City of Columbia, Missouri  
Meeting Minutes  
Planning and Zoning Commission  
Columbia City Hall  
Council Chambers  
701 E. Broadway  
Thursday, August 4, 2022  
7:00 PM  
Regular Meeting  
MS. LOE: I would like to call the August 4th, 2022 Planning and Zoning meeting to  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Carroll, may we have roll call, please.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Kimbell?  
MS. KIMBELL: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Wilson. Commissioner Loe?  
MS. LOE: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Burns?  
MS. BURNS: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Present.  
MS. CARROLL: I am here. Commissioner Geuea Jones?  
MS. CARROLL: We have seven; we have a quorum.  
MS. LOE: Thank you.  
7 -  
Tootie Burns, Sara Loe, Anthony Stanton, Michael MacMann, Valerie Carroll,  
Sharon Geuea Jones and Robbin Kimbell  
2 - Peggy Placier and Shannon Wilson  
MS. LOE: Mr. Zenner, are there any adjustments or additions to the agenda?  
MR. ZENNER: No, there are not, ma'am.  
MS. LOE: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Move to approve.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MR. MACMANN: Second.  
MS. LOE: Moved by Commissioner Geuea Jones, seconded by Commissioner  
Stanton. We have a motion to approve the agenda. I'll take a thumbs up.  
(Unanimous vote for approval.)  
MS, LOE: It looks unanimous. Thank you.  
Move to approve.  
July 21, 2022 Regular Meeting  
MS. LOE: Everyone should have received a copy of the July 21st, 2022 regular  
meeting minutes. Were there any additions or edits to those minutes?  
MR. MACMANN: Move to approve.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. LOE: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by Commissioner Stanton.  
We have a motion to approve the minutes. I'll take a thumbs up approval on those?  
(Unanimous vote for approval.)  
MS. LOE: It looks unanimous. Thank you.  
Move to approve  
Case # 216-2022  
A request by A Civil Group (agent), on behalf of Sonya  
Andreassen-Henderson (owner), for approval of a two-lot preliminary plat of  
an R-1 (One-family Dwelling) zoned tract that includes an extension of City  
sewer to the site, to be known as Hidden Haven Plat 1. The 10.53-acre  
tract of land is located on the north side of Stadium Boulevard,  
approximately 500 feet east of College Park Drive, but is accessed from  
the western terminus of Westwinds Drive and is addressed 1607  
Westwinds Drive.  
MS. LOE: May we have a staff report, please.  
Staff report was given by Mr. Pat Zenner of the Planning and Development  
Department. Staff recommends approval of the Hidden Haven Plat 1 preliminary plat,  
pending some minor technical corrections.  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Zenner. 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 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? Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Zenner, I hope I'm not too rabbit  
hole on this. The vacation of the Westwinds right-of-way, I notice on the map before us,  
its definition is variable. I'm guessing when that goes to recorder, that will be very  
precisely laid out so we know exactly where the -- so they know where their property is?  
MR. ZENNER: That is correct. We will have the legal -- the legal description, a  
formal legal description will be provided which will give a metes and bounds description of  
the area to be vacated. The reason variable is there is because the right-of-way of  
Westwinds varies in width. That has nothing to do with the area in particular.  
MR. MACMANN: And I caught that. I'm just making sure. Well, and also to follow  
up just a little bit on that, is that subject to -- would this be subject to technical  
corrections as they're sent to the recorder or --  
MR. ZENNER: No. That is actually how we describe variable -- a right-of-way that  
varies in width. We always refer to it as variable. The vacation itself will actually describe  
that, and that is not a technical correction to this plat, because it will be a separate item  
brought before Council under different cover.  
MR. MACMANN: All right. That's -- a second question is as follows. I'm happy for  
these people. They can live close to each other. In the future when this could be  
potentially redeveloped, we'd have to readdress the fire issue, would we not -- fire access  
MR. ZENNER: We do, and there is a specific plat notation that has been added.  
The director made very clear when he authorized the shared private driveway use, it was  
only going to be appropriate to the two-lot subdivision. Any future subdivision would  
require permanent public street access to be provided.  
MR. MACMANN: Rock and roll. Thank you, sir.  
MS. LOE: Mr. Zenner, you mentioned access easement to the second lot. I didn't  
find that on the plat. I was looking for that.  
MR. ZENNER: And that is -- typically, that would -- that will come as a part of the  
final plat, as well. Often, it -- it can happen as a separate document. In this particular  
instance, because there will be a final plat with this, that is the only way these two lots  
will work is with a shared driveway, so the final platting action will require that. And I will  
verify with Mr. Smith, who is running this case, that, in fact, that's not a technical  
correction that needed to be made. If you would like to make that as a part of your  
motion this evening for us to verify before we forward to Council, I'm more than welcome  
to have that made.  
MS. LOE: I'm seeing some nods, so I think -- yes, we'll probably --  
MR. MACMANN: For clarity and legal safe.  
MS. LOE: Yeah. All right. Thank you. Any additional questions for staff?  
MS. CARROLL: Good question.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: Could you tell us who would be responsible for the City sewer  
MR. ZENNER: That would be the applicant would be responsible for that.  
MS. LOE: And any more questions for staff? Seeing none. We will open up the  
floor to public comment.  
MS. LOE: If you can please give your name and address for the record, and if you  
can bring the microphone down so we can record every -- all the comments. Thank you.  
MR. BECKETT: Sure. Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is  
Dan Beckett; I'm an attorney at the offices of Smith Lewis here in Columbia, 200 --  
excuse me -- 111, Suite 200, South Ninth Street. The intent of the applicant this evening  
is to maintain the character of this -- maintain the character of this property as much as  
they can. The only impetus for this preliminary plat application is so they can demo the  
old chicken coop that was converted into a multi-family residence and reconstruct it. It's  
been in the family for -- for the generations, so they're wanting to do whatever they can to  
-- so appease the City staff and City to get this accomplished. With me this evening is  
Jay Gebhardt; he's a civil engineer with A Civil Group that prepared the plat, and he can  
answer some of the technical questions should you have any.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Are there any questions for this speaker? Commissioner  
MS. CARROLL: Just -- just to clarify. Do you know if they intend to keep this area  
forested to the similar extent that it currently is?  
MR. BECKETT: They do. They want to maintain as much of the trees -- old-growth  
trees that they possibly can.  
MS. CARROLL: Thanks.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Sir, we had to make some -- in order to  
get this done, the design adjustments were kind of dropped out and we were able to bring  
everything in. Do you feel that your clients are comfortable with this and understand all of  
it going forward, particularly the last thing we said about if this redevelops, we're going to  
have to take right-of-way back and stuff like that?  
MR. BECKETT: Yes, sir. I do know.  
MR. MACMANN: Okay. I'm just --  
MR. BECKETT: And the intent is not to develop any --  
MR. MACMANN: Okay. I just don't want someone, you know, ten years down the  
road, saying they bought a pig in a poke or something, because they didn't understand  
what's going on. Thank you.  
MR. BECKETT: Thank you, sir.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Any additional questions for this speaker? I see none at this  
time. Thank you.  
MR. BECKETT: Thank you, ma'am.  
MR. GEBHARDT: Good evening. My name Jay Gebhardt; I'm a civil engineer and  
surveyor with A Civil Group. And my clients tonight are Sonya and Kyle Henderson.  
Sonya's grandparents own this property. Her mother, I think, grew up in that little  
farmhouse. And when they approached me, they -- they wanted to tear down the  
chicken coop/three-plex and build a retirement home for themselves. And they did not  
want to subdivide this. They didn't want to do anything that might indicate it would be  
developed because they want to preserve the property as it is. They look at this as a  
little green gem in the middle of Columbia, and they -- they want to preserve it. But  
because they want to keep the little farmhouse for sentimental reasons, we had to create  
two lots so that each lot would have a single-family home, so there would be two homes  
on this. And as part of that, what your question was, Sara, on the access easement,  
when we turned this in last -- for your packet, a couple of layers got turned off, one of  
them being the lot numbers, and the other was the text for the access easement. I gave  
the Planning Department a corrected copy this morning, and on the original, it does show  
the access easement now and the lot numbers. So sorry about that, but anyone that's  
worked with AutoCAD kind of knows those things happen, so --  
MS. LOE: Thank you.  
MR. GEBHARDT: But, yeah, the -- the intention here is to build a small retirement  
home for themselves and to preserve the property in its current state. And that -- they'll  
need to extend the sewer to the property.  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Gebhardt. Any questions for this speaker? I see none.  
Thank you, Mr. Gebhardt. Any additional speakers on this case?  
MS. COOK: Good evening. I'm Jody Cook, 1514 St. Christopher. I own three vacant  
lots on Westwinds just to the east of where they're going to put the T turnaround. That is  
a great addition to that road. There is no place for the fire trucks, the garbage trucks to  
turn around. Seventeen years ago, I filled the lots on Westwinds, and that's used as a  
turnaround. I am happy with this development. I was really, really worried what was  
going to happen, and I think it will maintain the integrity of our neighborhood and improve  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? I see none. Thank you.  
Any additional speakers?  
MS. WILLOW: Hello, my name is Chris Willow; I'm at 1518 St. Christopher. I have  
more of a question. Is that appropriate to -- in understanding? My home is actually right  
next to the right-of-way, and so I'm curious if there is the future potential of development,  
is there ever the potential that that right-of-way could be a complete street?  
MS. LOE: And you're talking about the extension of St. Michael's?  
MS. WILLOW: Uh-huh.  
MS. LOE: Mr. Zenner, I'm going to pass this one over to you.  
MR. ZENNER: So St. Michael could be extended. It could be installed if the  
adjoining lots beyond where the turnaround is. So the corner lot, if I understand correctly,  
of where St. Michael's right-of-way is, this lot here, and I believe the lot to the north, are  
owned by the applicant, as well. So, typically, what would end up happening is this road  
right-of-way would be required to be constructed -- improved with future development of  
the two corner lots. So, yes. St. Michael could be brought up to -- and I, again, I  
apologize. I don't know what the cross street is that is here, that is immediately to the  
north and then provides access to the four existing homes that are here and wraps back  
around. And I think that may be St. Christopher is -- is the first street we come to. So  
that is a possibility, that the roadway could connect. I think -- if it does connect at that  
point, it addresses an issue of circulation purposes better than the -- than the turnaround  
only, but that's going to be driven by development activity. And if I'm not incorrect, we  
believe that the reason that the lots to the very south end of the St. Michael right-of-way,  
as well as those to the very north of the St. Michael right-of-way, were never developed  
due to topographical reasons. The slopes associated with the parcels just do not make  
them conducive to development. And with that condition existing without significant  
modification, it is likely that the road network, as it exists today, is going to be the  
interior loop between St. Christopher and the roadway immediately to the north of it that  
parallels St. Christopher. We do not foresee, nor do we have plans as a City, to  
complete the connections.  
MS. WILLOW: Thank you for that clarification. My understanding is the current  
development as presented doesn't necessitate that. That would be future.  
MR. ZENNER: No, it does not.  
MS. WILLOW: Okay. So I would just also, as a neighbor -- a person that's in the  
neighborhood very close to where this is, I support it, especially hearing that it's a family  
that's continuing it, and that the wooded area is going to be preserved. So, thank you.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Any additional speakers?  
MS. JONES: I'm not a speaker, but I am a questioner. My name is Pamela Jones; I  
live at 1519 St. Michael Drive, so I live at the, I guess you would say, the northern end.  
Yeah. The northern end, the far northern end. And I had maybe three questions. I'm just  
abysmally ignorant on things like this, but when you say you're vacating a road, I have no  
idea what that means. Can someone explain what that means to vacate something?  
MR. ZENNER: So through the platting process, road right-of-way is dedicated or  
given to the City of Columbia for the future maintenance and operation of roadways or  
utility easements or whatever. We -- we take dedications of property. Those properties  
are normally or those areas are normally improved by the developer of the land with the  
required improvement -- water, sewer, roads -- and then they're turned over to the City for  
maintenance. When we vacate a piece of property, we generally -- we are -- the City is  
agreeing to release its right to that area and, in essence, cede it back to the property  
owner from which it came initially, or in the stance where you've got property on either  
side that are owned by different individuals, half of that right-of-way is given to one side of  
the right-of-way, and the other -- the other half goes to the other half.  
MS. JONES: Are they responsible for maintenance then of that --  
MR. ZENNER: Yeah. And we relinquish all maintenance of the road right-of-way, as  
well. So the City benefits from a vacation in this instance -- would benefit from the  
vacation in this instance that we would reduce the overall maintenance costs of  
pavement. We'd gain, actually, tax revenue based on the fact that the property that is  
now non-taxed, the road, becomes taxable land because it's incorporated into the  
applicant's property. If there are utilities that are needed to be maintained within the  
right-of-way, such as a sewer line or a water line, we'll retain easement rights for the  
maintenance of those utilities, but otherwise we remove our -- our ownership and  
maintenance responsibility of anything else. It goes back to the property owner.  
MS. JONES Second question. I saw where it says new compliant turnaround  
constructed in St. Michael Street row. I don't quite understand what that is.  
MR. ZENNER: So this turnaround, the darker area here is what's referred to as the  
turnaround. So when we review development, development is reviewed through a number  
of different codes and ordinances. One of them, and the primary one reviewed here, was  
our subdivision standards. So the particular parcel of property needed to meet specific  
development requirements and surveying standards to ensure that the parcel was  
compliant in respect to those statutes and other requirements. Additionally, because a  
public road is involved here and an access is proposed off of that public road, it needs to  
meet fire code requirements, and the fire code has a specific standard that says when  
you have a terminal street that ends and is to terminated permanently, it needs to be  
terminated in some form that can accommodate a fire engine to turn around.  
MS. JONES: Right.  
MR. ZENNER: And that can take a couple of different shapes: A standard  
cul-de-sac, sometimes they're offset, sometimes they're straight on the end of the  
roadway. In this particular instance, the fire code allows an alternative to be used, and in  
this particular instance, this is what would be referred to as a T, so you've got --  
Westwinds Drive serves as the --as the bottom of the T, and the stem of the T is basically  
the darker area. And what that allows for is the fire engine to drive past the T, the stem,  
back up into the stem, and then come back out and head out -- head first back in the  
opposite direction.  
MS. JONES: What -- what confuses me is that there is no St. Michael Drive that  
connects with Westwinds.  
MR. ZENNER: There is. That is actual -- it's unopened, but it's unimproved public  
right-of-way that was dedicated when the original Westwinds Subdivision was platted.  
MS. JONES: Yeah.  
MR. ZENNER: So when all of the lots in the Westwinds Subdivision were created,  
this right-of-way was received, but was never improved because there was no  
development on it.  
MS. JONES: Well, it's also very -- I mean, right at the end of the four houses on St.  
Michael, it plunges into a rather deep ravine at that point.  
MR. ZENNER: That is correct.  
MS. JONES: And so, are you talking about on the other side of the ravine, if that's  
where the turnabout --  
MR. ZENNER: No. If you see -- so if you can see here on the screen, this is --  
where my cursor is going right now, so you see these three dots, and you see this line --  
MS. JONES: Oh.  
MR. ZENNER: -- that's actually the centerline of the stream. So that is the stream  
channel. This road -- actually, this stem comes off of the existing pavement surface of  
Westwinds, extends back roughly, if I'm not incorrect, this is 15 -- I think that's -- well,  
that's a total of 45 feet is what the road right-of-way is for Westwinds. So the space --  
this gray is the pavement today --  
MS. JONES: Of -- of Westwinds?  
MR. ZENNER: The light -- yeah. The light gray is the pavement of Westwinds today.  
The white area to where the end of this arrow is the actual platted right-of-way. And what  
that means is the white area is where there is no pavement. It's just -- it's the road bed or  
the road area that we could have put pavement in. So that is 45 feet, and then you're  
extending back probably an additional 20 or so feet beyond that to the edge of this gray  
MS. JONES: We'll never see that on St. Michael.  
MR. ZENNER: No. You will never see it north of the creek.  
MS. JONES: That's on the other side, yeah.  
MR. ZENNER: Because -- yeah. Because you've the ravine that you're going to  
come into, and it's all wooded.  
MS. JONES: I see. Okay.  
MR. ZENNER : So that turnaround will never probably impact your enjoyment of the  
woodland that's along the stream corridor right now.  
MS. JONES: I'm just more concerned that -- I frankly don't ever want it connected  
with Westwinds because we're kind of a nice, almost a cul-de-sac, that part of St.  
Michael is. They had originally platted that it would be connected with the other St.  
Michael until they came out and, sure, and looked and saw that it's a sheer drop-off at  
the end of my property.  
MS. LOE: I'm sorry. Can you speak into the microphone?  
MS. JONES: Oh, I'm -- I'm so sorry.  
MS. LOE: Our recorder needs to hear you.  
MS. JONES: Is there anything they didn't hear?  
MS. LOE: That's -- that's better. Thank you.  
MS. JONES: And so they were never able to put the street through, and that was a  
benefit to us because that makes us a very kind of hidden little area down in there, and  
we don't get a lot of cross traffic. People either live there or they're lost. I mean, that's  
kind of the situation. The third question I had was I realize the intent now is to preserve  
everything, but that doesn't mean when -- that these people won't change their mind  
someday and decide to develop this entire area, and whole forest goes down. And I  
guess we don't really have much to say about that, potentially.  
MR. ZENNER: Well, what I will tell you and I think that this goes to some other  
regulations that we've got within our subdivision standards. Each of these parcels are  
both over an acre in size. This is a 10.53-acre tract of land. We have true preservation  
requirements, significant tree preservation standards that will apply to any parcel one  
acre or greater. If the site were to be proposed to be developed further, two things are  
going to end up happening. One, Westwinds Drive will need to be extended in a  
compliant fashion, so you would have to have a public street to do so. Secondarily, the  
development would have to preserve -- would either -- it would have to preserve a minimum  
of 25 percent of the climax forest that exists on the property in future development, and  
any significant tree 20 inches DBH or greater, unless otherwise waived through a --  
through the review by our City arborist. And normally to waive significant trees or to allow  
them to be removed, there is a compensatory factor for that. They have to pay to have  
them removed to us, because preservation of trees 20 inches or greater are quite  
significant, and we don't want them away either.  
MS. JONES: Yeah.  
MR. ZENNER: But the 25 percent climax forest is the -- the greater -- the greater  
hammer, so to speak, as well as there is a stream corridor on this property that will have  
to be preserved, which further minimizes the amount of future lot yield that could be  
garnered out of the property. And as you are well aware, the topography of this property  
from south to north is a little bit challenging for any future significant development.  
MS. JONES: Yeah. It would -- I mean, I've seen it done, but -- and I'm kind of  
anxious about that, not so much because, very likely, I'm getting older. I won't -- I won't  
live long enough to see something like that happen potentially. But I am -- I'm very into  
the wildlife there, and -- and they've been -- it's been fascinating to watch over the years.  
And they really -- the wildlife really depends on that forest, and I would hate to see it go.  
And so that's why I worry that -- that building a house is a slippery slope to, you know, a  
wider development of the whole area. But you're telling me that it would take an awful lot  
of steps to get there?  
MR. ZENNER: Yes. And it would actually require more public utility extension,  
which would mean it would end up again at this body, as well as at City Council before it  
could even be approved. And because of that, it would open up the opportunity for  
additional public comment to be made, and Council to be informed by that public  
comment, as well as this body.  
MS. JONES: Okay. Well, those are my questions. I just was -- just had those  
concerns. So thank you very much.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Any additional speakers on this case? If there are none, we  
will close public comment.  
MS. LOE: Commission comment? Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: If my fellow Commissioners have no questions or comments -- Mr.  
Stanton, did you -- I have a motion. In the matter of Case 216-2022, the preliminary plat  
of Hidden Haven with technical corrections, I move to approve.  
MS. KIMBELL: Second it.  
MS. LOE: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by Commissioner Kimbell.  
We have a motion on the floor. Any discussion on this motion? Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Didn't you propose making sure that the legal --  
MS. LOE: The access easement.  
MR. STANTON: -- access easement was addressed.  
MR. ZENNER: Covered by the technical correction.  
MR. MACMANN: That allows that to be filled.  
MS. LOE: Any additional comments? Seeing none. Commissioner Carroll, may we  
have roll call, please.  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms.  
Ms. Loe, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Burns, Mr. MacMann, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Geuea Jones.  
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 216-2022, the preliminary plat of Hidden Haven with  
technical corrections, move to approve.  
7 - Burns, Loe, Stanton, MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones and Kimbell  
2 - Placier and Wilson  
Case # 212-2022  
A request by Haden & Colbert (agent), on behalf of Omkara, LLC (Owner),  
seeking the rezoning of property located at 1414 Ballenger Lane, from PD  
(Planned District) to M-N (Mixed-Use Neighborhood). The subject property  
currently consists of 2 lots totaling 10.8 acres, and is located northeast of  
the intersection of Ballenger and Clark Lanes.  
MS. LOE: May we have a staff report, please.  
Staff report was given by Mr. Rusty Palmer of the Planning and Development  
Department. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning to M-N.  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Palmer. Before we move on to questions for staff, I would  
like to ask any Commissioners if they have had any ex parte to please share that with  
the Commission at this time so all Commissioners have the benefit of the same  
information in the case in front of us. Seeing none. Are there any questions for staff?  
MS. CARROLL: Actually, yes.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Small question.  
MR. MACMANN: Small question. In the previous code, what in the world was an  
armory? Was it for the storage and repair of armaments or --  
MR. PALMER: Yes.  
MR. MACMANN: But not a shooting range?  
MR. PALMER: No. No. No. In the terms of -- yeah. Military storage and --  
MR. MACMANN: All right. I just -- just wanted to make sure that we weren't slipping  
in the tool arsenal or something like that.  
MR. MACMANN: All right. Just checking.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: Similarly, I was going to ask if you could define process laboratory.  
MR. ZENNER: That actually is a -- I think when Rusty showed what was on the slide  
for a research and development lab, that is -- R&D could be using chemicals that would  
require a chemical list that need to be approved, so it's a C -- that's an open use, an  
allowed use. However, materials lists, we have -- we have a lab, actually, that's out next  
to Stephens Lake Park in an office building that required a materials list to be received by  
the fire service before they were authorized to operate to ensure that what chemicals  
were going to be used in that facility were going to be able to be accommodated if there  
were an emergency response. So that's the type of thing that occurs on the back end  
when you look at it. But a research and development laboratory could be a place that's  
doing vaccine development or something of that nature. So again, more of an office type  
of use, but with potentially a hazard component associated with it, and that would be  
what would being opened up on the site, and that's what the research and development  
laboratory relates to with today's code.  
MS. CARROLL: Thanks. I just have not heard the word process laboratory used,  
and I believe that I work in one of them. We don't call them that.  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions for staff? Commissioner Kimbell?  
MS. KIMBELL: The single dwelling that's there, is that -- are there -- is that owned  
by someone or is it --  
MR. PALMER: It's owned by -- by this developer.  
MS. KIMBELL: Okay.  
MR. PALMER: I think the intent is that it would come down, but I -- I haven't verified  
that, but it's assumed.  
MS. KIMBELL: That's what I needed clarification on. Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions? I see none. And with that, we will open up the  
floor to public hearing.  
MS. LOE: If you could provide us your name and address for us, the Commission,  
since we're the only ones here.  
MR. COLBERT: Good evening, Madam Chair. Caleb Colbert, attorney, at 827 East  
Broadway. I won't go into great detail. I think Mr. Palmer covered everything.  
Essentially, the goal here is to consolidate and eliminate sort of the split zoning where  
we have one parcel with multiple planned district regulations on it. And when we looked  
at the site, being at the intersection of Ballenger and Clark Lane, we felt like the M-N was  
sort of the most appropriate zoning classification for the intersection. With that, I would  
be happy to answer any questions.  
MS. LOE: Another small question from Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Just a quick comment to Mr. Colbert. We've been pushing for  
nodes for quite some time, and usually those are M-N. And the fact that someone would  
willing do that, kind of -- not insist they had to have M-C or something like that, I just  
appreciate that.  
MR. COLBERT: Sure.  
MR. MACMANN: Regardless. I mean, as long as you don't end up putting an  
armory in there, then I'm fine.  
MR. COLBERT: I'm with you. I don't know what that means, so I --  
MR. MACMANN: Well, I know what an armory is, but in -- like, in Pat speak --  
excuse me -- in City Planner speak -- I didn't mean to diss you so bad, Pat. What, we  
can do that? I didn't remember that from the UDC, but thank you for doing that, because  
we are working on nodes. Thank you very much.  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions? I see none. Thank you.  
MR. COLBERT: Thank you.  
MS. LOE: And with that, I'm going to close public hearing.  
MS. LOE: Commission comments? Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: If there's not any more questions from my colleagues --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I will be very quick. I just want to put on the record, this is  
another planned district that's been sitting there forever completely undeveloped. I am  
just marking it for the record because it happens a lot, and we rarely talk about it. Thank  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Well spoken. As it relates to Case 212-2022, 1414 Ballenger Lane  
rezoning, I move to approve for rezoning from PD to M-N.  
MR. MACMANN: Second.  
MS. LOE: Moved by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner MacMann.  
We have a motion on the floor. Any discussion on this motion? Seeing none.  
Commissioner Carroll, may we have roll call, please.  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms.  
Ms. Loe, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Burns, Mr. MacMann, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Geuea Jones.  
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.  
As it relates to Case 212-2022, 1414 Ballenger Lane rezoning, move to approve for  
rezoning from PD to M-N.  
7 - Burns, Loe, Stanton, MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones and Kimbell  
2 - Placier and Wilson  
There were no further public comments.  
MR. ZENNER: Your next meeting will be on August 18th. It will be short. A  
Commission member, Ms. Loe, will be out of town, so everybody else show up so we  
have quorum. We do have a couple of items or I should say, not a couple, we only have  
one. Ms. Loe picks the right meeting to be gone for. However, maybe not. This is a  
quite complex request. This is at 701 East Richland Road. This is the development that  
is immediately to the northeast of Old Hawthorne North, intersection of Olivette Road and  
East Richland Road, large preliminary plat, 300-plus lots. And we are currently working  
through some transportation-related, so, at this point, we anticipate it will be on the  
agenda. There will probably likely be some technical comments associated with it. This  
is an entitled R-1 zoned piece of property, though, and has been annexed into the City of  
Columbia for quite some time. To give you an idea of where it is, it's an enormous parcel  
of property, as well, accommodating the lots that are proposed. And you will notice the  
water body in the middle of the property on the eastern side. That is to be retained as  
part of the development layout. And then, of course, we have the intersection of Richland  
and Olivette, which -- and the extension of Olivette as it runs up the east side of the  
property incorporated with that in that preliminary plat. Mr. Smith will be delivering this  
report and will have the -- have more details associated with it. So this is a single-family  
development, and if I recall correctly, it is somewhat of a homogeneous single-family  
product. This is not similar to what we dealt with down at Legacy Farms where we had a  
multitude of housing product within it. And then the property immediately to the south of  
it that's zoned R-1 to the southwest, that is Old Hawthorne North, so that's the proximity  
between the back entrance to Old Hawthorne, and then this particular project. That is the  
only case that we have on the agenda for your regular sessions. Work session for the  
August 18th meeting will be split in half. We will have Mr. Skov back to talk about the  
sidewalk master plan and any questions that you may have. If possible, if you do have  
them, and to make the meeting more productive out of the gate, provide those possibly to  
me in advance, and I can have Mr. Skov prepare to maybe provide some response to that  
to make it a little bit more streamlined. Again, what the purpose is for the discussion of  
the sidewalk master plan is to allow Mr. Skov, who is one of the liaisons with the Bicycle  
and Pedestrian Commission, to take those comments back to them prior to scheduling a  
public hearing on the sidewalk master plan before the Planning Commission. So we want  
to make sure that we close the loop well enough to do so. The latter half of the work  
session then will be Mr. Smith providing opportunity for the Commission to vote up-down  
on several of the criterion for the drive-throughs revision that we have been working on over  
the last several commission meetings, as well as I believe we will probably bring forward  
the lower hanging fruit amendments that we talked about, the revisions to the C-2, the  
elimination of C-2 out of the code, and some other less complex requests. The one that  
dealt also with downtown utility easements will be the one that will also come back in its  
more final format. Following that, we will hopefully be able to get back onto discussing in  
September our revisions to the -- or our proposed regulations for short-term rental, which  
were provided to you with this packet with several parenthetical or not rhetorical, but  
questions back to the Commission for clarification purposes. So if you have not had an  
opportunity to look at that, look at the sidebar commentary that I provided as I was  
drafting those standards based on comments I had received. I just need some additional  
clarification before we get too much further along to make sure that we're heading in the  
right direction. With that, we thank you for your time this evening, and we will look  
forward to seeing you on the 18th.  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Zenner.  
There were no comments from Commissioners.  
X. NEXT MEETING DATE - August 18, 2022 @ 7 pm (tentative)  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Move to adjourn.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. LOE: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by Commissioner Stanton.  
We are adjourned. Thanks, everyone.  
(Off the record.)  
(The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m.)  
Move to adjourn