City of Columbia, Missouri  
Meeting Minutes  
Planning and Zoning Commission  
Columbia City Hall  
Council Chambers  
701 E. Broadway  
Thursday, July 7, 2022  
7:00 PM  
Regular Meeting  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I will now call the Thursday, July 7th meeting of the Planning  
and Zoning  
7 -  
Tootie Burns, Anthony Stanton, Michael MacMann, Valerie Carroll, Sharon Geuea  
Jones, Peggy Placier and Shannon Wilson  
2 - Sara Loe and Robbin Kimbell  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Carroll, can we have the roll call, please.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Geuea Jones?  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Kimbell? Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Loe? Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Burns?  
MS. BURNS: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Present.  
MS. CARROLL: I am here. We have seven; we have a quorum.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Zenner, are there any adjustments to the agenda?  
MR. ZENNER: No, there are not ma'am.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Go ahead.  
MR. MACMANN: Move to approve.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by  
Commissioner Stanton. Can I get a thumbs up approval of the agenda?  
(Unanimous vote for approval.)  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you all very much.  
Move to approve.  
June 23, 2022 Regular Meeting  
MS. GEUEA JONES: We should have all received a copy of the June 23rd regular  
meeting minutes. Are there any adjustments or changes to the minutes?  
MR. STANTON: Move to approve.  
MR. MACMANN: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by  
Commissioner MacMann. Can I get a thumbs up approval on the minutes? We have five  
and two abstaining.  
(Five votes for approval; two abstentions)  
MS. GEUEA JONES: We have five and two abstaining. The minutes are  
Move to approve.  
Case # 194-2022  
A request by Crockett Engineering (applicant), on behalf of HTG  
Development, LLC. (owner), seeking approval of a development plan  
containing a 6,000 sq. ft. building and accessory drive-through facility. The  
0.92-acre site is currently zoned PD (Planned Development) allowing  
various commercial uses. The subject site is located approximately 600  
feet east of the intersection of Scott Boulevard and Vawter School Road.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: May we have a staff report.  
Staff report was given by Mr. Brad Kelley of the Planning and Development  
Department. Staff recommends approval of the Statement of Intent and PD Plan to be  
known as "Lot 404 of Spring Creek Plat 4”, subject to minor technical corrections.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Before we ask questions of staff, I would like to ask any of the  
Commissioners who have had ex parte contact regarding this case to disclose what they  
learned to the rest of the Commission so we all have the benefit of the same information.  
Seeing none. Does anyone have questions of staff? Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Planner Kelley, I don't recall, so maybe  
you'll have to refresh my memory. I remember a case -- Pat will probably remember.  
This was maybe before you were here. We had a 50-foot vegetive buffer on the north  
side. I think it's a Burnam owned property that was -- it's been more than a minute ago.  
What I'm getting at is this, is what is the requirement -- I agree with the arborist and you  
guys that it's a sufficient buffer. What is the applicant's responsibility to maintain that  
buffer? The Burnam property, it was never moved, but the reason I remember that is they  
had a 50-foot buffer to the north.  
MR. ZENNER: Which property are we referring to?  
MR. MACMANN: It was owned by Tim Burnam, I think.  
MR. ZENNER: The one I'm thinking of is the one that's out at Lake of the Woods  
where we had the buffer to the -- on the south side.  
MR. MACMANN: South side.  
MR. ZENNER: On the south side that was retained and it was platted. It was a 50  
-foot platted easement, if I recall correctly.  
MR. MACMANN: What's the obligation of the applicant to --  
MR. ZENNER: Of the applicant to maintain it. So I think, in general, the --  
MR. MACMANN: Like, what if it gets a disease and they all die, you know, that type  
of thing?  
MR. ZENNER: There is not, unless it's a required screening buffer pursuant to our  
regulations, that it has to be retained at an 80 percent opacity level. There wouldn't be,  
and in this particular instance, if what we are -- if what the arborist is acknowledging is  
that the existing vegetation serves that level three buffer. If that level three buffer went  
away, then it is --  
MR. MACMANN: Then the --  
MR. ZENNER: It's an enforcement issue at that point that the project is no longer in  
compliance; and therefore, would have to be replanted by the property owner.  
MR. MACMANN: Got you. I just --  
MR. ZENNER: They're getting the benefit. They're getting the benefit from today.  
They'll have to maintain that, and it will be driven by --  
MR. MACMANN: I just wanted to make sure what that was, because I don't  
remember us on either of the cases that you mentioned or I mentioned, I don't remember  
getting to that point, well, what happens when the trees die.  
MR. ZENNER: Again, I think what we have to -- we have to address, and this may be  
in a different manner for clarity moving forward is specifically calling out when existing  
vegetation is being used to count towards meeting the regulatory requirement, said  
vegetation shall remain living throughout the duration of the parcel's improvement.  
MR. MACMANN: Well, that sounds like we've got something else to deal with.  
Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Madam Chair?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any -- Commissioner Placier, go ahead.  
MS. PLACIER: Yeah. I would like you to go back to the -- well, that's a good one.  
Could you explain the traffic flow for the restaurant exactly?  
MR. KELLEY: Yeah. So it comes in on the southernmost access to the lot off the  
shared drive aisle here, circul-- or goes in, I'd say, a counterclockwise motion to the east.  
That's where the bypass lane and stacking starts. Then on the north side is where you  
see the menu board and service window. So they're required to have four -- space for four  
stacking spaces. That's one for at the window, then three beyond the window, and those  
are shown on the north side of the building here.  
MS. PLACIER: Okay. And one kind of follow-up to that. Was there some limitation  
to having -- the restaurant is the most intense use to me, and the one that will have the  
most impact on the residential neighbors. Was there any consideration of having that on  
the west side, or does that mess everything up, and maybe is -- that is a question for the  
MR. KELLEY: What part of it on the west side, just for a point of clarity?  
MS. PLACIER: The restaurant, rather than neighboring the residential neighborhood,  
could it neighbor the commercial area to the --  
MR. KELLEY: Yeah. The -- so the restaurant, as I see this, is -- would be the  
westernmost tenant on here.  
MS. PLACIER: Oh, okay. Okay.  
MR. KELLEY: Its service window is the westernmost quarter of the building.  
MS. PLACIER: Got you. Okay. I had it -- I had it reversed with the restaurant on  
the right, so -- on the east, that makes sense.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Okay. In that case, if there are no  
other questions, we will open public comment.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there anyone in the audience who is here to speak on this  
case? You will have six minutes if you're for a group and three if you're an individual.  
Please state your name and address for the record before you start.  
MR. GREENE: Andy Greene with Crockett Engineering, address at 1000 West  
Nifong Boulevard, Columbia, Missouri 65203. Just want to discuss a little bit about the  
project that we bring forward for tonight, and I've got a quick presentation, and I won't try  
to take up too much of your time. But I'm just going to be pretty brief. Again, Andy, with  
Crockett. The lot is a little bit less than an acre. It's currently zoned PD with an existing  
CP plan that was approved back in 2005, so we're basically taking that plan and shifting it  
around to basically fit our building a little bit better and, as well as, change the use from  
the previous plan was actually a bank, which you'll see here in a little bit, and we're  
switching that over to be a mixture of uses including the restaurant with the drive-through,  
retail office, and personal services. There is the existing Break Time to the west, and to  
the north is the shopping center with Jose Jalapeno's. I think there is a nail salon and a  
physical fitness center. So the location map, we've gone over that just east of Scott and  
Vawter School Road. So the existing CP plan from 2005, like I mentioned, showed a  
bank and it had a drive-through in a similar configuration to what we have. Their building  
was basically rotated 90 degrees, but the drive-through was always on the north side, so  
we felt that that was important to honor that, keep it away from the residential portion.  
So the old plan had zoning approved with the old C-1 uses. A few of those include  
restaurant, barber, beauty shop, pet stores, animal grooming, physical fitness centers,  
and various retail. So this is what the old PD -- excuse me -- CP plan looked like, and it  
showed approximately, I think it's 3,200 square feet of building rotated 90 degrees, like I  
mentioned, with three lanes of bank drive-through on the north side. So our proposed  
plan includes the restaurant with the drive-through and patio seating, like I mentioned, an  
office space, retail personal services, and we followed those same uses that are allowed  
in the current zoning of that property. And we're also honoring the existing 50-foot platted  
landscape buffer, so on the plat of that property, there is actually the 50-foot landscape  
buffer indicated on that plat. So here's what our PD plan looks like. As we mentioned,  
we kind of already gone over the layout a little bit. Storm water was brought up. I think  
Brad answered a couple of questions, fielded a couple of questions from the neighbors to  
the east in the residential property, so the original plan didn't have any storm-water  
requirements, as they weren't required back in 2005, so this plan is actually increasing  
the square footage from that old plan approximately 3,300 square feet. So for mitigation  
of that increase in impervious surface, we're proposing -- we've got a couple of options for  
either underground storm-water mitigation, or above-ground shown there in those two blue  
options. In conclusion, a major amendment to an existing plan, the uses are allowed by  
right in the previous zoning of following kind of the C-1 zoning that's located along a major  
arterial, already existing commercial developments to the north and the west. It's pretty  
well screened and buffered from the properties to the east, and we are providing  
storm-water mitigation as required by City Code. And I'm happy to answer any  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any questions? Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Greene -- Planner Kelley, can we  
go back to the aerial, please?  
MR. KELLEY: This is the most recent one. This one doesn't show the rest of the  
development on site.  
MR. MACMANN: The one that was closer up.  
MR. KELLEY: Of the PD plan?  
MR. MACMANN: This is fine. I will make this work.  
MR. KELLEY: Okay. Sorry.  
MR. MACMANN: Mr. Green, maybe you can help me here. I know that to the west  
of here, there are some notable flooding issues. And I honestly don't get on Vawter  
School enough to know that, because I -- you know me. I look at the water because  
that's what excites me. Right? Do we have standing water on there now, that we know?  
MR. GREENE: This property is actually padded up pretty good, so there's a creek  
on the east side.  
MR. MACMANN: I'm just wondering about that northeast section. Is it, you know --  
MR. GREENE: Northeast section?  
MR. MACMANN: It kind of dives down there.  
MR. GREENE: It does dive down, so, basically, the 50-foot buffer follows the slope  
of the property, so once you get up to that 50-foot line, it's basically flat at that point. So,  
luckily, since we're staying out of that, our building will be totally elevated, basically be at  
where the Break Time is up at that upper elevation.  
MR. MACMANN: That makes -- I was a little concerned about -- we've had some  
other issues, and to the west of here, we had a notable issue, which I won't relitigate  
here, but it was problematic. And I don't remember this flooding. I do remember --  
maybe Planner Zenner would remember. To the west of here, we have -- it floods, like, all  
the time, but it doesn't flood over here, does it?  
MR. ZENNER: Not that I'm aware of, this particular site. The one you're referring to  
is on the west side of the round-about, that's in -- it was in a hole that was filled.  
MR. MACMANN: Yeah. I'm sorry. Wait.  
MR. ZENNER: Yeah. So the parcel that is here --  
MR. MACMANN: It just -- I'm not recalling this area flooding.  
MR. ZENNER: This one, no. But everything is draining, if I'm not incorrect, and Mr.  
Greene can probably clarify for me. It all drains to the north.  
MR. GREENE: That is correct.  
MR. ZENNER: To the -- to Mill Creek, actually, and --  
MR. MACMANN: I thought it did, I just -- because this area has an inundation issue,  
and even further north on Scott, it has an inundation area.  
MR. ZENNER: And that would be correct. So in heavy rainfall events, the soccer  
fields that are shown to the north of the -- the green buffer area to the north of the  
northernmost developed lot in this particular overall development will flood, and it does  
flood both the park on the west side and our playing fields on the east. This particular  
property that was elevated, as a result it sits on a higher elevation, everything falls to the  
MR. MACMANN: I was just -- I'm just making sure because of the lake-like behavior  
in heavy rains.  
MR. GREENE: That's correct.  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Mr. Zenner. Thank you, Mr. Greene.  
MR. GREENE: Just to clarify on that point, there is, if you go and zoom way up  
there in that northeast east, there is a portion of the site that has the 500-year floodplain  
on it, but the 100 years just off the -- off of this lot actually you can see it. It gives you a  
little bit of visualization of where that consistent flooding is going to exist.  
MR. MACMANN: Well, I'm -- I'm just making sure because of the water. Thank you  
very much.  
MR. GREENE: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? All right. Seeing none, thank you very  
much. Is there anyone else to speak on this case? Seeing none, we will close public  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner discussion or motions? Really? And anyone,  
just -- Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. If there are no more questions or  
concerns from my fellow Commissioners, I would like to make a motion. In the matter of  
Case 194-2002, Spring Creek Lot 404 PD major amendment, I move to approve.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by  
Commissioner Stanton. Any discussion on the motion? Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: I would like to add any minor technical occasions.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Ooh. An amendment to the motion. Do we need to say --  
MR. STANTON: -- subject to --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: -- subject to minor technical corrections?  
MR. KELLEY: Yes. Thank you for that, Mr. Stanton. Yes. The applicant has  
submitted with those corrections. I just need the arborist just to review one thing and say  
yes. But, yeah, that would be appropriate.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Is that a friendly amendment, Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: That is a friendly amendment that I will accept. Mr. Stanton, will  
you second that amendment?  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Very good. The motion shall be so amended. Any further  
discussion on the motion? Seeing none. Commissioner Carroll, may we have a roll call.  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms.  
Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier, Ms. Wilson, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Burns, Mr. MacMann, Ms.  
Carroll. Motion carries 7-0.  
MS. CARROLL: We have seven to approve, the motion carries.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: The motion will be forwarded to Council.  
In the matter of Case 194-2002, Spring Creek Lot 404 PD major amendment, move  
to approve subject to minor technical corrections.  
7 - Burns, Stanton, MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Placier and Wilson  
2 - Loe and Kimbell  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Very good. And I had inadvertently skipped public comment.  
Is there any additional public comment for tonight's meeting? Seeing none.  
MR. ZENNER: So your next meeting will be on the 21st of July. We do have several  
items on the agenda, and I go over those here in a moment. So, have a regular work  
session, of course, at 5:30. We'll have a meal, and we'll be continuing our conversation  
about drive-throughs and hopefully wrap that conversation up. And then move on to our  
issue talking about downtown utility easements. We're going to put off probably doing  
short-term rental until the first meeting in August, at which point Mr. Smith won't be  
available, so it's a perfect segue to do my deal, and maybe we can make some progress  
on our short-term ordinance -- short-term rental ordinance. But for the main meeting,  
you'll have these three items on the agenda. We have a returning item that was tabled at  
your June 23rd meeting on the Dollar General there off of St. Charles Road and Lake of  
the Woods, the PD plan for that property. We have a rezoning request at the corner of  
West Broadway and Manor Drive. It's directly to the east of the church that's on the  
south side of Broadway, and it is a proposed rezoning from R-1 to M-N, if I recall correctly  
-- M-N or M-OF. And then your last case will be a final plat with a design adjustment at  
414 West Walnut. This is a larger parcel that is being proposed to be subdivided with  
access off of West Walnut, and a request for a design adjustment relating to sidewalk, if I  
recall correctly. So those are your three items, and to familiarize yourself with the  
general areas, of course, our Dollar General store there out on St. Charles, our property  
there at the corner of West Broadway and Manor Drive, and then our property there off of  
West Worley. You'll notice it's an odd configuration to the parcel with the extension  
coming out to West Worley. That is what they are attempting to create another lot out  
of. There is a shared access to serve the existing home that is to the rear of the  
property, so that has the sidewalk waiver request, if I recall correctly, with it. And those  
are your items for the July 21st agenda, and we will continue to work toward making  
changes to the amendments that we've been presenting to you so we can come back  
with a summary of those and will, at some point, have them on a public hearing agenda  
cycle for us to be able to deal with. As many of you were made aware this evening  
during our work session, Ms. Smith -- I always continue to think of calling her Ms. Bacon,  
because that's how I knew her when she first came to us and when she came back to  
me, is departing City service. She is moving to the East Coast to be closer to a location  
for her husband who is a recent graduate and with a Ph.D. to be able to work in computer  
science. We will lose her. We will miss her greatly. Don't ask me for any of the special  
things that she used to do for you for short-term rental because I have no idea how she  
did them, and we will be starting a process shortly to interview and fill that position. So a  
couple of things are going to change around here. Obviously, you're going to see more of  
some of other staff that rarely comes, and you're going to probably see get grayer. But  
we have appreciated her service, and we wish her the best of luck as she moves on to  
greener pastures, literally. We're very thankful that we had the time with her that we did,  
and I believe she is also happy to have been here and had an opportunity to participate  
with all of the Commissioners in her years -- almost 12 -- over the two stints. So with  
that, that is all we have. No additional information. I'm not leaving, so you'll have to deal  
with me more, but we are trying to get through and move on. Thank you very much.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Finally, Commissioner comments? Any general thoughts,  
feelings? No.  
IX. NEXT MEETING DATE -July 21, 2022 @ 7 pm (tentative)  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: If my fellow Commissioners don't have anything, I move to approve.  
I move to -- I mean to -- yes. I move to approve going home. I move to adjourn.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: A motion to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Stanton.  
Seeing no objection, we are adjourned.  
(Meeting adjourned at 7:33 p.m.)  
(Off the record.)  
Move to adjourn