your input. Just  
to let you know, anybody within 185 feet, so if you're beyond 185 feet, which is not very  
far, you wouldn't have received a notification.  
MR. YOUNG: Right. Okay. But, again, I did see the sign, but it didn't have a date  
or anything on it, so I had no idea this was tonight, so --  
MR. MACMANN: And I will continue to address that. Usually when we do, like,  
demolitions, there is a notice, you know, with a date on it.  
MR. YOUNG: Right.  
MR. MACMANN: There needs to be some more information so people understand  
what's going on, and I'm glad that the other gentleman brought that up.  
MR. YOUNG: And I will tell you someone did call me. I don't know if it was one of  
these gentlemen or not, and I expressed this very same thing to them.  
MR. MACMANN: Thanks, Bruce.  
MS. LOE: This comment did come up at the last hearing. And just so you're aware,  
this is much smaller square footage than what could go on this site, so that's one of the  
reasons we're actually more supportive of it because of the very reasons you're talking  
MR. YOUNG: Again, all I say is just consider when I look at the line of cars that  
literally go back --  
MS. LOE: Understood. So when we're -- when we're considering, though -- this is  
zoned commercial, and the list of things that could go here is extensive, as well as the  
size. So this is a much smaller use that what could go on this site.  
MR. YOUNG: Again, my biggest thing is the safety issue with these high school  
MS. LOE: Yeah. We understand.  
MR. YOUNG: That's my biggest concern.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Any additional comments?  
MS. ALLEN: Hi, there. I'm JoAnn Allen; I live at 5813 East St. Charles Road. I think  
I told you the last time when that was proposed for all three owners to go together, the  
LLC dissolved. At that point, everybody was free to do whatever. So that's why that lot is  
sitting there with a potential sale. My concern, as Mr. Kemp's is, traffic through. When  
they built the Petro Mart and some of those other -- the Sonic over there, I had kids  
cutting through all the time. I think we've got an older group now, because I haven't -- I --  
or they're going a different way, but I know that we're going to get a lot of traffic from  
behind us and to the west of us cutting through, because who wants to walk all the way  
down and around when they can half that distance. And as Kemps, I've got grandchildren  
out there playing -- four-year-olds. I have enlisted an attorney to deal with Dollar General  
because I didn't realize until this came up with this proposal that when it was originally  
the three lots, we had two accesses. And with that one lot selling now, it gives me no  
ingress and egress if my lot would sell to somebody, so I have to work with one side or  
the other or my lot will be locked out. So that's -- I haven't resolved anything with Dollar  
General. It's been in an attorney's hands, and I'm not sure exactly where that is. I  
haven't had any contact from them. The other thing that was brought up the last time  
was the signage, and I didn't see that that was addressed in your report. And I think  
that's about all I have to say.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: I actually had a question for staff, but I want to ask you a question,  
as well. You're talking about the height of the illuminated sign?  
MS. ALLEN: Yes. That was brought up. They -- they have different signage. I've  
noticed that some of them are great big, some of them are not too big, some of them are  
high, some of them are not so high.  
MS. CARROLL: Would you be able to clarify again, and I know you did at the  
meeting a month ago, which -- which property was yours?  
MS. ALLEN: I'm in the middle.  
MS. CARROLL: You're the middle one, so you're between two PD.  
MS. ALLEN: Yeah. Right.  
MS. CARROLL: I believe your property is also zoned PD. That's what it says on  
City View.  
MS. ALLEN: It is. The three -- the three of us, and it was to be one big parcel, but  
then the -- it was, I think, a five-year duration or a seven-year duration. It expired. Joe  
wanted to sell, and so he's had his listed, and so has Robyn. I'm not in a hurry, but --  
MS. CARROLL: Do you all have the same statement of intent? Are the SOIs listed  
from all three properties the same, or are there different statements of intent?  
MR. KELLEY: Yes. A statement of intent -- sorry. Not to interrupt you, ma'am.  
The statement of intent was for all three properties.  
MS. CARROLL: That's what I thought.  
MR. KELLEY: They were all zoned at the same time, so it applies to all three.  
MS. CARROLL: That was going to be my question for staff if all three properties had  
the same statement of intents.  
MS. ALLEN: Right.  
MS. CARROLL: Interesting. So the drive is leading up to your property? The shared  
drive is leading up to your property?  
MS. ALLEN: Right. Yes.  
MS. CARROLL: How do you -- how do you feel about that shared drive?  
MS. ALLEN: Well, I think that is in the event that I sell, there is an egress and  
ingress to -- to my lot.  
MS. CARROLL: Right.  
MS. ALLEN: I don't think -- I haven't heard that they're putting anything in there at  
this time, so I would like the fence along there. I think it's in the future -- for the future  
that there will be an easement through there to my lot.  
MS. CARROLL: Right. But it's a future that you --  
MS. ALLEN: Yeah. In the event that I would sell. Nobody is going to want to buy it  
if they can't get in and out, so -- and there's the option that I could do the same thing with  
the other property, but that one is not for sale, so I am -- you know.  
MS. CARROLL: Do you live at this residence or is it a property that you have?  
MS. ALLEN: My property? I live there.  
MS. CARROLL: Okay. Yeah. Just clarifying.  
MS. ALLEN: Yes. Yes. I'm not real happy with the store next door, but I really feel  
sorry for some of these people, like, over on the east side, on the south side, Mr. Kemp's  
property, that one house is -- their house is probably ten feet to the fence line, so they're  
going to be right on top of them.  
MS. CARROLL: Okay.  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions for this speaker? I see none at this time.  
MS. WILSON: I do. I’m sorry. I do.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: Thank you. When -- and you may not recall, but when you all  
originally approached the City to do the zoning, what did you have in mind? What was  
your thought process?  
MS. ALLEN: Well, I -- in my mind, we wanted something that was nice that was  
going to be an asset to the -- you know, that wouldn't really disrupt everything else, but  
we were told that that area was going to develop, they were putting that bypass through,  
that it was all going to be eventually commercial, and both of the parties on either side of  
me were anxious to sell, and they thought that they could -- that since it sounded like it  
was going to be commercially developed, that they wanted to go ahead and do it. Well,  
we did it, but nothing happened. So here we are with -- sitting with commercial property.  
MS. WILSON: Thank you.  
MS. ALLEN: But I -- I think -- I don't know whether we -- that zoning is for  
multi-family, but if they had put one of those senior facilities or something like that in  
there that, you know, would be quiet, would have a small population, pretty stable,  
something like that would have been great in there, and the seven acres would have  
allowed for that, too. Some sort of a medical facility where there is not a lot of traffic in  
and out, but something that was not -- not a Dollar General. Sorry.  
MS. WILSON: Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions for this speaker. Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: Yes. Mr. Kemp suggested the possibility for preventing the  
walk-through traffic. Do you have any suggestions for preventing people from walking  
from behind your property through --  
MS. ALLEN: Well, other than having to put up a fence, no. There isn't, really, and if  
it was put up to the back, they'd just go to the next lot, which is empty, and cut through  
there. So I've got to go around both sides, the two -- the north side and the west side.  
I'm going to have to fence that; otherwise, I will be having people cutting through.  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions for this speaker? I see none at this time. Thank  
you, Ms. Allen.  
MS. ALLEN: Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Any additional speakers on this case?  
MS. NICHOLS: Good evening. My name is Karen Nichols; I live at 1580 Lakewood.  
My property does not back up to this. I did receive a call last week from a gentleman  
named Mario. I had a very, very good conversation with him, very polite gentleman, and I  
expressed my concerns. We had a very good call. And I told him, I said when the  
Schnuck's was going in, I was so happy it was going to increase my property value. And  
I said now you have just negated that. But my main concerns was safety. I am thrilled  
that they're going to do a sidewalk. Here's what I see happening. That line at -- did  
anybody do a study to look at the traffic during the school year at the cars coming out of  
there? I have sat for 15, 20 minutes waiting to get out, and it's a real thing. I can see  
somebody coming trying to get out of Dollar General being very impatient and aggressive  
driver, and somebody is going to get t-boned. Somebody is going to get killed is my fear.  
You know, I'm thrilled for the pedestrians, for the bicyclists for the sidewalk, but I am  
extremely concerned that with aggressive drivers, people -- they don't want to sit for 15  
minutes to get out of the Dollar General parking lot. And so I was just curious, was any  
kind of study ever done at the traffic congestion during the school year?  
MS. LOE? Mr. Smith or Mr. Kelley, is that something you can help us with?  
MR. KELLEY: Sure. So the traffic engineer did review the plan, did review the  
access, which is the -- one of the main points here, so the access point was reviewed in  
relation to the roundabouts. They reviewed distance from driveway to leg of the  
roundabout. Being specific to a traffic study, a traffic study would only be required if the  
store would generate a certain number of peak trips -- or a certain number of trips in the  
peak hour, and this didn't cross this threshold given the small scale of the store, so a  
traffic study wasn't required.  
MS. NICHOLS: Okay. So that's where I'm coming from. That's my main concern is  
for these high school students, and the shoppers pulling out of there because they're not  
going to be patient and wait 15, 20 minutes like I do. They're going to gun it to get out of  
that parking lot, and we have high school kids that -- you know, and not even just high  
school, but that's my concern is somebody is going to get t-boned there. You know,  
that's where my concern lies.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: Yes. Just -- I just was noticing -- I should have noticed before that  
this is -- will be just to the right after people come out of that roundabout. Have you  
noticed any patterns of people coming around the roundabout? They're supposed to, you  
know --  
MS. NICHOLS: Have you driven in any of the roundabouts? I actually live next to the  
first roundabout is where I live.  
MS. PLACIER: Yeah.  
MS. NICHOLS: And that's where I sit trying to get out coming of Lakewood Drive.  
When that school traffic is coming through, that -- I've sat trying to get off of my street 15  
to 20 minutes. They do not slow down. They do not stop. They do not yield to anybody.  
They get that line of traffic there, you know, nose to butt, and they keep it like that where  
no one can get out. And there's going to be people who are not going to be patient and  
wait, you know. We can't maybe change that; we can't fix people. I just know it's an  
accident waiting to happen, and I can see a situation where we've got so many accidents  
that happen, now the City is like, oh, maybe we should put a yield sign at that railroad  
track, or whatever, you know. But then we're looking at hindsight regretting that we didn't  
put the foresight into maybe looking harder at that, and that's why I wanted to know if  
there was a study done to see how much traffic comes through there during the school  
year. I know the summertime is not a problem, but during that school year, it is heavy --  
very heavy.  
MS. LOE: So just to follow up, Mr. Kelley, you said the traffic from the store didn't  
prompt a traffic study because the size of the store. Correct?  
MR. KELLEY: Right. Which would -- you would use that to derive the peak trip  
MS. LOE: But do we have a traffic study on St. Charles?  
MR. KELLEY: I -- I don't know the -- for that specifically.  
MS. LOE: Because I believe that's actually what we're hearing is that the traffic on  
St. Charles is heavy enough currently that simply adding any traffic to it, so -- and I  
understand what you're saying, but I'm wondering if we're just look at it --  
MR. KELLEY: Yeah. So I understand your question. Unfortunately, I don't know the  
answer to what study we have specifically for this segment of St. Charles.  
MS. LOE: So if we could just make a note of that, because I do -- I question when  
we require traffic studies, too, and sometimes --  
MS. NICHOLS: You know, maybe the questions could be placed --  
MS. LOE: We do go through it and -- right. And we're approving projects --  
MS. NICHOLS: The Battle High School, how many of your students have parking  
permits? How many students are driving?  
MS. LOE: And I think it would be good to note that we're getting comments on traffic  
on the street, plus I would like to note that this change of zoning on the 2013 property  
was done prior to the high school opening. So we're -- we're potentially approving a use  
on something that has changed the circumstances in the region of change since that  
time. So it's giving me some pause. I'm going to go Commissioner MacMann, and then  
Commissioner Wilson.  
MR. MACMANN: I have a real quick -- just real quick. the most recent traffic study,  
if one was done, would either be Battle or Schnuck's. Schnuck's might have been big  
enough to trigger, and that would be the closest, most accurate traffic study. I will use  
this moment to share your concerns. If you don't mind, I'm going to piggyback on where  
you are. We get a traffic study, and it's peaked out -- and that's split out over a period of  
time. As you know this town is very student centric. We have peak periods like Battle  
letting out or the University, you know, where we might have 1,000 cars in 20 minutes,  
and that's not often well captured in a traffic study, particularly if the traffic study is done  
when those kids aren't in. You know, a July traffic study is not comparable to a  
November or if you have a football game or something like that. So looking more  
granularly at the data would be great, but just, I would think, Commissioner Loe, is that  
Schnuck's might have triggered one and Battle certainly did trigger one, but at the same  
time, when both -- well, particularly when Battle was built, this was a very different when  
we first approved Battle. It's changed significantly. Thank you for your time.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: My statement is akin to -- to the statements that have been made  
about the study. What I'm concerned about also is that the roundabout was not there  
when this property was zoned, and that's going to make a difference when people are  
coming off of the property and from the roundabout. So, yeah. It may not necessarily  
trigger a study because of the size of the store, but some things are just common sense.  
That's going to cause a problem. Right? Coming off of that roundabout and coming out  
of the store, that's -- that's going to be problematic.  
MS. NICHOLS: And many people do, they gun it through the roundabouts. I see it  
in every roundabout around town, you know. They don't yield, they gun it so they can  
hurry up and get through, and somebody is going to get hit, you know. I'm thrilled for the  
pedestrians that there's wanting to build a sidewalk. I just don't know what's going to  
happen when a high school student t-bones somebody and kills them.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: Is staff able to tell us when the roundabouts were installed, what  
year, generally?  
MR. KELLEY: I can't pinpoint it exactly with what I have in front of me, but I can tell  
you the zoning occurred in 2013, and we have aerials from 2017 and both roundabouts  
are there, so I would -- in the four-year span, I would say that those roundabouts were  
probably known were going to be constructed when this was zoned at the very least. So  
-- and, you know, if we're drawing comparisons to the Schnuck's down the road, it, too,  
has consolidated access points along St. Charles or on Clark Lane at that location,  
which is probably generating a lot more traffic than these three parcels would in the  
future. We do look at consolidated access points for these locations, and this one, some  
of those provisions that they put in at that time was to combine accesses, so two  
maximum. And that is meant to consolidate those conflict points so that you don't have  
multiple driveways along that where you do have accident potential. That is actually  
consistent with what our current regulations are where you have to have at least 300 feet  
of frontage along an arterial to get a driveway, or else you will be sharing. So they did  
have some foresight at that time to limit it to the two access points. Would it be ideally if  
this could move a little further from that roundabout? Potentially. But the traffic engineer  
did review it and didn't seem to think there were issues at that point in time. A traffic  
study generally in these situations is -- is going to -- is going to look at that peak hour.  
It's going to look at the intersections around it. I think the better data here is just the  
current traffic volume on St. Charles, and I'm not sure what level you would have to get to  
-- to say that a commercial driveway is not warranted along an arterial street, so  
especially a site that doesn't have any other means of access.  
MS. NICHOLS: That's what I'm saying, and this time of year is not indicative -- does  
not indicate what the traffic is like. If somebody were to call Battle and ask them how  
many students do you give permits that are driving to school every day, that tells you,  
you know, at 4:00, them and the school buses, how many are trying to come through.  
And what's the chance that we have an emergency right across the street at the  
firehouse and they're trying to get out at the same time?  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions for this speaker? Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. NICHOLS: Karen.  
MS. CARROLL: Thanks, Karen. She was calling on me. I'm Commissioner Carroll.  
With her mask on, I couldn't see who was talking.  
MS. LOE: That's a common problem here.  
MS. CARROLL: So what I wanted to ask you is very similar to the question that I  
asked the previous neighbors, and that's that given that this is site approved already for a  
commercial use and that another commercial use -- a commercial use of some kind is  
likely to go in here, what kind of site features could possibly address your concerns with  
traffic. I find it hard to believe that there would be no driveway there for a commercial use  
of some kind. How -- how can those concerns be addressed?  
MS. NICHOLS: And I don't have an answer for that. You know, I said my property  
doesn't back up to it, so I don't have the issue, you know. I still believe we'll have  
littering, and people walking through, but, you know, my issue is the safety. I mean, do  
you take out a roundabout and put in a light? I don't know. I don't know. That's a huge  
expense on the City --  
MS. CARROLL: Yeah.  
MS. NICHOLS: -- and I don't know what the answer is. I just -- I can just foresee  
it. I've had a very close family member was t-boned, and I know it can happen, and I just  
-- I do believe at some point, it's going to happen, and probably more than once.  
MS. CARROLL: Yeah. I understand. It's not your job to solve those problems, but  
I've got to ask if there is a route.  
MS. NICHOLS: Yeah. I don’t know what the answer is. Answers don't build it, and  
we're happy, but I understand something else could go there, yeah. You know, my  
concern is -- I mean, how is a high school kid going to live with that the rest of their life if  
they t-bone somebody and kill them? You know, and they have to live with that forever,  
you know, so anyway.  
MS. CARROLL: Yeah. Thanks.  
MS. NICHOLS: You're welcome.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Any additional speakers on this case?  
MR. NORMAN: (Inaudible) -- 5909 East St. Charles Road.  
MR. KELLEY: Real quick, sir, if you could lean into the mike. Thank you.  
MR. NORMAN: I don't know. My concern is basically the same --  
MS. LOE: Mr. Norman, can you repeat your name and address? Sorry.  
MR. NORMAL: Oh. It's James Norman, 5909 East St. Charles Road. My concerns  
are still the same, I guess, no matter what happens or whatever, just whatever  
constructions goes there pretty much just could tear my foundation even more, I guess,  
or whatever, which would cause me to -- conflict between me and whoever is going to be  
putting a business there. There's trees that leans over. When the wind blows, I'm afraid  
they're going to fall on my property. The construction working there, I'm afraid it could  
cause a conflict between me and them. The fence line, I believe, has a gas line and stuff  
running across of it. I'm afraid that if they do hit it or something, that it might cause me  
money or it would cause another conflict between me and them. Far as -- so this PD  
thing, that's just for the three properties; right? It doesn't include mine or the neighbor  
behind me or aside of me at all?  
MS. LOE: Correct.  
MR. NORMAN: Okay.  
MS. LOE: Just those properties are zoned PD.  
MR. NORMAN: Okay. But, yeah, that's my big concern, is just that something  
could devalue my property, I guess, from the construction -- (inaudible). Appreciate it,  
though. Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Any questions? Mr. Norman, one question.  
MR. MACMANN: I do not have a question for Mr. Norman.  
MS. LOE: Oh.  
MR. MACMANN: Our recorder is having a very difficult time, and we're trying to get  
your -- and we're trying not to interrupt you or them. It's just a reminder we could be --  
MS. LOE: Is it volume?  
MR. MACMANN: Folks, if we could be closer to the mic and have it up to your face  
and speak close to it, that would be awesome.  
MR. RAUCH: Randall Rauch at 8020 Payette Drive. I agree with this group of people  
who have talked. The traffic on St. Charles Road at 4:00 in the afternoon is terrible. It's  
not like Schnuck's where you have a divided highway both sides of Schnuck's. This is a  
two-lane highway, just two lanes. If you really want to see what it's like, go down there in  
September at 4:00 in the afternoon and stand there and watch. It's going to be a big  
problem. It's a safety problem, guarantee you. That's what I've got to say.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? I see none. Thank you.  
MR. RAUCH: Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Any additional speakers on this case? If there are none, we will close the  
public hearing.  
MS. LOE: Commission discussion? Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: So I am deeply disturbed by the lack of notification. I am also -- you  
know, I -- it's not lost on me that this property is zoned commercial and there's already  
approvals. However, I think without the notification and the opportunity to discuss  
between the property owners and Dollar General that we don't even have a chance to  
come up with ways to solve some of the concerns. And so my request is that we table  
this to give that opportunity for Dollar General to do their due diligence, and the City to  
also maybe come back around and try to give some alertness so that people can have  
more discussion about this topic.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Kimbell?  
MS. KIMBELL: I understand that it's commercial and there's going to be traffic  
issues. I understand that. And it doesn't matter what type of business, I think, goes in  
there, my -- what I've gathered from design. My question is for the applicant, why -- why  
the need for another Dollar General store, even though it's a smaller footprint, in that  
particular area?  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Demographic studies, income, activism in your neighborhood, that's  
why certain stores are where they are. They want it there because of what you guys  
make, how much your property value is, and all that goes into a -- into an algorithm and  
they spit out potential spots to put stores. That’s why we’ve got a Raising Cane's down  
here, and you all don't. Why you guys have got -- what's out there -- why you've got a  
Sonic and why you don't have a Culver's. Demographic studies. That's the way of life.  
That's how it goes. Play chess.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: I would be supportive of Commissioner Wilson's concept of us  
tabling it, not them. Not them, but us tabling it to address these specific issues. I am  
very concerned about the communication aspect, not just from the agent's perspective,  
but the City's perspective. We seem to have in this room at this time the relevant parties,  
and they could exchange numbers and have a fruitful conversation if we were to table this  
to date certain, say 30 days hence. So I think if you want to talk about that, that's --  
that's fine, but I'm willing to make that motion.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: I don't know if it would do any good. I think Dollar General has got  
some kind of feedback. I don't know if it just came from the site guy. I don't feel like they  
-- at the end of the last meeting, I was convinced and probably bamboozled that the guy  
that was here representing Dollar General and the neighbors exchanged numbers. I  
thought there was going to be an active discussion not a week before they got here. I  
really thought that -- I felt -- I was maybe bamboozled, that that conversation would be  
over a period of time, not right before the meeting. That's what I thought. There has been  
changes. They have made accommodations. They have -- they have proposed some  
sidewalk that is badly needed there. I don't think that Dollar General is going to budge  
much more than they have. And I don't know if tabling is going to do anything -- anything  
better. I don't think that Dollar General is going to reach out and discuss or have any  
more conversations than they've had, and if they do, they'll just wait a week before we  
come back here, and I hate being bamboozled. I just really do. It gets under my skin.  
So I don't know if it's going to work. I think we need to go up and down and vote. They  
live or die on the vote.  
MR. MACMANN: I'd like to redirect, Madam Chair, if that's possible. I agree with  
your perspective, Commissioner Stanton. And just so you all know, often, we only have  
one tabling on something, and often that usually reach -- it allows the parties -- everybody  
comes and they see each other, and they go, hey, we didn't mean this, or we really want  
this, and they get that together. It is uncommon after a tabling that something comes  
back to us and still remains after one hour and 20 minutes at an impasse where people  
are not happy. I don't necessarily -- it may or may not have been -- let me just put it this  
way. It would seem to me that communication on a variety of levels, be it the City, and  
other parties, were not what then needed to be. And I would -- I am always an individual,  
and I see your point about say yea or nay and let them fight it out. I would like  
engagement to have another opportunity. If we say yes to the applicant, it goes to  
Council and it has our seal of approval. If we say no, it may go back to square one, it  
may not. I don't know. And I wanted to put that forward. Commissioner Wilson  
mentioned this to me, and I -- I think it has some validity. And it has more validity -- I'm  
normally like you, Commissioner Stanton. I'm, like, you know, we already gave them 30  
days, or however much time we gave them.  
MS. LOE: Six weeks.  
MR. MACMANN: Six weeks. It seems a little late to be -- I'm -- I'm disappointed  
they couldn't reach anyone, or I'm disappointed of their discussions. And regardless of  
whether it's fruitful and good or not, didn't really start until a week-ish ago. That's -- that's  
problematic to me.  
MS. LOE: I agree there's been communication issues. I guess my thought is that  
I'm not hearing so much that there's still items to be negotiated as they're simply not  
happy with what's going in and the traffic. And I understand those, but I'm not sure those  
can be negotiated away. So I'm not sure tabling this is going to achieve anything.  
Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: I would be inclined to vote to approve a tabling. I don't want to be  
here another time. We're having a conversation that is substantively similar to the  
conversation we had last time, and we voted to table that. I -- I'm with Commissioner  
Loe. There seemed to be impasses. If wonder if Council is the next decision body for  
this. I do not want to see it on the consent agenda because I think it's controversial  
enough that it should not end up on the consent agenda, so if this vote goes in this way  
and it ends up on the consent agenda, I would suggest that we have a second vote to  
remove it from the consent agenda.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Placier, then Stanton, then Wilson.  
MS. PLACIER: Well, typically, when there is a conflict like this, in many other  
venues, it would be the possibility of mediation. I don't know if the City is the correct  
party to do a mediation, but -- and I don't know if this has happened on P & Z before, but I  
don't know that -- well, I don't want to impugn anybody's skills, but I don't know that Dollar  
General has -- let's say just the need to pursue an authentic kind of conflict mediation  
process, if they can just power through and maybe get what they want anyhow from  
Council. But, you know, I'm always eternally hopeful in thinking if we did have the tabling,  
maybe that would open up that possibility because just going back and doing nothing  
until the final week, you know, that is not going to -- that's not going to do any good.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: I have no faith in the negotiation of Dollar General with the  
neighborhood. We gave you six weeks. Waited till the last week or two to really get  
down to the nitty-gritty, and we spent two hours the last time talking about this, and it  
was heated, heavy communication between the community and the entity, and you  
waited a week before you got here to talk about it. I have no faith that there will be any --  
any leeway or anything changed, no faith in that discussion. But I will say this. Dollar  
General did make some good accommodations here, and the bottom line is I think that  
the neighbors that are here are the most active, don't want it anyway. So I don't know if  
there's much we could keep negotiating. I mean, the ten-foot fence thing, I don't know if it  
was discussed before tonight. That definitely should have been a discussion happening  
more than a week ago, but this is a business. They're going to do what they can  
financially do. That's the bottom line. It's a business, and if somebody came to my --  
you know, put yourself in their shoes and kind of come up with a compromise, but play  
your cards, your chess moves right. So I have no faith in Dollar General's negotiating  
anything more. They gave some accommodations here. Most people that are here don't  
want it anyway. I still agree with an up or down vote, and the citizens that have  
problems, I think they need to -- even though I have no faith -- go back and talk to these  
guys before it goes to Council. You have Council again. This is more technical. Council  
is more political. You have one more shot at getting what you need or eliminating the  
project altogether. But I just want to up or down vote it and let -- and go from there.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: Thank you. So the fundamental problem that I have here is that I am  
eternally hopeful, and I do think that Dollar General does want to be a good neighbor,  
hence the changes that have already been put forth, which are good changes. I believe  
that people are capable of thinking things through. I used to work for IBM. Our whole  
model was think. And so people are capable of thinking things through and working with  
each other to come to a conclusion. It's not going to be perfect, but it can be better.  
And right now, I think we need better, which is the reason that I'm suggesting the tabling,  
and I am strongly urging people in this room to exchange information and talk to each  
other so that we don't come back here and spend another two hours of our time at a  
place where we all are feeling like we're at an impasse. I believe in you. You can do it.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann, I'm going to go to Mr. Smith first, and then we'll  
come back to you.  
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Ms. Chair. I just want to say that, you know, given the  
communication feedback here, if there is something at issue with the phone number, we  
will look into that, and if there was an issue, we -- we do sincerely apologize about that.  
In the meantime, just while we have people in the room, Mr. Palmer is the project  
manager on that -- Rusty Palmer, so I've got his contact information directly here. So I'll  
leave that with Mr. Teddy. If you want to come up, take a picture of that. If you received  
the property owner letter, this should have been out recently, his contact information was  
on that letter, as well, but if you weren't within that 185 feet, if you weren't part of, I think  
it's 14 individuals that were within that area that was notified, you can get his contact  
information here. I would use this contact instead of the one on the sign, which I do know  
we've had issues. I think we're on sign number two. The first one mysteriously  
disappeared, so we'll go out to make sure the second one is still there, as well. And we  
did re-advertise a second time for this meeting, given the length of time it was tabled.  
Typically, we don't unless it goes beyond two months, but we felt in this situation  
property owner letters and advertising in the paper was due again, so we have  
re-advertised this one specifically. So I'll leave this with Mr. Teddy in case anybody  
wants contact information.  
MS. LOE: Mr. Smith, while we have you on the microphone, can you remind me of  
the ramifications if the Commission tables versus if the applicant tables?  
MR. SMITH: Yeah. Generally, the Commission can choose to table it beyond two  
months. That is their prerogative. Generally, the limitations on two meetings or two  
months is if the applicant is seeking that. If the Commission is the one initiating the  
tabling, you can go beyond that. Since we have re-advertised, there really isn't an issue  
there. Either generally are policies if it goes beyond that two months, we're going to  
re-advertise, but we already did it for this one.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: I'll try to make this all as quick as I can. To Commissioner  
Stanton's point and to Commissioner Wilson's point, I think somewhat, we have the well  
poisoned already. I'm going to point out a couple of developers -- agents who use a  
different technique. They reach out early and often, and they get what they need  
because they've reached out early on. And I'm not -- this is not a commercial for the  
names I'm about to mention, but it's just a way of doing business. Mr. Ott and Mr.  
Crockett will go to the neighborhoods and the neighbors early, and say, hey, this is what  
we want to do. This is what we're going to do. We're to a point now where we have some  
mistrust issues, and those are really hard to overcome. I'm going to set that aside for the  
moment. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for agreeing to address those communication issues on  
the City's part, and I will apologize to the neighbors that our aspect of the communication  
was not held up. Now I have two suggestions. I suggest we move forward. I'll make a  
motion to table, and then we go from there. And if that does not pass, I can make a  
motion up or down on the applicant's request. Is everyone copacetic with that course of  
action? That -- I'm seeing nods. With that being said, Madam Chair, I wish to make a  
motion. In the matter of Case 140-2022, I am thinking forward here, I move to table to  
date certain, that would be 30 days hence, Mr. Smith. What's that day for that  
MR. SMITH: That would be --  
MR. KELLEY: July 21st.  
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Kelley. July 21st.  
MR. MACMANN: I'm sorry?  
MR. SMITH: July 21.  
MR. MACMANN: July -- to date certain, 21 July 2022, I so move. Do I have a  
MS. WILSON: Second.  
MS. LOE: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by Commissioner Wilson.  
We have a motion for tabling on the floor. Any discussion on this motion?  
Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: If I would be out of line just to get right to the nitty-gritty and ask if  
Dollar General is willing to even negotiate any further, or are we wasting our time?  
MS. LOE: We have to open up public hearing and all that good stuff, so no. We're in  
the middle of a motion right now.  
MR. STANTON: Okay.  
MS. LOE: You're wasting your time.  
MR. STANTON: Yeah.  
MS. LOE: All right. Any other discussion? If not, Commissioner Carroll, may we  
have roll call, please.  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.  
MacMann, Ms. Placier, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Loe. Voting No: Mr.  
Stanton, Ms. Kimbell. Motion carries 5-2.  
MS. CARROLL: We have five yeses and two nos. The motion carries.  
MR. MACMANN: Madam Chair, point of order?  
MS. LOE: Yes.  
MR. MACMANN: I -- may I address the crowd? I'm not going to call them up. I  
strongly suggest this is your last chance to get this right, that you all take this immediate  
moment and see what you all can do. You seem amenable. I saw you nodding. I'm  
sorry the procedure was just to go forward. Mr. Smith and Mr. Kelley have the pertinent  
phone numbers for you folks, and you all have these numbers. We have a lobby. There  
are chairs. Good luck.  
In the matter of Case 140-2022, move to table to date certain 21 July 2022  
5 - Loe, MacMann, Carroll, Placier and Wilson  
2 - Stanton and Kimbell  
2 - Burns and Geuea Jones  
Case # 164-2022  
A request by Engineering Survey and Services (agent), on behalf of  
Somerset Village Development, LLC (owner), for approval of a  
development plan and preliminary plat. The preliminary plat proposes three  
lots. The PD Plan, located on lot 2, proposes two 3-story multi-family  
structures, a community building, and associated parking. The 17.3-acre  
site is zoned Planned Development and is located northeast of the  
intersection of Battle Avenue and St. Charles Road.  
MS. LOE: A popular location this evening. May we have a staff report, please?  
Staff report was given by Mr. Brad Kelley of the Planning and Development  
Department. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and PD Plan, subject to  
technical corrections.  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Kelley. Before we move on to questions for staff, I would  
like to ask any Commissioner who has had any ex parte related to this case to please  
share that with the Commission now so all Commissioners have the benefit of the same  
information on the case in front of us. I see none. Any questions for staff:  
Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Planner Kelley, a comment and then a  
question. If you guys can pitch more landscaping and more trees for parking, you guys  
can make that swap more often, you would be rock stars. Second question, there's a  
detention basin between Lots 2 and 3. Is that to service Lots 2 and 3, or will one be able  
to service that, as well -- or need -- utilize that as its by mediation or whatever we're going  
to -- how's that -- how's that going to work?  
MR. KELLEY: I'm not certain for Lot 1, unfortunately. I believe the applicant is here  
to probably answer that in more detail.  
MR. MACMANN: Answer those questions? That's usually an engineering question,  
and we have -- we happened to have one right here. I just wanted to make sure because  
of its location, it might not be able to service Lot 1. I'll ask the engineer when he gets up  
there. Thank you.  
MR. KELLEY: While I have the mic real quick, if you don't mind me adding one thing  
I should have mentioned in my report. I did have one letter that came to me, a letter of  
opposition that was included in your packet. I just wanted to mention that as I forgot to  
state that earlier, and then I had a few general inquiries via phone call. That was it.  
Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Any additional questions for staff? Mr. Kelley, you  
mentioned that there was a few corrections on the climax forest?  
MR. KELLEY: Yes. I'm trying to find the best graphic.  
MS. LOE: Just to clarify what those corrections were?  
MR. KELLEY: Sure. So I noted in the staff report and it's noted on the preliminary  
plat that there is climax forest on site. Reviewing the definition of climax forest, and how  
the ordinance reads and treats it and its preservation, there actually isn't any climax  
forest on the site. That's because where there would be climax forest, there's actually  
the stream buffer. And because there's a stream buffer there, that sort of negates the  
climax forest because it's already being preserved. so in speaking with the arborist and  
their interpretations, since the adoption of the UDC, there isn't any climax forest on the  
site because it has to be 20,000 square feet contiguous woodland community with a  
small rectangular portion of at least 5,000 square street and outside of the stream buffer,  
there isn't that. The largest piece outside the stream buffer is about 15,000 square feet.  
MS. LOE: All right. The definition of climax forest does not exclude the area in the  
stream buffer, it's only the preservation area that excludes the stream buffer area. And  
when we wrote this in UDC, I remember this work session. It was because we didn't  
want sites that had an abundance of natural features to be able to double dip and  
eliminate, so we didn't want a site just like this one that might have a creek and might  
have forest to say, well, I'm going to choose one and not the other. So it's the  
preservation areas that need to be counted separately, but climax forest, that -- it's  
counted including the area in the stream. I mean, it runs across the whole site. So we  
look at all the forest on the site and say, yeah, this is all the forest area, but then when  
we're looking at what to preserve, we exclude the area in the stream buffer, and then look  
at what was out. So when I was looking at what they were telling us was in the  
preservation, that's where I got stuck because that included the area in the stream buffer,  
which is being preserved, but not as climax forest preservation.  
MR. KELLEY: Yeah. I'm understanding this completely. It's -- it's just not  
consistent with our interpretation from the arborist since the adoption of the UDC,  
MS. LOE: All right. As someone that wrote that part of the Code, and I have two  
other members sitting here who -- do you agree with me?  
MR. MACMANN: I will second the Chair's. We were very expressive about -- I'm  
taking your time --  
MS. LOE: Yes.  
MR. MACMANN: -- about not double-dipping, and to make sure that those  
preservation standards remain separate because one of the reasons is over time, one or  
both of them might change. So that's -- if that was the arborist's interpretation, that's  
fantastic, but the -- the framers’ intent -- and we can speak to the framers’ intent, if you  
guys want to talk about framers’ intent sometime -- thank you, Madam Chair.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. No. I wanted to run it by you two because I was sitting there  
going this is -- this is doing exactly what we were trying not to do, which was --  
MR. MACMANN: It was also related because we have other protected areas,  
particularly in the east, south of this. We have a bat preservation area or some other  
sensitive vegetation or biomass or something, not allowing those, and Mr. Teddy might  
remember, we were -- had areas outside the City that were -- that could have been  
problematic. We didn't want double and triple dipping to go on is why we kept them as  
standalones, so they'd have their own preservation standards.  
MS. LOE: So if the arborist is excluding the area in the stream buffer to begin with,  
they are by virtue creating this quandary. And if -- how it was written is setting up this  
interpretation, we need to relook at that language. And I want to say that based on the  
numbers, we should be preserving climax forest beyond the stream buffer. That said, we  
weren't given all the numbers, so I can't be really specific. I believe we should have about  
.56 acres of climax forest beyond the stream forest -- stream buffer. Now I really am  
compounding things -- screen forest buffer.  
MR. KELLEY: The arborist was interested in looking at it as a text amendment that  
kind of considering the interpretation that you're taking, because we were kind of looking  
over that, well, what's the other interpretation of that. And to make it clear, we were  
looking at the potential text amendment I think is what you're suggesting.  
MS. LOE: Well, I'm glad -- I'm glad the framers’ intention still --  
MR. MACMANN: I feel like -- like I've been talking to the Supreme Court. This is not  
-- Madam Chair, if I may. Do you want to hold -- do you want this issue now?  
MS. LOE: The only reason I'm bringing it up is because I communicated with Mr.  
Kelley about this prior to this meeting, and I'm concerned that there may be changes that  
eliminate all the preservation area outside of the stream buffer, and I just wanted to make  
sure that's not happening.  
MR. KELLEY: We -- so given the arborist's interpretation, we have suggested to the  
applicant to make technical corrections to remove the climax forest, as our interpretation  
would say that there is none because it is included in the stream buffer, and that would  
exclude the climax forest. So that is what has been relayed to the applicant at this time,  
to make that correction.  
MS. LOE: And I'm positing that this body does not agree with that.  
MR. SMITH: I think a good -- a good work around would be we'll -- we'll take this  
back. There is some technical corrections, so we can go back and confer with Mr. Teddy  
and Mr. Zenner, who was also involved with the writing, and see if -- if maybe that  
interpretation has gone askew over time, and if not, you know, it is kind of a technical  
matter at that point, if they decide that this is how we'll carry forward, then it probably  
needs to stay that way, and then we'll come back with a text amendment to clarify it.  
And if not, then they can go ahead and make those changes and still be consistent, I  
think, with what you're suggesting right now.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: And this was why I was referring to the County before. As long as  
the trees aren't cut down in the interim, then it's a moot point. That's -- that's why we --  
because I saw that too, I thought I hope Commissioner Loe brings this up, because she  
loves the rabbit holes, and that's good. That's good in this case because I think you  
expressed that really well. Some of these will be questions for the applicant. Madam  
Chair, do you wish to move on to the applicant, or do you want to address this more here,  
or what do you want to do?  
MS. LOE: I'm -- I'm -- I think I asked my question of Mr. Kelley. Any additional  
questions for staff? Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: My only question after this discussion is what would be the practical  
effect of each interpretation on the plan we're looking at?  
MS. LOE: The -- saving half an acre, another additional half-acre of trees.  
MS. PLACIER: And would that affect the -- the building plan of the applicant?  
MS. LOE: Not where they've shown it.  
MS. PLACIER: Okay.  
MS. LOE: Because the plat -- plats one and two don't currently have footprints on  
them. Any additional questions for staff? If not, we will open up the floor to public  
MS. LOE: If you can give your name and address for the record.  
MR. KRIETE: Good evening. My name is Matthew Kriete; I'm with Engineering  
Surveys and Services, offices at 1113 Fay Street, and the civil engineer on the project. I  
first want to say that -- I want to assure you that we're not here for Dollar General, despite  
what the slides say. So to address the questions first, I think that we heard. Lot 1, no  
detention is proposed for that at this point. That will come at a later date. We're -- we  
did have the opportunity to combine lots 2 and 3, and took advantage of that, but really no  
practical way to do all three at one time without utilizing the stream, which was not the  
best scenario for the stream. As for the tree preservation and climax forest, I like the  
framers’ intent. I'm big on that. I think that's important. So at this point, our intent is not  
to take out more climax forest than allowed. I think our application shows that intent. I  
did make the changes as requested by staff, scratched my head a little bit, and said  
okay. I'm sitting here reading it and going I can see both arguments, so that's my opinion  
on it, at least. So I think -- I can see where both say --  
MR. MACMANN: Well played, Mr. Kriete.  
MR. KRIETE: Yeah. And you've been there with me before when I say, no, it says  
that. So yes. That's our intent. So it does not affect our plan, as you -- as you mention.  
You know, certainly, I think we want to solidify that for the preliminary plat moving forward  
as it does kind of set a standard, but what you have in front of you commits to that, even  
if the number is incorrect. All right. So at any rate, we are looking at what was one tract,  
splitting it into three to create a development parcel for what is -- what's lot 2, that kind of  
that middle parcel, which is what you see the PUD plan on. It is zoned. It's got utilities.  
The statement of intent has been created. And we're pretty much preserving all the trees  
outside of -- afraid the sewer is getting into a couple of trees along the way, but outside of  
that, it's trying to maintain as much of that as we can. You can see we've moved the  
sewer even away from the buffer as far as really is practical. And overall, we're proposing  
less density, less height than what's allowed, and really on conforming with the UDC  
standards. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Oh, and then  
say finding some housing, affordable housing that's really needed in Columbia. There's  
not much of that here in this community, and particularly of a newer nature. So if you  
have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Kriete. Questions? Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: You're about to get a lecture from Commissioner Stanton. You're  
not? Okay. I will ask you a question then. Do we have -- and you may not know this,  
and that's fine. Do we have a conceptual target point for a lease -- for how much rent is  
going to be here?  
MR. KRIETE: I'm afraid I don't know that answer. I know it's set at a percentage  
less than the mean rent in the area. I can't speak to all the specifics about that, but  
that's part of the --  
MR. MACMANN: Mr. Kriete, that -- Mr. Kriete, that is an excellent answer actually.  
That's a very useful answer, too. Mr. Stanton can confirm, we deal with mean incomes  
all the time. And thank you for being willing to be just flexible on while staff and framers  
ponder their intent. It's a matter of -- and for the other members of the audience and the  
other members of the Commission who weren't here, it's a matter of putting climax  
forests into a state of preservation rather than, hey, you need to keep those trees over  
there. We split this out to do, and I thought we did it in a very balanced fashion. Other  
communities may have a greater preservation standard, but we let a lot of these  
preservation things stand alone and didn't allow the double dipping that it's a stream  
buffer, it's a climax forest, and I want to thank you for being willing to do this. And I did  
notice that you all were short of the maximums on everything, and I was, like, oh, okay.  
So we're not going to be arguing over parking space and height of the building, and those  
kind of footprints, and I appreciate that, also. Thank you, Mr. Kriete.  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions for this speaker? Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Don't say affordable if you don't mean it.  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Kriete.  
MR. KRIETE: Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Any additional speakers on this case? If there are none, we will close  
public hearing.  
MS. LOE: Commission comment? Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: I think our previous speaker is example of I think our developers and  
engineers are getting it. They're really paying attention to the Code and trying to make a  
win-win situation for everybody, so I commend you and -- and support it.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: I love this plan. I was very appreciative of minimizing the parking in  
particular. I like the idea of multi-family near a high school. I -- I say this because I  
would like to see more plans like this. I also like the idea of multi-family near a forested  
area where it's enjoyable for those who live there and not just multi-family near a highway.  
It's rare that we see plans like this.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: If my fellow Commissioners have -- don't have any more comments  
or concerns, I'd like to make Mr. Kriete's day. In the matter of Case 140-2022 PD Plan --  
oops -- wait, wait, wait, no. Retract what I just said. In the matter of Case 164-2022, the  
matter of Spartan Point Preliminary Plat PD Plan with minor technical corrections,  
particularly regarding climax forests and stream buffers, I move to approve.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. LOE: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by Commissioner Stanton.  
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 recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.  
Ms. Placier, Ms. Kimbell, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Loe, Mr. Stanton. Motion  
carries 7-0.  
MS. CARROLL: We have seven votes to approve, the motion carries.  
MS. LOE: Recommendation for approval will be forwarded to City Council.  
In the matter of Case 164-2022, the matter of Spartan Point Preliminary Plat PD  
Plan with minor technical corrections, particularly regarding climax forests and  
stream buffers, move to approve.  
7 - Loe, Stanton, MacMann, Carroll, Kimbell, Placier and Wilson  
2 - Burns and Geuea Jones  
MS. LOE: Any public comments? If you can come up to the podium. We will need  
your name and address for the record, sir.  
MR. FICK: My name is Tom Fick; I live at 2451 North Slick Rock. I'm, I guess, at  
this stage and since the important stuff is done, I can say it. The -- I'm a nosey neighbor.  
Okay? We've lived out there for 20 years, and I'm a little concerned by the comments  
that were made for the earlier case tonight that there was pretty much a lack of  
notification or a lack of confirmation of notification, let's say, of people in the area. I  
notice that Somerset Village is probably being developed by the same people that are  
developing this, since they have the same name, so I would assume that they have  
almost carte blanche approval by all of those people that built new houses out there in  
the last five to seven years. And I guess I'm a little bit surprised that there weren't more  
of those people here tonight to voice some concerns over this kind of changing the  
population out there from being a nice, new smaller-homed type subdivision right across  
the street from this. But I know -- you know, we observed the only sign that we saw was  
the one sticking up along the road that, again, gave no date or anything as far as when  
the meetings go. I would just like to suggest that you all develop a procedure where you  
put dates down on these signs to let people that are affected or are interested know  
what's going on. You know, what I saw here tonight, I think you all do a wonderful job.  
You get to the bottom of things; you go through the whole thing as best you can with the  
information you're given and we respect that and I want to thank you for that. But then we  
hope that we don't start developing stereotypical neighborhoods where now we're going to  
put multi-family, lower-income, lower-rent prices, and whatever in areas, and we're  
starting to see that out in our area from when we bought -- we built out there. All the  
subdivisions that are going in out in our area are getting smaller and smaller, smaller lots,  
lower expectations of the owners where the stuff we see on the other sides and the  
quadrants of this town are the opposite. They're just getting bigger and bigger, and  
fancier and fancier. So I just caution you or ask that you all consider that in your  
deliberations in the future, that you try to get some equity around the north and northeast  
side of town. And we thank you all very much for your work and for serving in your jobs  
as a community. I wouldn't want it. Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Fick, and thank you for the feedback. Any additional  
MR. RAUCH: Randall Rauch, Tom's neighbor. And also it just seems to me that a  
multi-family three-story residence next to Battle High School, it just doesn't seem like it  
fits. That's kind of a rural area, small homes, single homes, single-family homes, and all  
of a sudden, we're getting three-story, multi-family. It doesn't -- it just -- common sense  
dictates it doesn't fit, in my opinion. And, you know, I mean, we floated a bond, what,  
and spent $70 million to put up Battle High School, and then do this. It kind of ruins the  
area, if you ask me. I mean, Battle High School is a nice high school, And then you've  
got that little elementary school right next to them. That's a nice area. And then here  
comes this. It doesn't make sense. Any questions?  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: If I may, I might suggest that very likely the people living in the  
multi-family apartment building are going to be people with children and students at Battle  
High School, and that's what draws them to the area, the desire to attend the new high  
school that is nice and sought after.  
MR. RAUCH: Well, they can still get a single-family home. Why do they -- why  
build a big three-story multi-family -- you know, that -- you can get a lot of problems with  
MS. CARROLL: How often do you see single-family homes for sale?  
MR. RAUCH: Pardon me?  
MS. CARROLL: Do you frequently see single-family homes for sale in the area?  
MR. RAUCH: Oh, there's a lot of -- tons of them. You can go to all kinds of vacant  
lots there in Somerset Village. There are lots there. All kinds of lots.  
MS. CARROLL: What kind of -- do you think those might meet affordable housing in  
a way that would make the new high school accessible?  
MR. RAUCH: Well, people -- people buy them, so --  
MS. CARROLL: Yeah. Would the new --  
MR. RAUCH: -- they must be affordable.  
MS. CARROLL: Sorry to interrupt you. Would the new high school be accessible to  
people from various ranges of income, and is that something that you think would be  
MR. RAUCH: I would think that they could afford it, you know. I mean, you know,  
you've got to be accountable for your own finances. Is this -- is this a low-income thing?  
Is this what this is -- public assistance?  
MS. CARROLL: I don't think so.  
MR. RAUCH: No?  
MS. CARROLL: But a range of housing styles leads to a range of housing  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: I'm going to cede my time to Commissioner Stanton.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: An ideal neighborhood is to assist the different densities, different  
income levels, and I will say this, personally.  
MR. RAUCH : Uh-huh.  
MR. STANTON: Mr. and Mrs. Battle were instrumental in the integration of both  
grace and class in Columbia, Missouri, and they would be very proud to see the different  
mix of housing, both income and density, around schools that were named after them.  
Multi-family does not necessarily mean low income, and also, they will be a prime spot,  
the multi-family that is proposed here, will be a prime spot for people that are first -- first,  
second year teachers, people that are staff and support staff, as well as teachers that  
work at Bottle. If I was teacher, especially straight out of college, I can't afford a  
$300,000 home, which is probably the average home across there, but I could afford to  
pay rent here while I got my bank account and took -- and took responsibility for my  
finances, and live in a -- in a moderately priced rental property while I collected my  
finances and got my finances together so that I can afford a home maybe of that level or  
somewhere else. But to make the assumption that the multi-family is for low-income  
people, even if it was, low to moderate income should not be sanctioned into one place in  
the community, and it works best when it's spread around and is -- and it is mixed use  
and mixed income and mixed densities, big homes, little homes, multi-family, all those  
make a perfect neighborhood. So I supported this. I think it is a great idea. I understand  
where you're coming from, but I think some of your positions may be misplaced, and I  
think if I were to summon the spirit of the Battle family, Mr. and Mrs., which are named  
those two schools that you just discussed are named after, they would probably argue  
differently. But thank you for your input.  
MR. RAUCH: You're welcome. I just still don't think it fits.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: Thank you. Similarly, I echo the sentiments of Mr. Stanton. I did not  
know Mrs. Battle, but I knew Mr. Battle well, and he was a desegregationist. And so,  
therefore, I think that it would be his dream and his hope that there would be the  
opportunity to have diversity in an area of a school that is named for his wife and for  
himself. And I also agree that, you know, being a single mom of divorce, I had to file  
bankruptcy after our divorce, doesn't mean that I'm not a good person. I'm an attorney.  
MR. RAUCH: Uh-huh.  
MS. WILSON: It doesn't mean that, you know, I -- sometimes you just fall on  
hard times, and it's a difficult time. And at that time, I wasn't able to buy a single-family  
home, so an apartment would have been what I would have needed. So to judge people  
in that position so harshly is really not fair. And everybody -- I, you know, have a  
daughter. She's 19. Fortunately, I've been able to buy a house and now my 19-year-old  
daughter has bought a house, so you can understand that given the opportunity, people  
can, you know, do better in life. They can change, but they just need that opportunity.  
When I was -- you know, when I had her in my home, I wanted to safe place to live. I  
didn't want to have to live in a bad neighborhood because I filed bankruptcy. I wanted a  
safe place for myself and my child. So I understand where you're coming from. It's not  
lost on me. I get it. I just want to also make sure that we understand that everybody is  
not on the same playing field, and just because they use the term affordable housing  
does not mean that that's bring degenerates into the area.  
MR. RAUCH: What I'm just saying is the crime -- crime, you know --  
MS. LOE: Actually, the term affordable housing is being replaced by the term  
workforce housing because this is the housing that we need that -- for our police and  
firefighters and teachers, and people in jobs that can't afford the home prices that are  
being asked for at this time. So you may find that these are actually the very neighbors  
you want to have in your community.  
MR. RAUCH: Okay. Well, thank you.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Any additional comments?  
MS. RAUCH: (Inaudible.)  
MS. LOE: Linda, I'm sorry. We need to have you -- at the microphone.  
MS. RAUCH: Linda Rauch, and I live at 8020 Payette Drive. We're just east of  
Battle High School. I think where my husband is coming from is, we were sent this by  
one of the people in our neighborhood, Cooper Creek neighborhood, and we didn't even  
know about it until she sent this to us. And what it says here, and this is what he's  
talking about, I'm sure, it says this is what this is about, this whole Somerset Village  
thing is, it says right here, the developer has indicated that they plan to place 48 units.  
These units will be targeted to lower-income tenants, and that's -- that's what we're  
concerned about. Is that -- that's where -- that's where Randy is coming from with this,  
I'm sure, and that is what we're concerned about is mixing more expensive homes with  
less expensive homes, lower income homes that people would -- would do. That's -- and  
I know what you're saying, too, and I appreciate that so much. But that -- this is -- when  
we read this notice, that's the first thing that we thought about when we read this.  
MS. LOE: And I would just like to reiterate that lower income includes our school  
teachers, nurse's aides. That is who we're trying to find affordable --  
MS. RAUCH: As well as others. As well as others.  
MS. LOE: Correct.  
MS. RAUCH: Yeah.  
MS. WILSON: I have a question.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Kimbell, first did you have a comment?  
MS. KIMBELL: I would say I would be in agreement. It would be nice to have  
single-family development in that area. It would be great to have it throughout community  
-- throughout our community, but we're just not at a point that we can do that. We don't  
have the workforce, and that's a great term. We don't have the workforce that can afford  
to do that yet. I think there's a stagnation, there's a bad reputation to the word affordable  
housing. I think that needs to be reframed.  
MS. RAUCH: Well, and I agree with you. I do agree with you because with this  
notice that we -- that we got, and that we read, I mean, that's the thing that you think  
about, you know, where people don't want to take care of their homes, their yards, that  
sort of thing, and that's -- that's our concern.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: I would like to ask what is your -- because, you know, without a  
baseline, everything is relative. What is your definition of lower income?  
MS. RAUCH: I really have no definition of lower income. My concern is you can  
have a very low income as long as you keep- your property up, maintained. That's --  
that's my concern. That's what we're concerned about. Because it reflects on our  
property out in that same neighborhood.]  
MS. WILSON: That's fair.  
MS. RAUCH: I mean, you can make $200 a week, but you can still keep your home  
really nice and your property really nice, and that's -- that's -- that's our concern.  
MS. WILSON: Maybe I should follow up. When you said that's what it makes you  
think of, what did it make you think of -- the term lower income?  
MS. RAUCH: People that -- that can afford those places, but those high rises or  
multi-family places to live, but they don't keep -- keep their yards or their homes nice.  
And I think that does something to the rest of the neighborhood. I mean, it affects your  
property, as well. That's how I feel about it.  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions for this speaker? Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: Yeah. I assume that if you do notice anything about this new  
development that concerns you, that you can go to the property manager or somebody  
like that. I mean, it -- this is not a high-rise. Three stories is not a high-rise.  
MS. RAUCH: Right.  
MS. PLACIER: This is not Cabrini-Green or something like that.  
MS. RAUCH: Right. Right.  
MS. PLACIER: This is affordable apartments for probably working people or people  
who may be seniors or anybody else with -- with reduced income, it looks like will be -- a  
certain number will be designated for that. I -- I just wanted to go back to something that  
the first speaker on this said, and that was about your area of the north side being  
targeted for this kind of a multi-family development. I do think there's something in that.  
One member of City Council used to propose something called inclusionary zoning where  
these mega-mansion areas -- I should think of a better -- very affluent areas would also  
have to have some areas of multi-family or smaller homes included. And I do think there  
is an issue of when we -- when we decide to concentrate affordable housing in certain  
areas. And it's good if you are noticing that and bringing it to our attention or to the City's  
attention. There are things that we could do about that that would make that more  
equitable. I don't know your area well enough to know that that is happening. You would  
have to present a lot of evidence to show that that is happening if that's your perception.  
MS. RAUCH: Yeah. Uh-huh. yeah.  
MS. PLACIER: But we do need to look at that. We look at how do we make all  
areas more inclusive.  
MS. RAUCH: Okay.  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions for this speaker? Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Battle High School is one of the most high-tech modern high  
schools in the state. Number two, I'm assuming you live in those houses around those --  
(inaudible). Right? And --  
MR. KELLEY: Mr. Stanton, could you just speak into your microphone.  
MR. STANTON: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Let me get to the point. I was raised in  
the military -- military kid. My father was an officer, and the military has a great way of  
integrating neighborhoods. So even though my father was major, which is not too far from  
a general, I lived around privates, enlisted families, as well as generals. The reason why  
that is and the reason why neighborhoods work great that way is because if I'm paying --  
and I'm going to back up. The applicant didn't say these were low-income subsidized  
homes. What he said they were affordable, which means that they probably fit within the  
mean income of this -- of this community, which is around $50,000-something, and  
they're probably running around $800 to $900 a month, probably.  
MS. RAUCH: Okay. But this did say -- that's what -- that's what --  
MR. STANTON: Well, I know what they said. I'm telling you what the reality and I'm  
telling you what the applicant said, and he didn't say this was subsidized, low income.  
This is not Housing Authority or any of that. This is not HUD funded.  
MS. RAUCH: I wonder who -- I wonder who wrote this that I was reading to you?  
MR. STANTON: I know. But what I'm telling you is that the applicant didn't present  
that kind of information. So my point is this. My point is this.  
MS. RAUCH: Okay.  
MR. STANTON: As an African American, I felt like I heard a lot of profiled and a lot of  
stigmatized, stereotypical things about people that make a certain amount of money that  
are unable to take care of their homes or whatnot. Number one, this is multi-family, so I  
don't have a yard. That's number one. Number two, it's all upon the landlord who built  
these to put people in there that are responsible and can pay rent. If you can't pay rent,  
you won't be there. I am predicting, and don't have any facts, but I'm predicting that  
these multi-family homes built here are for working class people, people that would work  
at Battle, which probably has an extensive staff. And I bet you before they were even  
finished being built, I'll bet you they're full of teachers and technical support staff from  
Battle High School. I would almost bet a paycheck on it. But we have to really be  
careful how we stigmatize because for real, what I was hearing was really kind of -- ooh, it  
was kind of scary.  
MS. RAUCH: No. I didn't --  
MR. STANTON: -- because what you're saying to me is, okay, if I can't afford where  
you stay, I don't have a right to stay where you stay. I'm not going to disclose my  
income, but that's how I took it.  
MS. RAUCH: Well, I apologize if you think that that's what I was saying. I don't care  
if you're African American or if you're Caucasian. As long as you maintain your property,  
that is my concern. That's what I was talking about. And I don't know if people will in  
that kind of a setting.  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions? Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you. Just a statement. I live in a neighborhood with a  
medium income. I just did the numbers on this, Anthony. These -- Mr. Stanton.  
Commissioner Stanton. Pardon the familiarity. The target income in that area, he said  
less than median, is probably going to be in the $48,000 range, $50,000. So the rents  
could be as high as $1,200. My neighborhood? My neighborhood, one mile over there,  
the rents are $700 to $950. We pick up our trash. We mow our lawns. The individuals  
who move in there will not be responsible for either one of those things. I would suggest if  
you all have issues, if those things do occur, there will be a company that owns that -- a  
management company, that you address those concerns to them.  
MS. RAUCH: We will. We will. We will do that.  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you for your time.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: I definitely appreciate where you're coming from, and I hear you. And  
it sounds to me that your concern is an issue of character. It should be noted that  
character and integrity is not an issue of income. It's just an --  
MS. RAUCH: I agree with you, absolutely. Absolutely.  
MS. WILSON: Yeah. It's a human trait. Right?  
MS. RAUCH: Yeah. Uh-huh.  
MS. WILSON: And so we can have people who have lots of money, but bad  
character and no integrity.  
MS. RAUCH: Absolutely.  
MS. WILSON: And we can have people who have no money, but they have great  
integrity, and they care.  
MS. RAUCH: Exactly, yes.  
MS. WILSON: So keep that in mind.  
MS. RAUCH: I will. Thank you very much.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Kimbell?  
MS. KIMBELL: I just wanted to say thank you for coming forth and sharing your  
thoughts with us and your concerns.  
MS. RAUCH: Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Any additional comments? If there are none, I'll close public comments.  
MS. LOE: Staff comments?  
MR. KELLEY: I don't think we have anything specific to make. Our next meeting for  
this body is Thursday, July 7th, in this same room.  
MS. LOE: Thank you.  
MS. PLACIER: You don't want to regale us with how bad the agenda will be as Mr.  
Zenner was.  
MR. KELLEY: I can get you upcoming cases if you would like.  
MS. PLACIER: Just kidding.  
MR. STANTON: This is your meeting. Run it how you want it.  
MR. KELLEY: Upcoming case for the next meeting, Case 194-2022, it's on  
Vawter School Road just east of Scott Boulevard. Kind of similar to the cases we've had  
tonight. It's just a PD plan, no revision to the statement of intent, a multi-tenant building  
with a drive-through. So you've just been refreshed on that during your work session, so I  
imagine you may have some interest in this one, specifically. But that will be our only  
case for the next meeting.  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Kelley.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: I just want to say one thing as a Commissioner comment.  
MR. KELLEY: Talk into the mic, please, sir.  
MR. STANTON: Affordable housing is the -- affordable housing is very important for  
the stability of any community. Like I said, I was raised in a military environment where I  
lived two houses away from a general, three houses away from enlisted men. That had a  
great impact on how I grew up because I had things to aspire and could learn from  
spectrums of the income scale. And living by people of different incomes, diversities, and  
experiences allows you to have a reference point to figure out what you can do in your  
life. Because I lived by a general that ended up becoming a senator, I knew I could  
aspire to something bigger. I knew that living by an enlisted man who didn't make as  
much as my dad but could raise his family and do everything that we could do, inspired  
me to see that money doesn't matter, it's your integrity and what you do with what you've  
got. So that diversity in the neighborhoods that I grew up in around the world, mind you,  
had a great impact and those things can be carried over into any community. Diversity of  
income and density and types of homes and all that good stuff has always had a positive  
impact on anybody that lives in those kinds of communities.  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Commissioner Stanton. Well said.  
X. NEXT MEETING DATE - July 7, 2022 @ 7 pm (tentative)  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: I move to adjourn.  
MS. KIMBELL: Second.  
MS. LOE: Seconded by Commissioner Kimbell.  
MS. LOE: With that, we're adjourned.  
(Off the record.)  
(The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.)  
Move to adjourn