City of Columbia, Missouri  
Meeting Minutes  
Planning and Zoning Commission  
Columbia City Hall  
Council Chambers  
701 E. Broadway  
Thursday, September 8, 2022  
7:00 PM  
Regular Meeting  
MS. LOE: I would like to call the September 8th, 2022 Planning and Zoning meeting  
to order.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Carroll, may we have roll call, please?  
MS. CARROLL: 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 present. Commissioner Geuea Jones?  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Kimbell? Commissioner Wilson?  
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 Peggy Placier  
2 - Robbin Kimbell and Shannon Wilson  
MS. LOE: Mr. Zenner, are there any changes or additions to the meeting agenda?  
MR. ZENNER: No, there are not, ma'am.  
MS. LOE: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Move to approve.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. LOE: Moved by Commissioner Geuea Jones, seconded by Commissioner  
Stanton. We have a motion to approve the agenda. I'll take thumbs up approval on the  
(Unanimous vote for approval.)  
MS. LOE: It looks unanimous. Thank you.  
Move to approve  
August 18, 2022 Regular Meeting  
MS. LOE: Everyone should have received a copy of the August 18, 2022 meeting  
minutes. Were there any changes or amendments to those minutes?  
MR. MACMANN: Move to approve.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. LOE: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by Commissioner Stanton.  
I'll take thumbs up approval on those minutes.  
(One abstention; six votes for approval.)  
MS. LOE: Six to approve and one abstention.  
Move to approve  
Case # 246-2022  
A request by Crockett Engineering (agent), on behalf of Fred Overton  
Development, Inc. (owner), for assignment of R-1 (One-family Dwelling)  
district permanent zoning, upon annexation, to a tract of land containing  
approximately 53.80 acres. The subject tract is located northwest of the  
terminus of Bristol Lake Parkway, east of Bearfield Road, and north of the  
existing Bristol Ridge Subdivision. An associated preliminary plat (Case #  
245-2022) has been submitted which will be concurrently reviewed with this  
request. (A request to table this item to the October 6, 2022 Planning  
Commission meeting has been received).  
MS. LOE: Any additional staff comments on the tabling?  
MR. ZENNER: As noted within the correspondence from Crockett Engineering, as  
well as the staff's correspondence associated with this, the request for the tabling is to  
address several technical issues and to process or to begin the process of developing a  
development agreement to go along with the subdivision components, the annexation and  
subdivision components. Hence, they have asked for the tabling to the October 6th  
meeting. It is possible that there may be an additional tabling request forthcoming on  
October 6th, but that is dependent upon how far we get with the development agreement  
content prior to having to publish for the October 6th meeting. So at this point, we have  
just recently met internally. We are preparing to provide correspondence back to the -- to  
Crockett Engineering as to the needs for us to begin development of that agreement, but  
it is a technical issue, a fully technical issue associated with why, and then the timing  
associated with getting all of those technical questions answered is what we believe may  
result in the extension. Right now, we are hopeful that the one-month delay will allow us  
sufficient time to be able to resolve the outstanding matters.  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Zenner. Are there any questions for staff on the tabling?  
Commissioner Placier?  
MS. PLACIER: Yeah. Just a question about the order of annexation and zoning and  
platting. We've talked about this before. Could the applicant move ahead with  
annexation prior to us doing our job. I mean, why is that -- it seems like things -- the cart  
is before the horse or something sometimes.  
MR. ZENNER: Procedurally -- procedurally, a recommendation of the appropriate  
permanent zoning must accompany the application for annexation. Requests and  
recommendations for the appropriate zoning are generated from this body, and that's why  
the process of annexation occurs after the Commission has reviewed the land-use  
specifics which are rolled into, in essence, the Council's public hearing associated with  
the appropriateness of annexing the property into the City. And then once that  
annexation public hearing has been held, which is a policy decision, the final action on  
actually acting on the annexation, the policy expanding the City's corporate limits is  
merged with the zoning. So in order for Council to have an understanding of what is being  
sought, what the Commission's considerations were of the permanent zoning that's within  
the annexation petition, we take action with the Commission first and then Council takes  
action as part of their public hearing and merging the two at the very end.  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions for staff? If not, this is on the public agenda.  
MR. ZENNER: Yes. This was an advertised public hearing with the request for a  
tabling being presented, so those that may be present, as we have in the past, would be  
allowed to address the tabling component.  
MS. LOE: So if there are any public who would like to comment on the tabling  
action, we will open up the floor to public comment at this time.  
MS. LOE: And if there are not, we will close public comment on this case.  
MS. LOE: Commission discussion? Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Commissioner Burns, did you have a question?  
MS. BURNS: No. I was going to make a motion, but please, go ahead.  
MR. MACMANN: Okay. I will make a motion. In the matter of Bristol Ridge Plat  
Number 2, permanent zoning, Case 246-2022, I move to table until October 6.  
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: Ms. Loe,  
Mr. Stanton, Ms. Burns, Mr. MacMann, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier.  
Motion carries 7-0.  
MS. CARROLL: We have seven votes to approve; the motion carries.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Recommendation for tabling is supported.  
In the matter of Bristol Ridge Plat Number 2, permanent zoning, Case 246-2022,  
move to table until October 6.  
7 - Burns, Loe, Stanton, MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones and Placier  
2 - Kimbell and Wilson  
Case # 226-2022  
A request by Brush & Associates (agent), on behalf of Thomas & Mary  
Mills (owner), for approval of a one-lot final plat of A (Agricultural) zoned  
property that will require a sewer main extension, to be known as Mills  
Estates Plat 3. The site is requesting access from Mills Drive, to the north,  
via an access easement. The 3.88-acre subject site is located on the west  
side of Forum Blvd, approximately 400 feet north of Chapel Hill Road.  
MS. LOE: May we have a site -- may we have a staff report, please.  
Staff report was given by Mr. Clint Smith of the Planning and Development  
Department. Staff recommends approval of the Mills Estate Plat 3, pending minor  
technical corrections.  
MS. LOE: Thank you for the report, Mr. Smith. 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 Geuea Jones?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yes. I was just wondering have they also begun any kind of a  
zoning or rezoning? I know that wouldn't be in this -- in this case, as well, but I'm just  
curious as to whether they have started that process.  
MR. SMITH: No, they have not.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. So it will remain Ag, which is one residence per two  
MR. SMITH: Yes. Minimum of two-and-a-half-acre size.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Two and a half.  
MR. SMITH: Yes.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. The motion is to require with technical  
adjustments because they haven't been made yet. All right. Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions of staff? If there are none, we will open up the  
floor to public comment.  
MS. LOE: If anyone has any comments they would like to share in this case, you  
can come up to the podium, and we do need your name and address for the record. If  
there is no public comment on this case, we will close public comment.  
MS. LOE: Commission discussion? Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: I'd like to make a motion. In the matter of Mills Estates Plat 3,  
final plat, Case Number 226-2022, with technical corrections, 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 to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms. Loe,  
Mr. Stanton, Ms. Burns, Mr. MacMann, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier.  
Motion carries 7-0.  
MS. CARROLL: We have seven votes to approve.  
MS. LOE: Recommendation for approval will be forwarded to City Council.  
In the matter of Mills Estates Plat 3, final plat, Case Number 226-2022, with  
technical corrections, move to approve.  
7 - Burns, Loe, Stanton, MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones and Placier  
2 - Kimbell and Wilson  
Case # 244-2022  
A request by A Civil Group (agent), on behalf of Charles Teeter & Donna  
Checkett (owners), for approval of a 2-lot consolidation plat, constituting a  
replat of Lots 19 and 20 of Grasslands Addition, Block 5, into a single legal  
lot. The combined parcel contains approximately 0.68-acres and is  
commonly addressed as 105 & 107 E. Ridgeley Road. The property is  
zoned R-1 (One-Family Residential). The applicant are also seeking  
approval of a design adjustment from Section 29-5.1 of the UDC pertaining  
to sidewalk construction.  
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:  
1. Denial of the requested design adjustment to Section 29-5.1; and  
2. Approval of the final plat.  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Palmer. 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 from the case in front of us. Commissioner Burns?  
MS. BURNS: Thank you. I don't have any ex parte to report, but I do live in this  
neighborhood and have for 28 years. I'm very familiar with this street. I walk daily, and so  
I pass this property quite frequently.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Any other comments on ex parte before we move on to  
questions for staff? Seeing none. Questions for staff? Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: I’ve seen the rendering of where the potential sidewalk would be.  
Why wasn't a modified curb sidewalk suggested, like right up against the curb?  
MR. PALMER: I believe the -- the issue would still remain with cross slope. It might  
be a little different, but it would still involve, you know, reconstructing a vast majority, if  
not all, of the driveway, which is the major -- major consideration really.  
MR. STANTON: Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: Yeah. I'm looking back at my previous notes, and I can see that we  
very rarely approve sidewalk waivers. I'm wondering in a case that was at least  
somewhat similar on Edgewood, if I recall, a while back, do you remember if we did fee in  
lieu for that, or if we waived?  
MR. PALMER: I don't remember an instance where we've done a fee in lieu. I know  
we have, but not -- not recently.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Just a point of order. They're friends of mine. They did not pay a  
fee in lieu of.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Burns?  
MS. BURNS: Just to, again, to elaborate. I believe we've done fee in lieu on  
commercial properties. In my ten years on the Commission, I don't believe we've ever  
done a fee in lieu on a residential.  
MR. MACMANN: I will second. In my six years, seven years, that's -- yeah. It's just  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions for staff? If there are none, we will open up the  
floor to public comment.  
MS. LOE: If you can give your name and address for the record.  
MR. MURPHY: Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. I am Kevin Murphy with A  
Civil Group, offices at 3401 Broadway Business Park Court. I would -- I've got quite a few  
things to go over here. We don't have any groups here with us, so I would ask that I be  
able to -- allowed the six-minute time limit to discuss this?  
MS. LOE: I think we can accommodate that.  
MR. MURPHY: Thank you. Well, I'm back here again in front of you with another  
design adjustment for a sidewalk. This will be my third or fourth here recently, and none  
of which had a payment in lieu of, and, actually, one of them was a commercial property,  
but we did some other improvements instead that kind of helped with that. But anyways,  
I feel that the Code is broken in parts here when we're dealing with this, and I'll kind of get  
into that, but, you know, we have to keep coming back towards this. But my clients  
purchased their house that they live in now in 2000, and the adjacent property in 2019. It  
was a dilapidated house in the condition that they bought -- well, one of the conditions  
when they bought that was that they would tear down the house and leave it as green  
space. It was their deal with the previous owners. They have done that, and now they  
want to consolidate the two lots so -- for one reason so that it can't be developed into  
another house if something were to happen to them and whatnot, but also that they want  
to age in place here, and this old house that they're in needs some improvements and  
potentially some additions that might conflict with that common property line in the future.  
But -- so they have to go through the subdivision, and even though they're subdividing;  
you know, they're combining the lots, this is what -- what they're doing. This is a 100  
-year-old subdivision and trying to make it conform to today's Code just doesn't work not  
only here, but in a lot of the other areas in the central part of town. And if the reality is  
that the design adjustment criteria for complying with the comprehensive plan, which --  
which states that -- I guess is interpreted as that we need sidewalks everywhere, none of  
these should be passed if that's the case. I think the -- I personally think the  
comprehensive plan allows for sidewalks to also be put in, as it's noted in there, as part  
of a City sidewalk gap program, and could be paid by the adjacent owners as a benefit  
tax bill. But -- so the -- some of the existing sidewalks in this neighborhood, most of the  
existing sidewalks in this neighborhood are in dilapidated shape. Each of the panels are  
typically sawed at four feet. As it settles, these panels are breaking back and forth,  
breaking back and forth, so much of the sidewalks to the east of us are unusable. The  
City recently, with the Providence Road project, constructed a sidewalk all the way down  
the south side of Burnam Road to Birch Road at no cost to the adjacent property owners  
there. I believe that was truly needed because that's where most of the apartments and  
multi-family, where that's just used more frequently and more often. But we've got letters  
here from 13 of the -- 13-plus of the neighbors and the neighborhood association all in  
support of this, that they're not needed or wanted, and some of them, I believe, are here  
tonight, and they can speak upon that. As far as -- yeah, the payment in lieu of, again,  
just to combine these lots alone is quite a cost to a property owner that's not really doing  
much of anything, let alone $14,000 that would -- would even benefit them, would go  
somewhere else and do something. I will say that the house directly behind them did not  
-- was recently demolished and I think it's just now completed building a new house, and  
they were not required to put in sidewalks because they didn't subdivide. They did not  
have to go to the platting process. That's happened in a few lots in here, as well as  
vacant lots that have filled in over the years where they did not have to do that, but --  
basically, I guess that's it. I think the payment in lieu of -- I think the sidewalk design  
adjustment is -- is justified here, and I do not think the payment in lieu of is justified.  
Many of the neighbors, again, will walk the -- they're just used to this, and if sidewalks  
were put throughout the neighborhood, it would have a great, you know, damaging effect  
on that with the --  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Murphy.  
MR. MURPHY: Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Questions for Mr. Murphy? Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Murphy, I agree with you about the  
Code in relationship to the older neighborhoods. And you may recall our new Code is  
relatively efficient at what's called greenfield, new construction, you know, building in cow  
fields. We do have a brownfield problem, an in-fill problem, and maybe next year -- I'm  
looking at our Chair, and looking at our liaison, we might be able to -- we are -- we are  
aware of these issues, and we're addressing them slowly. One of the -- the utility thing  
downtown, things of this nature, trying to address them as we get to them. And this has  
been a recurring issue, like, the last year and a half, two years, as you know. You've  
been here. You're not the only one who has been here, going, hey, this doesn't work.  
MR. MURPHY: Right. Right.  
MR. MACMANN: So we're working on it.  
MR. MURPHY: I wholeheartedly agree with you, and I'd -- I'd be happy to work with  
you folks if -- in identifying these problems.  
MR. MACMANN: I -- there are many brownfield issues that we would like to address  
also. Thanks.  
MS. LOE: Any additional questions for this speaker? I see none. Thank you.  
MR. MURPHY: Thank you.  
MR. ZGUTA: Hi, there. My name is Greg Zguta; I live at 1034 Lagrange Court, which  
in the Grasslands neighborhood, and I also serve as president of the Grasslands  
Neighborhood Association. We submitted a letter, which you have in the -- in the packet,  
and I wanted to point out that our -- our board, which consists of seven members, met to  
discuss this particular issue and unanimously supported the design adjustment to not  
require the sidewalk. That's definitely what -- what our board supports and would like to  
see. A lot of the comments that I wanted to make are in the letters from folks you've  
seen, but I wanted to reiterate a few of the things that -- that I think are most important for  
-- for the association. The first is the unique character of this neighborhood, which has  
come up a few different times, that, you know, the neighborhood is -- is located near  
downtown, near campus, surrounded by the MKT Trail. It's in a unique position in the  
neighborhood. There isn't through traffic through the neighborhood. The streets and the  
sidewalks that are there are really serving the folks who live in the neighborhood, not --  
not passing through. The neighbors have an interest in preserving the character of the  
neighborhood, so covenants were adopted by a number of neighbors, you know, for  
properties that have been developed over time and don't have a lot of consistent rules  
around them, and that's been done in an effort to -- to preserve the character of the  
neighborhood and the lack of sidewalks is -- is actually part of that. And we're  
accustomed to sharing, you know, R-1 homes with the -- the students who live over on  
Burnam. The fraternities and sororities are all part of -- of what we're accustomed to. So  
some of the reasons that -- that the association supports the request and doesn't want  
to see a sidewalk in this location is that the lack of sidewalks other places, the vast  
majority of the neighborhood doesn't have them. There is no continuity between this  
sidewalk and any others, and to the -- to the west, there's a long way to go to have any  
connectivity to any other sidewalk. The neighbors are accustomed to sharing the road;  
you know, walking, biking, and many neighbors choose to live in this neighborhood  
because they can walk to so many places. They make that choice, knowing that there  
aren't sidewalks available for many of the -- their paths through the neighborhood. The  
variance, you know, in this case wouldn't preclude the installation of -- of sidewalks at  
some point in the future if there were resources devoted to that. It's a -- it's a big task  
with the lack of sidewalks, and it's not suggesting that that's desired, but granting this  
request wouldn't preclude that in the future. This particular request would exchange  
some trees, landscaping, green space for -- for pavement that wouldn't serve any  
purpose. You know, neighbors don't believe it would be used by anyone to walk on, it  
would really just be something to walk past on the street. And -- and this variance is  
really consistent with past decisions made incrementally over many, many years, and so  
it would make sense to -- to grant the variance in this -- in this case, as well. And in my  
personal experience, we built a house in this neighborhood and in a lot that was already  
existing in 2012, and had a similar, you know, issue with our builder around, you know, a  
sidewalk request, which we were not required to -- to put in place, so that's one example  
from my personal experience that would be similar to this, but I know there are others  
that have been mentioned. So in the end, it feels, you know, a little onerous to place a  
burden on the property owners for this sort of request to put a sidewalk in place given all  
these -- all these -- all these considerations. So I'd ask you to consider those and  
appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about it.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Are there any questions for this speaker? I had a question.  
So you mentioned you built a house and there was a sidewalk requirement on your lot?  
MR. ZGUTA: Our builder handled that process for us, but I remember that coming  
up, that there was going to be -- there was a discussion about whether a sidewalk should  
be put in place. We live in the cul-de-sac at the end of Lagrange Court, so it's the far left,  
lower-left corner of the map up there. And so it would have been a little curved sliver of  
sidewalk. And I don't know the particulars. We didn't have to go through this process to  
navigate that, but we were not required to -- to put a sidewalk in place.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Any additional questions for this speaker? I see none.  
Thank you.  
MR. ALDEN: Good evening, members of the Commission. My name is Mike Alden,  
and my wife, Rockie, and I live at 111 East Ridgeley road, which is directly east of this  
property. And so we're here to speak in support, or I'm here to speak in support of the  
design adjustment, which we've contemplated and talked about. First off, my  
compliments to the staff and their presentation. I thought it was really thorough and  
certainly gave a broad -- a broad understanding, not only for all of you, but for many of us  
that actually live in the neighborhood, too. So it's great to be able to see that. I think the  
photograph or at least the slide that's up on the screen right now tells a -- tells a pretty  
big story, and that shows the original sidewalks that were placed in that neighborhood  
somewhere between 60 to 90 years ago are the ones that are located right there off of --  
off of Bingham, and then they work onto Wayne Road, and that's all there are in our  
neighborhood, so to speak. Once you get up to Burnam, you see the other sidewalks  
that were constructed by the City and the great job they did with that and the stoplight  
there at the corner, as well, too, as well as the sidewalks that go down towards  
Grasslands Park, and then that connects us to the -- to the trail, so it's a pretty unique  
neighborhood. Certainly, you all know the history of that neighborhood and how long it's  
been here, and there's some characteristics in the neighborhood itself that provide a real  
special experience for all of our neighbors and all of us that live there. So the first I  
wanted to talk about certainly was the history, which you know about. The second,  
which had to do with consistency. I think there is certainly important to be consistent on  
what we try to do and what we try to do throughout the City, but the consistency also  
needs to be addressed, I think, on an individual basis, as well, too, when you're  
confronting something like this. The sidewalk that's being discussed here this evening is  
really the sidewalk to nowhere. Right? Because it ends at Mark Alexio's property to the  
west, and it ends at our property, and nobody is going to use it. So to be able to  
consider to try to make that type of investment for something that's not going to be used  
would certainly be a waste of money and certainly not consistent with what we're trying to  
achieve, I think, in the neighborhood. You know, and the final thing I wanted to mention  
really had to do with deficiencies versus policy. Right? And so if -- if, in fact, we're  
looking at a situation of an entire neighborhood that had deficiencies throughout, I think  
there is certainly something to be able to -- to be able to discuss, but there aren't  
deficiencies in this neighborhood. People choose to live here because of the community  
feel that you have in the neighborhood itself. It's a very active neighborhood. As Greg  
pointed out, a lot of walkers, a lot of runners, a lot of bikers, and our neighbors are used  
to being able to -- to navigate our neighborhood the way it is right now, and -- and,  
certainly, we'd like to see it remain that way. So my point today was to be able to speak  
to you, to thank you for considering this, and, certainly, to support, and we hope that you  
will support the design adjustment necessary to be able to continue to keep the history  
and the tradition and the uniqueness of our neighborhood. Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? I see none at this time.  
Thank you.  
MS. CHECKETT: Hi. Good evening. I'm Donna Checkett; I live at 107 East  
Ridgeley, and my husband, Chris, is here with me. And most of the points that obviously  
needed to be made have been made. I did want to provide just a little bit of perspective,  
and again, also start by thanking you all for your time this evening, thanking the staff for  
their time. It's been a very professional interaction, and I appreciate that. I've learned a  
lot about sidewalks. And I have to say I never in my life thought that I would oppose a  
sidewalk, but here I am in that situation. Just a little background. You know, Chris and I  
met, we lived here as adults. We've raised our family here. We bought our house about  
22 years ago, and it's been mentioned the property next to us was a very small house. It  
was about 1,000 square feet. It just needed a lot of work in renovation, and we had  
actually asked the property owner, we said, kind of one of those casual statements, hey,  
if you ever want to sell, let us know. And in 2019, he told us he was getting married. He  
moved across the street, which is what happens in the Grasslands. A lot of people don't  
go far. And our contract actually had a provision that we would just tear the house down.  
We all agreed that was the thing to do. And at that time, I've also always known that we  
love the house. I would like to spend my final days there, but it was built in 1949, and,  
really, at some point, you know, when we move to that stage in our life where we need  
walkers and wheelchairs and the realities of being old, the house won't work. So we  
would like to be able to do a small addition, and I think that's when it became very  
apparent that part of the house right now is six feet from the property line. So we're going  
to -- to do anything, we're going to come right up to that property line. And so to be able  
to combine it into one unified plat would be fantastic, and that's really what brought us to  
meeting with the City a couple of months ago and finding out about the sidewalk. I think  
all the points have been made in terms of the cost being so excessive and just really not  
in keeping with the neighborhood. We have had so many people stop us. We have a  
very large sign in one of the lots, and a lot of people have stopped and asked about it,  
and it's just been unanimous support to keep it as it is. People really enjoy the green  
space. Some of our neighbors are here in the back. They've been over there playing  
softball with their grandsons, and it's just a great place. We love making it part of our  
community. It seems like the sidewalk is excessive, and really doesn't do anything but  
detract from the neighborhood. So I'd be glad to answer any questions. Thank you again  
for your consideration and for all you do for Columbia.  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Ms. Checkett. Any questions for this speaker? I see none at  
this time. Thank you.  
MS. CHECKETT: Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Any additional speakers on this case?  
MR. HOHENSTEIN: Good evening. I'm Bob Hohenstein; my wife, Debbie, and I live  
at 32 Bingham Road. Our home, our property is just north of this lot that you're talking  
about. I'm not going to take a lot of your time. I'm simply going to reinforce what  
everybody has already told you. We very much support wholeheartedly the design  
adjustment. We think it's warranted. It makes if nothing else, common sense to do this.  
As Mike said before, it's kind of like the sidewalk to nowhere. It goes from Mark's  
property -- Alexio's property, over to their property, and that's it. Okay? Ms. Checkett  
and her husband were going to be out thousands of dollars for this sidewalk and the work  
that you mentioned that needs to be done on their driveway to bring everything up to  
grade. And again, I appreciate -- that was a great presentation. And, again, I would just  
ask you to please approve this design adjustment. Thank you.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? I see none. Thank you.  
Any additional speakers on this case? If there are none, we will close public comment.  
MS. LOE: Commission discussion? Commissioner Geuea Jones?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I agree that we have a problem in our Code, but the Code is  
what it is. And this is yet another request for a design adjustment because there aren't  
any sidewalks here now. We have to start somewhere. And the Grasslands is a lovely  
place. I've looked at homes in the Grasslands I think it's great. It's not unique in the old  
southwest. In fact, I think we had a similar design adjustment request with very similar  
arguments about people already walk on the streets. This is the character of the  
neighborhood. I think it was over in College Park maybe, or close to it off of Rollins. So  
our charge as Commission is to enforce the UDC unless there are such compelling  
reasons to deviate from it. To me, as I have said on all of these cases, our neighbors  
don't want it, we don't want to do it, and there aren't any sidewalks in the area are not  
compelling reasons to deviate from the UDC. If there's a cliff in the middle of our property  
is a compelling reason. So, I mean, I would like to explore do we just not want sidewalks  
in established neighborhoods? If that's the case, then we need to change the ordinance.  
Or do we want to say, you know, you need to give the right-of-way, but we're not going to  
make you build it. Great. We need to change the ordinance. But the way the ordinance  
is today, in order to enforce it, we have to deny this waiver. And I think I know how this  
will go, because it's gone that way on about the last four cases. But I want to have on  
the record that this is a reoccurring problem, and the standard, to my mind, cannot  
simply be do they want to or not, and that determines whether or not we put a sidewalk in  
a residential area. Because if we do that, then they'll never have sidewalks in most of the  
Fourth Ward. So that’s -- that's my comment and thought.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Since we're following form, I do support the design adjustment, and  
I agree with, conceptually, everything that Commissioner Geuea Jones has said. And  
that in mind, I'm going to volley this over to staff and remind them we need to get to some  
of these brownfield things sooner than later, because this is becoming recurrent -- this is  
a recurring theme, and you guys know that. I'm just getting that on the record for  
Council. It is my hope that the rest of this discussion and vote go the way the last four of  
them did. With that said, I'm done, Madam Chair.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: I, too, agree with my colleagues, but this is why it's in front of us.  
It's in front of us because it is kind of on that fulcrum either way, and it's up to us to  
analyze the information and determine if we're going to agree with staff or not. So it is our  
charge to make that fulcrum lean to the left or to the right. My position is I do like the  
argument of the neighborhood. If there was so little sidewalk, the complexion and the  
texture of the neighborhood is of such that a sidewalk in this area probably wouldn't make  
much sense -- just for that. And so I plan to support the adjustment even though it goes  
against the Code and all of that, but it's left -- it's left to us to make that kind of  
on-the-spot audible Omaha decision at the line of scrimmage and that's what we're going  
to do until we talk about this in a bigger forum in addressing the Code issue. And the  
only fear I have, which I don't see it in this neighborhood, but I just don't want us to get  
kicked in the butt later and then half the City has to pay for a sidewalk if there's some  
major improvements that go in, and then we let the -- we let the property owner off the  
hook, and sidewalks do come in and say, well, that's the City's problem. I don't -- that's  
the only thing that's bothering me, but I think in this neighborhood, that probably won't  
happen. But I plan to support the design adjustment.  
MS. LOE: I -- Commissioner MacMann has identified this as a brownfield, which I  
am interpreting as being a bit of a quagmire in the UDC.  
MR. MACMANN: Infill.  
MS. LOE: I -- I don't consider this requirement to be a problem. I'm more with  
Commissioner Stanton in that I -- I don't see us able to construct a provision that  
encompasses all the conditions that exist in the City. Therefore, we -- we've created a  
requirement that covers some cases, but they will get kicked back to this body for  
decisions, and there are going to be decisions that aren't as clear. And we may -- we're  
on the fulcrum with some of them. So in this case, just to let the group know, we get the  
sidewalk to nowhere argument every time. Not on the -- not every time, but we do hear  
that one. And, for me, that's not a persuasion at this point, because it's really going to  
depend on the particular circumstances of the neighborhood. If this is a location where  
there is development still going on, where replatting is still going to require sidewalks  
coming in if building, then we do have to start somewhere, or I do see the pieces going  
together. And I'm not going to support a waiver because this is a piece, and in the next  
ten years, I can envision the rest of that system getting completed. In a case more like  
this where it's built out and despite the comment that a house was built and there may  
have been a sidewalk requirement, I can believe there was a discussion with the builder,  
but the fact that you didn't come through this process makes me think that, no, you did  
not get a sidewalk waiver, because that would only have been tripped by a replatting.  
And I don't think I've seen a replat in Grasslands -- well, okay, Ms. Burns. So -- but  
not very many. So I don't see this area getting built out with sidewalks in the next ten  
years. And because of that, I would support the waiver. Commissioner Burns?  
MS. BURNS: Thank you. I think, and Staff can correct me if I'm wrong. Prior to  
adopting the UDC in 2016, sidewalks because our -- this neighborhood was so  
significantly developed, sidewalks were not triggered by a redevelopment. That's why Mr.  
Zguta didn't have to build a sidewalk, because of the significant, I think, 90 percent  
development. I think there are probably two lots now that are still available in Grasslands.  
And the house, my understanding is, on Bingham that was redeveloped because it wasn't  
a replat, didn't have to go through the sidewalk process. So maybe that's something we  
should look at, because it seems like a lot of our sidewalk requests do come from older,  
established neighborhoods, and we do hear the same arguments over and over again that  
it's a sidewalk to nowhere, that people aren't going to walk on it. But I can't unhear or  
unread what I heard tonight and what I read in the packet that the neighborhood is not  
supportive of it. There's no one here that's in support of it. And so I have to listen to what  
the people who live there say, and I have to understand that staff has to go through the  
process with the variance, but I plan on supporting this variance because I'm -- I'm  
listening to what the neighborhood is requesting. And I agree with Commissioner Geuea  
Jones that we need to revisit this, but perhaps look at established neighborhood in a  
different way than we look at new construction.  
MS. LOE: I live in an established neighborhood that does not have many sidewalks.  
And I've had neighbors leave the neighborhood for lack of sidewalks. So not all  
established neighborhoods are the same. Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Just to revisit this, the -- I was a little flippant before. I didn't mean  
to be quite so flippant. I was trying to have a little fun with the evening. A couple of  
criteria that I look -- look at in the development -- the developed neighborhood. Here on  
Ridgeley, over on Bicknell, or the Gibbs property over off of Edgewood is traffic,  
pedestrian and automobile traffic. And in all these situations, the traffic is very low and  
going very slow. Looking to the future, I lived in Los Angeles, and I lived in Connecticut,  
and if you're a developer, all that stuff -- we do it. You build out the sidewalk as you  
develop the development. That's not how they do it. They build everything, and then they  
put the houses in. So if we have a -- something like -- just something to look at in the  
future. I don't want to take these good people's times or anymore of our times, but there  
are ways to look at infill development that are creative.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: Thank you. I've been conflicted in addressing this case, as I was  
preparing for this and still now. The one thing that came up in our discussion tonight was  
the hope that this goes as the past four have gone. I'm not sure if we can easily  
categorize the last -- how the last four have gone unless we lump them into different  
buckets based on the surroundings because if I -- as I look back at our voting history, the  
vast majority have been turned down. And yet there are outliers to that case where  
neighborhoods are built out, granted. This one is not quite as strong as some of those  
outliers in my book, because it is those no site characteristics that are strong enough to  
make it impossible to build a sidewalk, and because in actual fact, it's less than a block  
away from a sidewalk stub. Now the flip side of this is when we do say sidewalks to  
nowhere, I also look at puzzle pieces to nowhere. I also live in the City -- in a part of the  
City with missing sidewalks here and there, and as we start to advocate for sidewalks, or  
not, the City may fill in sidewalks, and it is a piece that the City doesn't have to build.  
Now on the flip side of this, I think it is unlikely that the City would build a sidewalk in a  
neighborhood that asks the City not to build a sidewalk, but I don't know where the chips  
may fall for that, now or ten years down the road, if, as you all are aging in place, you  
decide that you want sidewalks. After all, that may change if new people live there later,  
that may change, and it is a puzzle piece that could lessen the burden of filling in a  
sidewalk. I don't think it will get filled in soon. I try to look for consistency in voting  
history, and it does look very discretionary to me, which is a place that I'm not  
comfortable with. I believe that I will support this because I don't think that it will get filled  
MS. LOE: Any additional discussion? Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: If my fellow Commissioners have no other questions or comments  
-- Planner Palmer, could you put up the main screen, please? Thank you. Our staff  
liaison, Manager Zenner, has just reminded me that this needs to be two plats. Legal is  
nodding at me, also. I should do the design adjustment first? I'm looking at our counsel,  
and then I'll move on to the plat, starting in that order. In the matter of Grasslands Plat  
17, final plat and design adjustment, Case 244-2022 -- Ms. Thompson, this is listed here  
in the negative. Should I list it in the positive?  
MS. THOMPSON: That would be my advice, yes.  
MR. MACMANN: That -- that's where I'm going. In the -- I move to approve -- stay  
with me, folks -- the requested design adjustment from Section 29-5.1. Point of order, all  
motions are made in the positive, so we don't get double negatives in the law. I will be  
voting no. .Thank you. See how confused I get.  
MS. LOE: Do we have a second?  
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?  
MS. BURNS: Just to clarify that we are -- the motion indicated approval of the plat  
and approval of the design adjustment?  
MR. MACMANN: I'm sorry. I was continuing to look at deny when I was speaking.  
MS. BURNS: All right. Just want to make sure. Thank you.  
MR. MACMANN: Thank you.  
MR. ZENNER: And the motion on the floor is only dealing with approval of the design  
MS. LOE: Design. Just the design adjustment approval. All right. Commissioner  
Carroll, may we have roll call, please.  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms. Loe,  
Mr. Stanton, Ms. Burns, Mr. MacMann, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Placier. Voting No: Ms.  
Geuea Jones. Motion carries 6-1.  
MS. CARROLL: We have six yes votes, and one no vote.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: Seeing no other discussion on that, I'm going to make a motion on  
the plat. In the matter of Grasslands Plat 17, final plat, I move to approve.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. LOE: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by Commissioner Stanton.  
This is a motion to approve the plat. Any discussion on this motion? Seeing none.  
Commissioner Carroll, may we have roll call.  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms. Loe,  
Mr. Stanton, Ms. Burns, Mr. MacMann, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier.  
Motion carries 7-0.  
MS. CARROLL: We have seven votes to approve; the motion carries.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. So the recommendations for approval are supported.  
Motion # 1 - Move to approve the requested design adjustment from Section  
29-5.1. VOTING YES: Loe, Stanton, Burns, MacMann, Carroll, Placier. VOTING  
NO: Geuea Jones. Motion carries 6-1.  
Motion # 2 - In the matter of Grasslands Plat 17, final plat, move to approve.  
VOTING YES: Loe, Stanton, Burns, MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones ,Placier.  
VOTING NO None. Motion carries 7-0.  
MS. LOE: Any additional public comments? In general? No. All right.  
MS. LOE: Staff comments?  
MR. ZENNER: The next meeting will be September 22nd. We will start that at 5:30  
with a tantalizing discussion of short-term rental. Maybe we get through another half a  
page. And if I am not incorrect, we are approaching Commission officer elections here. I  
think that will be in October, so start putting your dance cards together for who may be  
the lineup for next year. We do have a regular 7:00 p.m. meeting. It will be shorter than  
this, but maybe no less complicated. Hopefully, it will not be as complicated. We are  
only discussing three items. And the two items that were on this evening's agenda or  
broadcast at our last meeting, both were delayed due to technical issues. They both  
were platting actions, and therefore, did not require public advertising. That is why they  
were not formally tabled this evening. When a project does not meet technical standards  
by which to be brought forward, it just is held back. We do send out early property  
notification postcards to our P & Z Listserv, and therefore, we did have some residents  
here this evening for the Oakland Gravel request that Mr. Palmer addressed earlier before  
our meeting started to explain to them the technical side of why that preliminary was not  
presented, but I thought I would inform you all as well. Neither of these required public  
hearing, and because they don't require public hearing, we don't have to go through that  
formal tabling process. And then the -- the highlight item for this evening's -- or for next  
meeting's evening's actions will be UDC text amendments, or phase 4 revisions dealing  
with drive-throughs, dealing with easements in the downtown, the elimination of the former  
C-2 zoning district from the UDC, and a collection of two or three additional more minor  
and technical related issues for clarity purposes, some missed section references within  
the Code as it exists today, for example, and the like. So while you have not seen those,  
they are really more administrative in nature, just to ensure that we've got correct  
cross-referencing. The big ones, however, are the top three that I listed: drive-throughs,  
utility easements in the MDT, and then the elimination of the C-2 zoning district. We will  
be sending out constituency notification of those changes to allow for our consultancies  
and other design professionals to have an opportunity to see those in advance of the  
public hearing. And we have really not heard much up to this point. There are a number  
of our design professionals that are aware we're working on those changes. You all  
would have received or should have received earlier from me this week an email, just so  
we have our maps here, as I usually do, so you have your graphic. These are the same  
maps that we presented at our last meeting for our two cases, the Hinkson Creek Road  
and Paris Road project, which we've seen previously, and then the project here off of  
Oakland Gravel, and infill development proposal for single-family housing. You all would  
have received from me earlier this week a notification of refresher training for our Sunshine  
Law requirements and responsibilities of Board and Commission member. We typically  
will do some refresher training for those that are not new during our meeting at which we  
cover elections. At that point, we will also probably add in a couple of other topics, such  
as ex parte communication, and the like, of how we operate as a Commission for your  
newer members, so they have an understanding of why we do the things we do. It'll give  
me an opportunity to maybe just eat and not talk, and you a rest from hearing me. Other  
than that, that is all we have for tonight. I do appreciate your participation and your  
comments. If you have any suggestions to resolve our issues that we discussed tonight  
during work session, specifically owner, please feel free to send me an e-mail. I know  
Ms. Geuea Jones has already promised me a delivery, so I will look to try to reconcile  
what I do receive and then, hopefully,  
Ms. Thompson and I can work to try to come  
back with a potential solution based on the conversation tonight, as well, for you all to  
consider. We are moving slowly, but surely, to a point which I think we will be able to  
prepare our memo and then, hopefully, be able to get a venue with Council to discuss the  
regulations. Again, thank you very much for your attention this evening, and just to settle  
all fear, yes, sidewalks is in the next round, and I can also provide at a later date some of  
the logic behind why permitting under certain circumstances does not require sidewalk  
construction. Ms. Burns’ assessment is correct. If you're not platting and you do meet  
criteria, you generally are not required to install sidewalk with a building permit. So what  
has happened in the Grasslands was not done illegally. It was actually done within the  
context of the Code. With that, I will turn it over to you all.  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Zenner.  
MS. LOE: Commissioner MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: I have a point for our guests this evening, and Legal can help me  
out on this. We approved the design adjustment six to one. Am I correct in my  
statement that if Council were to overturn us, they must have a super majority?  
MR. ZENNER: That is correct. If they want to go in the opposite direction --  
MR. MACMANN: All right. For our -- for our listeners out there. Normally, most  
often, Council goes with us. They are not required to do that. They can do with us --  
they can go against us at four to three. Because we voted six to one the way we did,  
they must now vote five to two. That's 75 percent; is that correct? I'm getting some  
noddings. Just so you all know that when it goes to the next level. Thank you, Madam  
MS. LOE: Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: I would like to commend my colleagues up here that I think they  
were approaching these anomalies in a good fashion, and that we need to take note,  
which seems like everybody is doing, as far as where we see the hiccups in the Code.  
And I do not want us to get discouraged that sometimes we have to play -- we have to be  
a tiebreaker. And a lot of the things that come before us don't necessarily lean on the  
technical merits fairly, and it's up to us to use our logic and our background to make  
those decisions. So keep pushing forward and keep taking notes so that we can adjust  
the Code accordingly.  
MS. LOE: I like the use of logic. I would say that we're more logical than subjective  
in this group. So thank you, Mr. Zenner, for sticking with us through our discussions.  
We were coming around. With that, if there's a final motion?  
XI. NEXT MEETING DATE -September 22, 2022 @ 7 pm (tentative)  
MS. LOE: Mr. MacMann?  
MR. MACMANN: I move to adjourn.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Second.  
MS. LOE: Second. I'm going to give it to Commissioner Geuea Jones on that one.  
We're adjourned.  
(The meeting adjourned as 8:20 p.m.)  
(Off the record.)  
Move to adjourn