City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Columbia City Hall

Council Chambers

701 E. Broadway

Thursday, October 6, 2022

7:00 PM

Regular Meeting

I. CALL TO ORDER

MS. GEUEA JONES: I will now call this October 6, 2022 meeting of the Planning

and Zoning

II. INTRODUCTIONS

MS. GEUEA JONES: Secretary Carroll, may we please have a roll call.

MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Burns.

MS. BURNS: Here.

MS. CARROLL: Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Present.

MS. CARROLL: I am here. Commissioner Geuea Jones?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Here.

MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Here.

MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Kimbell?

MS. KIMBELL: Here.

MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: Here.

MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: Here.

MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Here.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

MS. CARROLL: We have nine.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much.

9 -

Present:

Tootie Burns, Sara Loe, Anthony Stanton, Michael MacMann, Valerie Carroll,

Sharon Geuea Jones, Robbin Kimbell, Peggy Placier and Shannon Wilson

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Zenner, are there any changes or additions to the

agenda?

MR. ZENNER: No, there are not, ma'am.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much.

MR. MACMANN: Move to approve.

MR. STANTON: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by

Commissioner Stanton. May I have a thumbs-up approval on the agenda?

(Unanimous vote for approval.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Very good. Unanimously approved.

Move to approve

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

September 22, 2022 Regular Meeting

MS. GEUEA JONES: We should have all received a copy of the minutes from our

September 22nd regular meeting. Are there any changes or addendums to the minutes?

MR. MACMANN: Move to approve.

MR. STANTON: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by

Commissioner Stanton. Thumbs-up approval on the minutes?

(Unanimous vote for approval.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Very good. Eight to approve, one abstention.

Move to approve

V. TABLING REQUESTS

Case # 272-2022

A request by Crockett Engineering Consultants (agent) on behalf of

Columbia's Woodcrest Chapel (owner) to approve the rezoning of the

property from A (Agriculture) to PD (Planned Development) and to approve

a PD development plan known as Woodcrest Chapel PD, to allow limited

additional uses of personal services, indoor recreation, restaurant, and

commercial kitchen, but with no new construction on the site. The

approximately 9.62-acre property is located at the northwest corner of

Nifong Boulevard and Sinclair Street, and includes the address 2201 W

Nifong Blvd. (A request to table this project to the October 20, 2022

Planning Commission meeting has been received).

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there a staff report?

MR. ZENNER: Yes. So the applicant has requested tabling as articulated in the

applicant's tabling request. This is to allow for some additional neighborhood

engagement prior to coming before the Planning Commission with the proposed PD plan

and the development -- the rezoning and the development plan. That meeting is going to

be happening between now and the 20th. Therefore, there is not a need to table further

out than that. They just wanted the opportunity to have the additional engagement.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Are there any questions of staff about

this tabling request? I -- Commissioner MacMann, go ahead.

MR. MACMANN: You had a point of order. Please go on. I'm sorry. I did not mean

to interrupt you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And I think I was going to ask the same thing you're about to

ask.

MR. MACMANN: All right. If there are no more questions or concerns on the tabling

-- do we want to offer --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Well, I was going to ask staff if they had advertised it.

MR. ZENNER: This was a publicly advertised hearing for this evening. If there is -- if

there are members from the public wishing to speak, it would be speaking upon the

tabling request only, since we have not prepared a staff report nor offered an opinion as it

relates to the proposal at this time.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there anyone here from the public that wishes to speak

about the tabling motion on this case? Please come forward now.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Go ahead. Please state your name and address for the

record and speak as close to the microphone as you can so that those listening at home

can hear you.

MR. BAKER: I'm David Baker: I live at 3800 Blue Cedar Lane next to the property.

My only question tonight is if there's going to be a session, I would like to know when,

because there's been no notice to the neighbors of any -- this meeting or public input for

this, and I just would like to have the opportunity to know what -- what's planned.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Staff, do we know the date?

MR. ZENNER: I do not, but the applicant's civil engineer is here, and he may be able

to speak to that.

MS. GEUEA: Okay. If you'll wait just a minute, sir? Did you have a question,

Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: I was going to -- for this gentleman's edification, I was going to ask

Mr. Crockett if he had date certain right now. He's indicated to us 20 October. And also

was going to ask staff if they could maybe not republish this, if they could communicate

to Mr. Crockett to the neighbors. So that's what I was going to do, sir, but let's go on

with the process.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Sure. Thank you. Any other questions for this witness? No.

Thank you very much, sir. Hopefully, we'll get an answer before you leave tonight. Okay.

Anyone else who wishes to say something publicly about this tabling motion? Seeing

none.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any Commissioner discussion on the tabling motion?

Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Unless my fellow Commissioners or anyone else in this hall has

any questions or concerns, I'm going to move to table 272-2022 to date certain 20

October 2022.

MR. STANTON: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by

Commissioner Stanton. Any discussion on the motion? Mr. MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Just for the record, I want to indicate that Mr. Crockett and the

gentleman who asked that question have shared each other's information and should be

in touch. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you for getting that on the record. Anyone else?

Seeing none. Secretary Carroll, may we have a roll call?

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.

Stanton, Ms. Burns, Mr. MacMann, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier, Ms.

Kimbell, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Loe. Motion carries 9-0.

MS. CARROLL: We have nine to approve; the motion carries.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. The case will be tabled to date certain.

Move to table 272-2022 to date certain 20 October 2022

9 - Burns, Loe, Stanton, MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Kimbell, Placier and Wilson

Yes:

VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS & SUBDIVISION

Case # 246-2022

A request by Crockett Engineering Consultants (agent), on behalf of Fred

Overton, Inc. (contract purchaser), seeking assignment of R-1

(Single-family Dwelling) permanent zoning, upon annexation, of 53.80

acres of land currently zoned Boone County A-1. The subject site is

generally located west of Phillips Park and north of the existing terminus of

Bristol Lake Parkway. A concurrent request (Case # 245-2022) seeking

approval of a 106-lot preliminary plat has been submitted and appears on

the October 6, 2022 Planning Commission agenda for consideration.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Moving on to public hearings and subdivisions. We have two

cases with the same address. Are we hearing them as one tonight, Mr. Zenner?

MR. ZENNER: Yes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. I will read them both then.

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we have a staff report.

Staff report was given by Mr. Rusty Palmer of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends approval of R-1 zoning as permanent City zoning, upon

annexation. In addition, staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to

applicant acceptance of all development agreement provisions and the limitation on land

disturbance permitting prior to execution of the development agreement.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Before we direct questions to staff, have any of my fellow

Commissioners had outside conversations that they would like to disclose so that we can

all have the same information when considering this case? Seeing none. Any questions

for staff? Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: Thank you for the report, Mr. Palmer. We've discussed street trees quite

a bit in our work sessions. You've identified these as neighborhood collectors -- Bristol

Lake Parkway as a neighborhood collector in your report. I see in the requirements that

it includes buffer strips. There's two options. One is a seven-foot buffer strip with trees

permitted, and one is a nine-foot buffer strip with trees allowed. Do we require street

trees?

MR. PALMER: Yeah. Generally, we require street trees at 40-foot intervals along all

street frontages. So there being -- in this instance, they're basically being treated like the

sidewalk as I kind of described that. So the Bristol Lake Parkway extension, the

developer will install them on the east -- or, I'm sorry -- the west side, and then the Parks

Department will generally place them on the -- on their property on the east side. And in

terms of the Phillips Farm Road, I believe the discussion on that was that Parks would

provide those. So the developer is building the road, and Parks is providing the sidewalk

and the -- and the street trees.

MS. LOE: That answers probably my second question, which was the sidewalk

currently appears to be on the east of Bristol Lake Parkway. Will the park be extending

it on the east side as the road -- I don't see it on the east side in the plat.

MR. PALMER: Yeah. The discussion there was that it would either be an extension

of the sidewalk in a -- in a standard location, or it would be tied back into the trail system

on their property.

MS. LOE: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Planner Palmer, again, thank you. I

notice we had lots of horse trading on this one.

MR. PALMER: Oh, yeah.

MR. MACMANN: There were many City departments that had to make -- that were

involved.

MR. PALMER: Right.

MR. MACMANN: I'm just -- you know, we have roads, we had fire, we had parks.

When we get a little complicated like this, because we're switching back and forth, the

property -- the functional property line between the parks and the development, and I

hadn't really thought about this before because we haven't done a whole lot of this, is that

we didn't lose something in the -- you know, throwing the baby out with the bath water, to

try to make it work. I'm just going to be paying a little closer attention. I didn't quite

catch all that when I read through it the first time. Were there any -- did any of those

agencies, be they roads, be they the park, be they fire, have any -- what gave them the

greatest pause, I guess, is the question I'm asking. Or were there any things that gave

Mr. Zenner -- I mean, the question goes to you, too.

MR. ZENNER: And I'll -- I'll -- most of the negotiation after we initially laid out the

concept was facilitated through me and Rusty, along the with departments engaged. So

the initial submission of the project -- back up. We started with a concept review on this

development proposal, and during the concept review, there were certain comments

offered to the applicant and his design professional that didn't get necessarily

incorporated into the submitted original preliminary plat. One of those was the road

alignment for Bristol Lake. The other was the connection of Phillips Farm Road to the

extension of Bristol Lake to afford the fire service a secondary access. The greatest

pause probably occurred with -- well, what is the scale of the construction that needs to

be completed in order to ensure that all affected parties, i.e., the City, the applicant, the

fire service, were going to have their concerns addressed. Fire service's is they need to

get to the property, they needed a secondary way in from the east, and they were

insistent that, at a minimum, there be a fire rated access to the northeast corner of the

subject site. When that was discussed with our Public Works staff and our Park staff, it

was apparent that a minimum 20-foot-wide paved surface was insufficient, hence, we

started to discuss the necessity of extending the entire current cross-section, and how

that would be allocated monetarily. The road alignment for Phillips -- or for Bristol Lake

then came into question as to we need some deflection, the curvilinear nature of the

roadway in order to address particular problems that are reoccurring with speeding

through residential neighborhoods on long straight segments of roadway which, when that

occurs, we're normally installing speed humps, bumps, or tables --

MR. MACMANN: Yeah. We want to stop that up front.

MR. ZENNER: -- yeah. And our engineering staff has been somewhat given a little

bit of direction as to you need to address these issues at the design phase, not later after

the road is built and we have neighbors complaining. So there was a misunderstanding

amongst the applicant's design professional and our Parks and Recreation Department in

regards to the relocation of Bristol Lake Parkway onto our property. And once that was

resolved that, yes, Parks was open to that, then became the issue do we want to pedway

constructed or along the entire eastern boundary, and that would answer Ms. Loe's

question, or was Parks and Recreation willing to accept that. And we had to balance a

lot of different factors here. The roadway connections are essential to make not only this

development function, but this portion of the City's asset, its southern recreation park

function properly. So we had to start to prioritize how that was going to happen, and the

road construction became the priority over some of the peripheral activities, such as

street tree placement and the sidewalk construction; and therefore, that's where some of

the horse trading came in. The applicant is -- the applicant has benefitted in the respect

that we are -- we have been able to satisfy the fire department's concerns with the

development agreement that is currently structured to contain a very specific trigger for

the secondary access to be fully completed. They have gained a little bit of additional

flexibility in some of their lot layouts on the initial two -- the two intersections that will be

created with Bristol Lake, though you will note on the preliminary plat, there is not any

individual residential lot that straddles the -- what is the section line. So they did not gain

any lots on the City's property, and I think that may answer really the critical question,

did we sell the farm in the process.

MR. MACMANN: I'm not quite going there, but, please, this is fascinating.

MR. ZENNER: So we did not -- we haven't -- they did not get that, and so what it did

allow them to do, though, is to modify a little bit of their lot layout internally on the longer

street segments, and those longer street segments still do comply with the UDC, so

that's not a problem that we've run into previously, either. When we did the numbers,

which we require in a development agreement to the costs associated with the

improvements that we were requiring to be installed, or that would be required to be

installed to make the property against the dedications and construction of offsite

improvements, so a round-about is -- a round-about right-of-way was required, that was

what would consider a credit because we are trying to plan in advance. The existing

unbuilt portion of Bristol Lake Parkway south of the property to an existent terminus was

also a credit because they are building that instead of the City. And then the other credit

that is being given is for the construction of Phillips -- or of Bristol -- Phillips Farm Road

250 feet west of its current terminus all the way to the project site well in advance of what

the City would do. When you look at what those construction costs were against the

dedication costs of the round-about right-of-way and design, a third of that cost, the

applicant is actually paying more money to us through the investments that he's making

in order to make his development whole than the right of way. So when we looked at

this, this is a pretty good deal for the City. We're gaining significant increased

accessibility to a major asset in the southern portion of the City. The improvements that

will be made will allow for the traversing of the Phillips property vehicularly, as well as

pedestrian, to service the upcoming NCAA track, a lot of cross-country tournaments,

across the street at the Gans Recreation Complex, and all of this apparently is going to

help address some issues that we often run into as a City that we need capital

investments and infrastructure improvements made before we are capable of getting there

ourself. So that is how we arrived at where we are with this development agreement, and

I would tell you that we put the applicant over the barrel, spanked a little bit, we got

something out of it, and I think we all ended the day very happy with what we are getting

in the way of the investments and the proposal that's being presented not being

inconsistent.

MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Mr. Zenner. I have one little follow-up on this, and I

think our Chair might have something, too. The reason I went down this -- and I'm really

glad you went where you went, and thank you for your forbearance there, our audience.

The public asset across the street, and the sensitive nature thereof, parts of it, and the

investment in City infrastructure will engender a higher level of focus than some other

developments may get. I'm not saying that's fair or not, but a lot of people are going to be

paying attention, and to make sure that we haven't given away the farm, so to speak, to

make a development happen. And I wanted to get some of that on the record. I could

kind of see kind of some of what you did -- you all did, and I appreciate the work that

everyone has done there. But just making sure that we're kind of focusing on there is

some equity here going throughout the whole thing. I don't have any more questions at

this juncture. Madam Chair?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else, questions for staff? Oh, sorry. Commissioner

Placier, go ahead.

MS. PLACIER: Yeah. Just briefly. About the -- the stream buffer, it -- it makes

sense that a buffer -- I mean, it ends at a certain place. And on one inch on the other

side of it, you can develop. But two of the lots seem fairly close or very close to that.

Was there any concern -- yeah. Those two, 22 and 23. Was there any concern about

that, or is that just the way it works, that you can go right up to the buffer?

MR. ZENNER: That is the way that the regulations are structured. I think from a

practical perspective, depending on how the sites are graded, given the topography going

back towards the creek channel, that likely is going to be a -- the structure won't be that

far back to be impacted. And

Mr. Crockett can better respond to that, possibly. But when we produced the mapping

that you all received on Wednesday that we sent out, some of you should have received

that e-mail, it was based on an observation that Ms. Carroll had asked that we look into,

so Rusty's inclusion of some of the stormwater and the FEMA-related information was to

hopefully address that, and that was an observation I made, as well. I hadn't anticipated

belief that that was going to be a concern. As Rusty pointed out, any development that

would occur within or beyond that line is going to require -- I don't care if it was a foot

inside it -- it would still require a floodplain development permit. So, you know, ultimately,

this is a preliminary plat. And if, with greater field verification, it is essential possibly

because they don't want to go through the floodplain development permitting process,

they may pull that lot line back at final platting. But as it looks at this point, based on

the topos that have been provided to us, they're not in that restricted area; and therefore,

the way our regulations are structured, they're capable of platting. They could have

platted it into the lot if they wanted. They chose not to to make clear to avoid the -- the

automatic triggering of a floodplain development permit. So again, the developer is going

into this understanding that he's got that condition existing along those lots and would

have to take effective action to avoid additional regulatory process being applied to it.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: Mr. Zenner, just to follow up on Commissioner Placier's question, I did

some rough calculations on the drawing and was interpreting the Type 2 outer buffer zone

as being the additional buffer required by the steeper slopes in that it's not occurring

everywhere but appears to be being tripped by the locations where the steep slopes

occurs. And maybe Mr. Palmer --

MR. PALMER: Yeah. There's an example of that here. You can see the boundary

juts out, then it comes back in here, and then juts out again. Those are your areas of

steep slopes, and it's denoted as such on the plan.

MS. LOE: So I don't know if that helps allay or address your question at all,

Commissioner Placier, but there's the stream buffer and then that's added to when it's

within a certain distance of steep slopes, and that's what we're seeing at those lots.

MR. ZENNER: We also have, just to follow up on that. There are other processes

as it relates to our stream buffers. Stream buffer averaging is something that our site

engineers apply at -- normally working with the design professional. So in some

instances where you have greater required stream buffering, it may impact a development

in a different manner. The Code does allow for stream buffer averaging. I'm not fully

aware that that was utilized in this project specifically, but it has been, and it is an

allowed practice to where when you can't obtain possible the increased the setback due

to other factors, you can average the buffer and you may end up getting a greater buffer in

particular areas thereby preserving maybe equally sensitive land areas that would

otherwise have been not required to be preserved, and there's a couple of different

alternatives that exist to get to the regulatory intent. Most often, you see this type of

environment, though, where the stream buffer gets extended because of the tripping of

anything, and I think it's greater 15 percent slope, and that's where we end up getting

then the added buffer setback.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Carroll?

MS. CARROLL: Yeah. Mr. Zenner, for the benefit of the Commission, I was

wondering if you could tell us a little bit about the stream buffer to the south, and the

position of the dam in relation to the road that is to be extended?

MR. ZENNER: Unfortunately, we didn't drop the topo -- we have a topo map that

actually has the floodplains on it, as well, which we didn't drop. And so you'll -- on this

graphic, it may be easier to see. You'll see the blue line stream that's in the southern

portion of the site, that's what's currently sitting in that southern stream buffer that has

the -- the jut out for the extra buffer area due to the slope. And it, in essence, terminates

about where the roadway extended north, and that roadway is Bristol Lake Parkway,

extended north. Well, immediately to the east of where the roadway will come across

the southeast corner of the subject site, you're going to end up with the dam for Phillips

Lake is right where Rusty is running his cursor. That actually -- the stream, as we

understand it, is, in essence, an overflow feature. It allows if the dam were to be

breached, the water would run through the stream channel within the buffer area itself.

Again, Mr. Crockett probably has better credentials to explain stormwater and water

movement than I, but that is, in essence, as we understand how that stream would

function. It is an intermittent blue line steam, meaning that it does not always have water

in it. As Rusty informed me to today, as he found out, intermittent streams don't support

aquatic life because they're not always wet. In the 14 years that I have been here, I have

never heard of Phillips Lake ever breaching its banks, so the road construction, in and of

itself, of Bristol Lake Parkway, whenever -- we won't allow you to build a roadway in a -- in

a position in which will flood. So as part of the road construction process, particular

design techniques are going to have to be used to ensure that that road is elevated

enough to address particular issues that may occur with water. Therefore, passage along

that road right-of-way as it's constructed north should not be impeded in general weather

conditions. And again, Mr. Crockett most likely can speak to how there may need to be

a culvert and what size that culvert may need to be that connects from the east side of

the roadway to the west side of the road into the stream -- that intermittent stream. We

don't have those plans at this point, but that is, as we would understand, the road

construction would be having to address those as part of the design side submitted at the

time of -- before or concurrent with the platting of the first phase. And the road

construction plans then for the piece beyond what may be platted in the first would need

to be submitted and approved prior to that 69th lot.

MR. PALMER: Just a little additional information on the -- the topo and the drainage

here. There is an overflow just off of the page here for the larger lake. This small little

body of water, that's actually like a kind of a check dam almost in the drainage channel.

There's really not a channel in this location. It's more sheet drainage. But what it does is

the overflow would actually run down along the edge here to this point where -- where the

creek begins. And then, again, this whole area here is all dam, and so, basically, that

sheet drains through here is then directed back out to here and then to the creek

eventually. So hopefully that helps clarify.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Kimbell?

MS. KIMBELL: Would you show again where the -- on the plat where that 69th plot

would be -- or plat would be?

MR. PALMER: Yeah. So if you look -- the lots number -- or the lot numbering starts

here at one, and it goes around the outside until it gets to 32, and then 33, 34, up to, I

guess, 39 here. And then everything internal is -- is what fills it out to the 68th lot.

MS. KIMBELL: Okay.

MR. PALMER: So basically, it would everything from -- from the entrance up to this

lot right here. And then so everything north of that up here, so this -- this demarcation

line here, this lot would be included, and then everything north of that would be the

second phase.

MS. KIMBELL: So the -- the road construction has to be completed up to the 69th

lot. Correct?

MR. PALMER: Once -- once the 68th lot is completed and they are ready to plat the

69th, the roadway will have to be installed and functional before that 69th lot can be

approved.

MS. KIMBELL: All road construction has to be completed, and then from that point

on, they can move forward?

MR. PALMER: Right.

MR. ZENNER: Correct.

MS. KIMBELL: Thank you,

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Seeing none, we will move on to public

testimony.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Please state your name and address for the record. Six

minutes if you are representing a group, and three if you are here as an individual.

MR. CROCKETT: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Tim

Crockett, Crockett Engineering, 1000 West Nifong. And I apologize tonight, my graphics

tech was not able to work for me this week. She's on other project, so my graphics

aren't near as good as Mr. Palmer's are. With me tonight is Fred Overton, the applicant

for the project. And again, a quick overview, it's about 54 acres. I'm proposing

single-family residential from the A-1 county zoning. You've seen this depiction before.

You can see the development to the south, of course, to the north, and all of the

multi-family across Bristol Lake. Again, the preliminary plat is pretty common. We

talked about the City departments that we went through for this project. And one thing

that wasn't really talked about a lot was CATSO. Bristol Lake Parkway north and south

is a -- a CATSO regulated neighborhood collector, as is Phillips Farm Road that goes

east and west. And so we met with CATSO on a couple of occasions because this area,

not specifically here, but further to the west, is very complicated. And so CATSO wanted

to make sure that what's being proposed is at the right location. And so we went through

that process, went to them a couple of times to discuss this project, and the alignment of

Phillips Farm Road and the alignment of Bristol Ridge Parkway is what everybody

decided that's the best alignment for this area and that part of Columbia, so we wanted to

make sure that we understand that. With regard to connectivity, this project obviously

extends two CATSO roadways, it connects two ends, the north and south of Bristol --

excuse me -- of Phillips Park. Right now, it's basically the deficient portion on the south

and then, of course, you've got the park that they're developing to the north. These two

connections would -- would give them a direct connection. Not only does it provide

connectivity for our development, as well as the existing Bristol development, but it also

provides connectivity for the park. I believe that Mr. -- Mr. Palmer talked about the 68th

lot and with how fire is okay with us going up to 68 lots without that connection being

made. Likewise, as the park comes in, as the park develops, they're going to encounter

the similar situation where they can only develop a certain portion of square footage off a

single point of access coming the other direction. So the City really needs this

connection, as well, and that was one thing that we really worked together on quite well.

When I say we, I mean Parks and Rec, Public Works traffic, the Planning Department

and the fire department was to create a situation that we can build both of these roads

and make it work for all parties, because we're not the only ones that need that

connectivity. As the parks developed, they're bumping into their limitations on how much

they can develop of that park without having a second point of access, and so they need

that, as well. When I talk about that, and this is where my lack of skills come in here, so

-- you can see on the lower portion that dash green line. That's about 400 feet of Bristol

Lake Parkway that's being extended by this project. Right now, that -- there's already

right-of-way granted. It was granted back in, I believe, 2005 and 2008, two different plats.

The developer granted half of it, the City granted half of it back in those -- the early 2000s.

That portion was graded and the sidewalk on the west side was constructed by the

developer, and I think that -- the sidewalk came at a later date, but the grade came early

on in the project. I believe the original development agreement, and I wasn't involved, so I

may misspeak on this -- I apologize. But it's my understanding that the City's portion,

the City's responsibility was to build that 400 feet in an original development agreement.

However, due to unfulfilled obligations, I believe, by one of the original developers made

that development agreement is null and void, hence, the road never got built.

Nonetheless, that 400 feet is being proposed to be constructed by my client, as well as

the 750 feet shown there, as well as the other roughly 900 feet, I believe, of Phillips Farm

Road as shown there. This is how it looks today. If you take the major roads around

Phillips Park, this is what you're looking at today. And this is the connection that we

want to make, and so you can see how it not just benefits my -- my client, it doesn't -- it

doesn't just benefit the applicant, but it also benefits the area as a whole. Fire looked at

it and, of course, I think one thing they talked about was reduced response times in

some instances, and so it responds -- it helps everybody out. Again, utilities, pretty

straightforward. It is inside the urban service area. It's got City sewer running across the

property. It's got City water running across the property and, of course, it's got City

electric out there, as well. Stormwater, pretty standard stormwater standards. We're

going to meet the letter of the law with regards to stormwater quality and detention. Of

course, we've already talked about the little piece of floodplain on the side there. We

don't have any lots in the floodplain, and we don't have any lots in the stream buffer. You

know, to answer your question, Ms. Placier, I know we can extend our lots down.

There's an inner and an outer zone in that stream buffer, and that inner is more restrictive

than the outer. The outer, we can, you know, mow it like a yard, clean out the

underbrush, all that kind of stuff. However, we can't do that if we keep our lots off of the

stream buffer, and so that's what we directly did here was we intentionally pulled the lots

back so that we don't have stream buffer on residential lots. We don't want the

homeowners to be able to go in there, while the City would allow it, we don't want them in

there cleaning the underbrush in the outer zone. And so that's the reason why we're

pulled out. So we don't have any lots that go across into any -- into any floodplain or

stream buffer. One other item, I believe, that the Planning Department talked about was

we can't plat our 69th lot until such time as we make the connection of Phillips Farm

Road to Bristol Lake Parkway. One item that's also in there, there's also a second

trigger in there, as well, is it has to be done within three years of the -- of the approval of

the first final plat. So if my client develops the first portion, gets the first portion of Bristol

Lake Parkway built and sits on it for three years, there's a trigger in the development

agreement that's going to force him to go ahead and make that connection. That was

something that the City really wanted is, hey, listen, if we're going to make this

connection, we want it sooner rather than later, and we don't want to wait for you to make

it long term, we want to make it on the short term. So there's a secondary trigger in

there that's going to force my client to build that within three years and not just on the

69th lot. If it happens before 60 -- before three years, then that 69 -- 69th lot is the one

that triggers. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that the Commission may

have.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Questions from the Commissioners? Commissioner

MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Crockett, a couple of questions.

To begin with, do you anticipate any problem with what Planner Palmer referred to as

sheet draining from the east-northeast onto any of your client's properties?

MR. CROCKETT: No. No. We don't have any issue with that. We've looked at it.

We're going to handle stormwater like we do in any similar-type development. Coming

from the east, we've talked about the road crossing, crossing the waterway.

MR. MACMANN: Well, it will serve as a dike, if you will.

MR. CROCKETT: It will, and we have to elevate it. We have to pass, and Public

Works requires us to do this. We have to pass a certain level storm under the road

before it could ever come up and top the road. So, in this case, we designed on a 25

-year event. And so any storm that is 25 years or less will go through a closed conduit

underneath the road. Given the elevation that we're going to come across with the new

road, I would anticipate we're -- just by default, we're going to exceed a 25 year by -- by a

substantial amount.

MR. MACMANN: Because of the nature -- the nature of the topography?

MR. CROCKETT: Yes.

MR. MACMANN: I'm going to hold my questions for the moment, because I think

we're going to go further. Thank you, Mr. Crockett.

MR. CROCKETT: Okay. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: Mr. Crockett, you heard my comment earlier to Commissioner Placier

about the additional offset on stream buffer --

MR. CROCKETT: Yes, ma'am.

MS. LOE: -- next to slopes over 14 percent.

MR. CROCKETT: Yes.

MS. LOE: Based on your comments just now, I'm wondering if what I was reading as

that is not actually, and I was just wondering if you could clarify.

MR. CROCKETT: I -- yes. Yes, ma'am. I do not believe we have any steep slopes

that are within or adjacent to the stream buffers here. And so the stream buffers are the

Type 2 stream buffers that are required, but I don't believe there's any steep slopes

defined by the stream-buffer ordinance that would apply in this case.

MS. LOE: Even at, say, lot 21?

MR. CROCKETT: Well, 21, if you look at the stream buffer, the stream buffer doesn't

-- doesn't touch Lot 21. So it's --

MS. LOE: Right. But you're looking within 200 feet of the steam.

MR. CROCKETT: No. A Type 2 is within 50 feet.

MS. LOE: For the stream buffer, but in looking for -- the steep slope doesn't need to

be within the stream buffer.

MR. CROCKETT: It needs to be in -- in the stream buffer or adjacent to it, meaning

the steep slope -- the stream buffer goes up to a steep slope, and then you have to

extend it from there. So if the steep slope is leading to the stream buffer, but it's not

inclusive of the stream buffer, then steep slopes does not apply.

MS. LOE: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much,

Mr. Crockett.

MR. CROCKETT: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else from the public to speak on this case. Please

come forward, state your name and address for the record, speak closely into the mic,

and we'll give you six minutes if you're speaking for a group and three if you're speaking

for yourself.

MR. WEBB: I'm speaking for the Bristol Lake Homeowners Association, and that's

the one that backs up on the -- on the south side there, so with the --

MR. MACMANN: Madam Chair?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yes, Commissioner MacMann. Oh, yes. Could you pull it

closer. Just grab it and pull it down a little bit, I think.

MR. WEBB: Oh. Okay. I'm not that tall.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Good.

MR. WEBB: I'm Weldon Webb; I live at 4814 Carlyle Court, and I'm representing the

homeowners association there, so -- and I'm not going to go through all the things. You

have all the documentation and -- and our comments in your literature that was provided

by staff, so I'm not -- if you read, basically, Ross Peterson's e-mail to Betsy Phillips, I

think -- Peters, I mean, you will see most of those comments and other supporting

documentation. So I would just raise a few issues. I'd raise the issue of the street lights

that's going to be on that street, which I would -- I think the homeowners would much

prefer that they be what's in residential areas rather than what you see up the hill on

Bristol Lake Parkway, which are the large street lights. So again, the houses that back

up are very close to that street. I think Ms. Kimbell can support that. She was out there

today looking at it, so -- so I would ask you to consider that. And the other thing I

thought about when the second entrance was added, and I'm glad it is added, but even

though if you don't think about it, it will be a cut through for some group of people. I don't

know who those people would be, but people -- and especially when Gans Road gets

completed to the west, that will really drive a lot of traffic through there, so I would -- I'm

glad to see it's got a curve, but it may require more than that, so I would consider it -- ask

you to over that -- to look at that. The other thing is the lake overflow, and that -- there is

an overflow, so I think you answered that actually flows into that creek; is that right,

Rusty?

MR. PALMER: Yeah.

MR. WEBB: Okay. So I -- I've seen that happen, and it's quite a bit of water that

comes through that overflow, so just take that into consideration. And you mentioned,

also, Rusty, that the Park and Rec is planning something down at the bottom of the hill,

but I don't know what something is.

MR. PALMER: I think the only thing I have mentioned was the fact that they intend

to have a trail system, or I believe most of it's in place, but along the roadway here would

be additional trail connections.

MR. WEBB: But there would not be a sidewalk on the east side up -- up where I'm

at on -- on --

MR. PALMER: That has not been determined. Like I said, the trail system would be

-- it would either be a trail system, or a sidewalk is what was discussed.

MR. WEBB: Uh-huh.

MR. PALMER: But I don't know what the plan is for that. I don't think that Parks

has one yet, either. It's just a matter of they will be responsible for it once it is in place.

MR. WEBB: And the other thing we had asked for consideration was the

development of some type of screen for that first part, that extension of Bristol Lake

Parkway, and again, it's very close to those houses that sit right there, so it visually and

noisewise, it will be an intrusion. There's no doubt about that. And the last comment --

question I have is if Mr. Overton decides to, once this is all approved, sell this piece of

property to some other developer, will all of these requirements still be in place?

MS. GEUEA JONES: I'm going to let the staff answer that.

MR. ZENNER: Yes. The development agreement is -- the way our ordinances are

written, they are -- they transfer to owners, heirs, and assigns, so within the development

agreement, within the approval -- approving resolution for the preliminary plat will be a

condition that no land disturbance permit shall be issued without the execution of the

development agreement. So if Mr. Overton were to sell the property, that condition is still

going to apply to any subsequent buyer. They may have a zoning entitlement. They

may have a preliminary plat entitlement, but that preliminary plat entitlement will be

subjected to the development agreement and its content as it currently exists unless

renegotiated and approved by Council to be fulfilled.

MR. WEBB: Okay. Thank you. And that concludes my remarks and thank you for

the opportunity.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. If you would wait just a moment. Are

there any questions? Commissioner Kimbell?

MS. KIMBELL: Thank you for coming. I appreciate that. Would you mind

describing to the Commissioners a little bit more about how close your property is to the

street and how it would affect the properties.

MR. WEBB: I'm not sure I'll get the numbers right. I should have measured it, but --

MS. KIMBELL: That's okay.

MR. WEBB: -- there's a fire hydrant down -- right there, so I know exactly where the

street is going to be on the west side. And what would you say that footage is, Rusty?

You've probably got that.

MR. PALMER: I really don't. I know there is a common lot strip in there, which you

can begin to make out here. There's -- there's a bit of a common lot in this triangle here,

but these lots here are -- are 10,15 feet away from the sidewalk, which would be in the

right-of-way. Right.

MR. WEBB: I would say it’s about this distance.

MS. GEUEA JONES: For the record, the witness said it's about the distance he is

currently standing from the dais, which I would say is --

MR. WEBB: No. From you. From you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, from me? Maybe 30 feet.

MR. ZENNER: I would suggest 25 to 30 feet.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Twenty-five to thirty feet. Thank you, Mr. Webb. Any further

questions? Commissioner MacMann? I'm sorry. Commissioner Kimbell, were you

done?

MS. KIMBELL: Well, I just wanted to make sure that it's noted in the

correspondence that was sent out to us, there's a -- there is a -- I don't know what page

it's on there. There's an aerial view of where that sidewalk is. So I'm just concerned. I

think what -- and it did concern me when I went out there, is what type of screening is

going to take place there for those --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: If I may, while this witness is here. Planner Palmer, and this may

be a -- for Manager Zenner. The street lights that will go on this, how tall are they going

to be? Thirty?

MR. ZENNER: Standard -- I believe our standard street pole probably is anywhere

from 28 to 30 feet tall.

MR. MACMANN: Given the nature of that particular road.

MR. ZENNER: That is correct.

MR. MACMANN: All right. I was -- I wanted you to be here because I think there will

be some amenability on this Commissioner, and I'm going to speak for everyone, to some

kind of buffering, but I'm wondering what kind of buffering might mitigate that amount of

light or that source of light being 28, 30 feet in the air.

MR. ZENNER: I would tell you that there is probably two things that come into play

here. One, adequate lighting and public safety is a paramount concern of our traffic staff,

as well as law enforcement. I have personal experience of having a new LED light sitting

in a parking lot more than 150 feet from my house at Fairview Elementary School that

can light up the entire parking lot fairly well. And I also have additional experience of

having the former residents that backed up to an LED light on Southampton. There is not

a -- there's nothing that's going to mitigate -- the newer lighting does have directionability.

Therefore, it can be downward and away from the structures, focusing its beam to the

actual right-of-way itself. Furthermore, the unique nature of this particular area and where

the applicant's -- where the homeowners association is asking buffering to be placed is

outside of the public right-of-way. It is in a private common lot. We have -- we, the City,

nor the developer has control of that common lot.

MR. MACMANN: That's -- that's where I was going, Mr. Zenner. Did you follow that,

sir? I'm not sure -- I know I looked at the topo -- I didn't drive -- I'm sorry. I was building

something today or this week. We do have the directional lights, and they have made

some difference in some of those situations, but that's an application issue. That's a

roads and street issue when those -- regardless of who pays for them.

MR. ZENNER: My suggestion in order to -- to have this better addressed, the

correspondence submitted is going to be included with the Council report. The

annexation component of this project requires a public hearing at City Council. As a part

of that public hearing, it is probably appropriate to indicate that should the Council

consider this property necessary -- reasonably necessary to be annexed into the City for

compact and contiguous growth, and all of the other factors associated with it, that the

discussion during that public hearing can include the issues of the neighborhood

association, which, at that point, it establishes the record by which then, when we go to

receive plans and make the improvements to the public right-of-way, and do street

lighting, care could be taken as Council has directed our utilities department to do so,

either to coordinate with the homeowners association or to take caution as it exists,

because not only do the residences in Bristol Lake get affected by that street lighting, so,

too, will the residences in Mr. Overton's development should it be approved. I would

almost think that it would be appropriate that Mr. Crockett or Mr. Overton also have a

conversation with our utilities staff to ensure that the lighting isn't overpowering future

residents, and that would be the easiest way to address the lighting concern. As far as

for screening, again, the area in which the screening is desired is private common

property, not in control of the City nor that of the developer.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Mr. Zenner.

MR. MACMANN: I wanted to get that out there on record a little bit before we went

any further.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Sure. Thank you very much. Commissioner Carroll?

MR. WEBB: Can I add one thing about the lighting?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Please.

MR. WEBB: Just -- and I'm not a tree hugger. Okay? But we do have four resident

eagles that live just across the street there in those dead trees, and I would hate to lose

them, so -- and so would a lot of other people that come out to see them, so --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Carroll?

MS. CARROLL: I wonder, across the street, where, actually, your eagles?

MR. WEBB: There's a wooded spot between just where the street will be and the

dam.

MR. ZENNER: Oh. It's here on the aerial, I think.

MS. CARROLL: I see. I see it on the aerial. Yeah. So I'm wondering if you would

feel any more comfortable, because I see the wooded area also to the south of the

property --

MR. WEBB: Uh-huh.

MS. CARROLL:

-- just to the west of that more north-south wooded area. That

appears to be along the stream, which also appears to be where there's the stream buffer

and a steep slope buffer, and no plats. I would suggest that there may be quite a bit of

screening present along that stream to where this should help screen you.

MR. WEBB: Yeah. But see, my -- my house -- our houses are right here. If you

look at where the parking lot is -- yeah. Right just on up the street there, we're sitting

right there. That's where we're at. There's no buffer between me and the street.

MS. CARROLL: Okay.

MR. PALMER: Yeah. I actually brought the aerial up because it's the only thing I've

got that shows the proximity of, like, this house on the corner. There's very little space

here between the back corner of the house and the sidewalk. And you have to also

remember there is a common lot strip that runs the full length there, as well. So at least

some amount of that space is not private property, but there's also probably not a

significant amount of room to place a buffer -- a vegetative buffer of any real significance,

unfortunately.

MR. WEBB: And I think, you know, a lot of the City utilities are running right through

that common space, too, so you do have some presence there.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anything else from Commissioner Carroll? Commissioner

MacMann, did you have something else?

MR. MACMANN: If I may redirect here. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sir, I think you've

followed this. The best we may be able to offer is some directional lighting as time goes

by. I don't know who owns that common strip. Is that part of your HOA, or something?

MR. WEBB: Yeah. It's the HOA, and currently the developer and the HOA own it,

so --

MR. MACMANN: That may be, and I will -- I don't want to do this. That may be

between you and your HOA or your developer of your development because it would be

maybe sound at most. The best thing we could probably do is some directional lighting,

and we have done that in other places in town, and it has made a difference. It will not be

a panacea. I would imagine that your backyard will be brighter than you wish it to be. I'm

not sure exactly what else we can do, other than --

MR. WEBB: So you're not allowed to put residential lights out there?

MR. MACMANN: There are minimum safety requirements given the nature of that

road. That's why I asked how tall the lights would be because the road is -- that's a

common -- that will be a common collector. It will be --

MR. PALMER: Right. A collector, yeah.

MR. MACMANN: Yeah. And that -- it's a step up than the road that you live on, per

se. And the larger the road, the heavier the traffic, the more the lights, and that's -- that's

the tradeoff, the safety tradeoff. But you're certainly welcome to go to Council about

things, but some of those things, not even they have control over. I got a chuckle there.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That's all I have for the moment.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for this witness?

MR. WEBB: And I -- I invite any of you to come out and take a look.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Yeah. I just wondered if the -- that lighting and buffering would have

to be part of the development agreement, or could be --

MS. GEUEA JONES: I think it's in the UDC and street standards. I don't even think

the development agreement could address this level of buffering because it's not property

that's in the development. Where you're wanting to put the buffer isn't owned by Mr.

Overton.

MR. WEBB: Right.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: And one other issue. In terms of traffic, you talked about people

using -- now there will be a complete, you know --

MR. WEBB: Interlude.

MS. PLACIER: -- a little kind of wavy circle around this whole area, whereas

currently you are on sort of -- not a dead end, but you are -- you know, that road ends

there. So you've been protected from through traffic. This will extend through traffic, you

know, all the way around. I guess that's why the traffic engineers were suggesting that

they have a little bit of a curve, but was that part of your neighborhood's concerns about

this plan?

MR. WEBB: Sure. It just -- the amount of traffic it'll eventually handle down through

there, so -- so anything we can do to mitigate people driving 50 miles an hour down

through there would be --

MS. PLACIER: Well, if you have ideas about mitigation, I guess I would come down

the road, yeah.

MR. WEBB: That's -- yeah. That's not my expertise, but I know it is possible, so --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? Thank you very much, Mr. Webb.

MR. WEBB: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else to speak on this case? As usual, name and

address, three minutes if you're an individual, six minutes for a group, and speak clearly.

Thank you.

MS. DOKKEN: Dee Dokken; I live at 804 Again Street, and I'm just representing

myself tonight. When -- I just want to piggyback on the -- the lighting question, just as

the first thing. The International Dark Sky Association says you want -- of course, you

don't want the light going up, you want it to go where you need it. You also don't want

too much light because glare lowers visibility. You want a small amount on -- just the

amount of light that you need. But another thing that the City isn't -- I don't think is in our

regulations yet is the color of the light. More blue light is harmful to humans and to

wildlife. And they make LEDs that have a warmer or more red color. It's supposed to be

3,000 kelvins or less. So I just thought I would throw that in because I recently learned

that. But, in general, about this development, what is missing is that this is in a sensitive

area, and there are no regulations for sensitive areas. There are a few regulations for

sensitive features, like sink holes, steep slope at a stream, stream buffer, but not for the

whole area. And this is a sensitive area. Of course, it's already been developed quite a

bit. And what we need are regulations for sensitive areas, you know, wherever they

occur, which might include some impervious surface limits, some clustering, and smaller

lot size, some bigger buffers -- stream buffers, and floodplain buffers, and maybe native

vegetation, things like that. So that is missing. I hope that some groups can work on

this, and I hope that eventually you all can maybe add some of that to the UDC in the

future. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Ms. Dokken. Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Thank you. Dee, many of us on the commission agree with -- we

have this with the property down at the creek a little -- just a little farther away from here,

or not too far away from here. If you or the Sierra Club could send us some of your ideas,

you know, that would be awesome, because we have this issue. It's -- we're somewhat

hand tied on some of these things. So if you guys want to send any suggestions, please

do, and it may serve as an impetus. And also speaking -- Pat is your council person;

right -- and/or Betsy or whomever -- Barbara. I think that would be great to get this ball

rolling, because this -- as this area and other areas develop, but we're going to have it.

This is going to be a continution.

MS. DOKKEN: Right. And the Climate and Energy Commission is also hopefully

working on this, so hopefully something will be coming to you. Thanks.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? Thank you very much. Next speaker, please?

MR. SHANKER: Hello. I'm Rick Shanker; I live at 1829 Cliff Drive.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I'm sorry. For our transcript, can you repeat that into the

microphone?

MR. SHANKER: Richard Shanker.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.

MR. SHANKER: 1829 Cliff Drive.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I appreciate it.

MR. SHANKER: I've been associated with this area for 20, 30 years. That stream

bed that you're looking at does have river water in it. If it would ever rain again, you would

see it. I have concerns how the north-south road benefits the community as a whole. I'm

glad it doesn't -- this development doesn't go back out to Bearfield, but I hope you have a

vigorous discussion about this because as Dee implied, this area a little bit south of there

is of great concern to us, and we don't want one development being a precedent for

developing another area, or another area, or another area without considerations of setting

aside some areas for just relaxation and use. I think this is kind of a -- from what the

staffing department didn't say if it was annexed, it was when it was annexed. So it

seems like it's already a done deal, but I hope you have a vigorous discussion tonight.

Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for this witness? Thank you very

much. Anyone else to speak on this case? Please come forward.

MS. PETERSON: Crystal Peterson, 4808 Carlyle Court, and I live in the Bristol

Lake. I just wanted to make a couple of comments. As far as the screening or the tree

clustering or placing a berm, if it's to be on HOA, I think that our HOA would work great

with the people that are in charge, like, the City or the developer. And so they're -- so

that can be done, because I don't think this should be something that's overlooked. I

think it really needs to be done because people don't need to have people running in their

backyard because it's convenient or having, you know, just the lights and that shining in

their place when there should be something that could be helpful. And I think that's --

should be really taken in consideration. And also, as far as the traffic, there's already a

problem with traffic going down that street because you can be sleeping and then you

can hear people out there drag racing. They just have to stop because all of a sudden,

the road stops. So if they aren't going to put the road in, they probably need to put

either, like, speed bumps or else have, like, maybe round-abouts like they have on the

other -- like, down in the old, old development. Something to slow the people down so

they're not just always deciding to race because somebody decided to race down there

and ran into a big bag of sand, so we don't want somebody hurt. They just happened to

be lucky and were able to drive off.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any -- I'm sorry. Are you --

MS. PETERSON: Yeah. I'm done. I don't really want to be up here, but I just

wanted to make these points.

MS. GEUEA JONES: We appreciate you participating. Anyone have questions for

this witness? No? Thank you for coming tonight. Anyone else to speak on this case?

Seeing none.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Moving on to Commissioner discussion. Who wants to start?

No one wants to start. Any Commissioner discussion at all? Commissioner MacMann:

MR. MACMANN: I thought Chairman Loe would have something to say. I think we

have a balancing act here to do, and we're giving more and more -- I don't want to use the

developer's name and to bad mouth him -- the developer in the park, in the State park.

Mr. Overton and Mr. Crockett have been good local developers. They've done a good job.

We all know them to a certain degree. My instinct is to -- well, 15 years ago when this

whole thing -- 20 years ago when this whole thing started, I said, well, that's all gone, and

most of it's been developed. I think they have the i's and the t's. I want to get your all's

input on -- on this, you know, more than anything, and I was hoping to give another

Commissioner some time to gather their thoughts because I thought there would be a

question from across the table.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Burns?

MS. BURNS: I'm not particularly conflicted about this. I do hear the neighbors and I

understand their concerns. I think they probably have a strong HOA and good

communication, and hopefully could work with as the development occurs and as the

road is put in, the placement of berms or speed bumps or directional lighting, and so I'm

confident of that. I'm confident of what we've seen here today as far as the staff report

and as far as what Mr. Crockett has presented. So I -- I don't have additional discussion

or questions or comments about this.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: As Mr. Crockett pointed out, the extension of the road is something that

has been planned long before this development went in, so it's not a surprise. We knew

it was coming. And the standards for neighborhood collector are standards that are --

have been designed for a neighborhood, while maybe a collector, so maybe a step up,

they are designed for this type of purpose. So I have to admit that -- I mean, that's what

was leading to my questions about what street trees would be going in. So there will be

some buffer provided on -- in the parkway, and that is the standard for our neighborhood

collectors. So I'm not too conflicted about this street going in. I do think there's the

opportunity for the HOA to do additional buffer on their property should they want to, and

we definitely do see that on private properties, more intermediate height fences. That

would be up to the HOA. I also feel as if this has been planned rather carefully. It's not

very high density at all. I think we're coming out at about two units an acre. Yeah. So

it's actually quite low. I -- I just want to put on record that I don't fully agree with Mr.

Crockett about the steep slopes and the stream buffer, just so perhaps we can put that

on the list of things to look at. And I'm just going to point out the two sections I'm looking

at, again, just for the record. So I'm looking 12A-235(b)(5) asking -- this is asking the

stream buffer plan requirements, and it's requiring that steep slopes greater than 15

percent for areas adjacent to and within 200 feet of streams, wetlands, or other water

bodies be included in that stream buffer plan, so that was the 200 feet I was referring to.

However, when we get to Table 2, modification to stream buffers, that's at item 12A-

236(b), it's requiring that the buffer width shall be increased where there are steep slopes

in close proximity to the stream that drain into the stream system as set forth in Table 2.

The language there makes me think that perhaps it's not clear, and I wouldn't -- like I

said, mind putting this on the list to look at further. And I don't like the word "proximity" --

close proximity, a bit too subjective for my taste. All right. Just wanted to do that. That

said, I -- I will fully acknowledge that it is subjective, and I think it's been carefully

planned.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Commissioner Carroll?

MS. CARROLL: Yeah. I tend to agree with my fellow Commissioners. I do think

this was well planned. I see this bit of land surrounded by other residential

developments. It's a little bit different than some of the neighboring areas, which I do

think that we should be careful to protect. I do have a procedural direction. We tend to,

for annexation, combined with zoning cases, I would like to request to remove this from

the consent agenda so that it's not coupled with the request for permanent zoning. I will

make a motion to not get --

MS. GEUEA JONES: No, not yet.

MS. CARROLL: -- oh. We've got to vote on the permanent zoning first.

MS. GEUEA JONES: We're going to go to Commissioner Placier before we go back

to Commissioner MacMann. Go ahead.

MS. PLACIER: Well, since Commissioner MacMann invited comment, I'll make one.

It -- we've been here before that the residents of a prior development, and I'm not sure

where that development -- when that development to the south was built -- get used to

and appreciate the open space provided by the undeveloped area that borders. And so it

feels like -- it feels wrenching to have that next area developed and on and on and on we

go. That's the -- that's the pattern in Columbia. I do think at some point, you know, if I

were -- you know, and if I were dreaming about this, why wasn't this annexed into the

park, for instance? Are we in desperate of 103 more houses? That's a philosophical

question, especially when there is a stream and a nearby park that could be enhanced

this way, that's not happened. The City has not chosen to go that way, and it's in private

hands. So the best we can do is to do a good job with what is on offer to us, and

whether it complies with all of the regulations. But I do fear that next time, it'll be another

place that everybody would like to save, and nobody wants to live next to, and I'm not

sure in the long term what's going to be our approach here on P & Z.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Anyone else? Sorry. I promise I wrote your

name down. I will come back to you, Commissioner MacMann. Commissioner Kimbell?

MS. KIMBELL: I just want to ask the staff, in regards to the -- what was mentioned

earlier about the private common area, just for those that came tonight, if they got

together with the developer, there could possibly be some type of agreement they could

come to as far as doing a buffer.

MR. ZENNER: They can -- they can negotiate a private solution to the problem that's

been expressed. The developer is under no obvious obligation, no regulatory obligation to

provide improvements on private property. Now, mind you, the Council can do whatever

they would like with the development agreement that is being presented to them. If

Council so chooses to amend that development agreement, that the only way that they

would authorize annexation is if particular things were accomplished off the developer's

site, that's their prerogative. I would not recommend that that be the Commission's

action. I think it goes well beyond the regulations to which we are entrusted to enforce

and apply. But, yes, conversation between a neighborhood association and an adjoining

development, I think, addresses some of what Ms. Placier's concerns were that, you

know, development is always going to occur next to something that is likely developed,

and you're going run into this repeatedly. It is unfortunate that when the individuals that

have purchased these homes that back up to this segment of the unconstructed portion

of Bristol Lake Parkway were not maybe better informed that there would be a

neighborhood collector behind them. It's unfortunate that the developer knowing that

didn't provide a buffer that would have probably helped his residents. I can't -- our Code

doesn't stipulate that. Now, we do have other buffering requirements that apply along

corridors if you have through lots. And in this instance, because the common lot is

platted, it wasn't considered a through lot; therefore, the screening provisions that existed

in our landscaping section of our Code did not kick in. You live and you learn. And as

we, I think, experience more from a staff perspective, when we see developments of this

nature, we do take note, and we are asking other questions now. In some of the projects

that Mr. Smith has reviewed most currently, we -- you know, those are issues that are

coming up and we are discussing them internally, often working with design professionals

like Mr. Crockett to try to mitigate the concerns that you all have heard this evening

moving forward. So, you know, there is some things that can be done through the

regulatory process, but we don't want to take the ten-pound sledge hammer when you

only need a framing hammer, and that's part of what we have to balance.

MS. KIMBELL: I think it's a great development. I'm excited to see some more

housing come into our community. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Two things. One thing we might be

able to do in the short term, and this is out to Mr. Simon at Building and Site. Lots 21

and 22, in that general area, do concern me, and I know there are regulations and I know

that Mr. Crockett is great about that, is -- is taking care that that dirt and that runoff from

the construction doesn't get in places. Not all -- not all builders -- there's one just down

the street from me -- take that level of care. And if we could have Building and Site just

making sure that everyone is happy and good, we can avoid polluting or fouling or in

otherwise degrading a fine natural area. Something else for our guests this evening. This

is on directional lights. I do a variety of construction-oriented things, and one thing I had

to do just not too long ago, a month or two ago, was put in a sensor-activated light

system for someone who had neighbors. Four sensors, one on each corner of the house,

four lights. I had to make sure that the sensors were activated -- and these are motion

sensors -- to protect the home and to turn the lights on. Something else I had to do,

because it's -- this is downtown. It's narrow, it's maybe 15 feet between houses -- is to

make sure when those beautiful safe -- safety-guaranteeing flood lights came on, they

didn't, like an opossum set them off and we didn't wake the neighbors up in the middle of

night. And I took great care with that last thing. The reason I bring this up is by moving

the sensors and the lights to where I did, I'm not sure I achieved the safety element that

was required or desired from the homeowner. I mean, if I put it in a pan out where I'm 30,

40 feet from the house, anyone moving around is going to turn it on, so I pretty much

have them straight down. Like I said, they have lights -- they have security lights and a

motion system, and we have this with the nature of this road, the CATSO, that's a

neighborhood collector is what they have. It can be directional. I hope that people push

that, but we certainly have to keep the road safe. Thank you, Madam Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other discussion? Seeing none. I would take a motion

on Case 245-2022. Commissioner Burns?

MS. BURNS: Do we -- is it -- does it matter which order we go in? Do you want the

preliminary plat first?

MR. ZENNER: No. You need to do the permit zoning --

MS. BURNS: Okay.

MR. ZENNER: -- because you can't make a recommendation on platting without

having first suggested that the property be zoned something upon annexation.

MS. BURNS: Makes sense to me. In the case of 245-2022, I recommend approval

of the requested R-1 permanent zoning pursuant to annexation.

MR. MACMANN: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner Burns, seconded by Commissioner

MacMann. Commissioner Carroll, may we have a roll call.

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.

Stanton, Ms. Burns, Mr. MacMann, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier, Ms.

Kimbell, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Loe. Motion carries 9-0.

MS. CARROLL: We have nine votes to approve, the motion carries.

MS. GEUEA JONES: The motion relating purely to the zoning will be forwarded to

Council. Commissioner Carroll, now would be an appropriate time to make your motion.

MS. CARROLL: Yes. I would like to make a motion to remove the annexation from

the consent agenda.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is that correctly stated, Legal?

MS. THOMPSON: That was sufficient, yes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Does everyone understand the

motion? Is there any discussion? Is there a second on Commissioner Carroll's motion?

MS. BURNS: I have some discussion. Could I have an explanation about why we

would be removing that to consent?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Sure. Do you want to --

MS. CARROLL: Yeah. I feel that, in general, annexation of properties requires more

attention than the consent agenda typically allows. I think that our vote on the zoning is

usually fairly straightforward; however, the annexation, it goes on the annexation because

it's coupled to the zoning, but we don't consider the annexation. And so I think that if

they are voted on as separate items, then the vote on the zoning shouldn't place the

annexation onto consent. That said, in this case, my rationale for removing it from the

consent agenda is because that's consistently what we've done for annexations with

permanent zoning when we vote on permanent zoning for the past year or so, and I think

it's fair to do that in all cases as opposed to just some.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And I would add that I have had Council members and

members of the public express confusion to me about why there was no public hearing

on annexation because it is confusing when we combine the permanent zoning and the

annexation issue into a single topic on the consent agenda which doesn't even get voted

on separately from the rest of the consent agenda. So it's -- it's something that I was

seeing as a common question that was coming up that was causing confusion, that was

causing people to think we were, in fact, voting on annexation, which is not the case.

The best solution that I could come up with after talking with staff and the different City

Council members was for Planning and Zoning to either not have a unanimous vote on

zoning, which seems to be unfair to the applicants, or for us to request it to be made not

a consent agenda item, which then allows City Council to have a public hearing on the

issue. Does that make sense?

MS. BURNS: I guess it's just a mechanism that I didn't recall that we had done on a

regular basis over the past year.

MS. GEUEA JONES: It's happened a few times. Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: So this -- I just -- I believe Chairperson clarified what I was going to say,

and that it has come to our attention that Council has thought we are, in fact,

recommending -- making a recommendation on the annexation and conducting a public

hearing on the annexation, and we are not. And so in order to underscore that and to

provide a public hearing on annexation, we have to move it off the consent agenda.

MS. BURNS: I was not --

MS. LOE: And no -- yeah. It's -- it's come to our attention more recently, and we've

taken steps.

MS. BURNS: I was unaware that Council was under that impression.

MS. LOE: Not everyone, but some.

MR. ZENNER: If I may, Ms. Chairman.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Go ahead.

MR. ZENNER: And I want to make very clear for the public that is listening, as well

as I want to clarify for the Planning Commission, your request is to have the permanent

zoning as old business. We are required to set a public hearing for the annexation.

There is a public hearing held at the same time that the zoning -- the permanent zoning

request is submitted to City Council. So they are discussing in a permanent -- in a

public hearing -- a called public hearing the appropriateness of annexing a piece of

property. Now that is generally encapsulated into the idea of is this a reasonable

expansion of the City. Is it something that we are interested in bringing in? The

discussion often has not in the past drifted into zoning; however, at times, it may drift into

zoning, but that is not the purpose of that public hearing. So the action taken by Ms.

Carroll is to ensure that there is deeper consideration of the zoning impacts in addition to

their deeper consideration as a policy decision of the annexation that's in -- at the prior

meeting. So as Ms. Carroll and Ms. Geuea Jones and Ms. Loe have expressed, once

the public hearing is held at Council for the annexation, that annexation request and the

zoning request are coupled together in one final action, and it is that one final action that

has been the concern because the emphasis on annexation has not nearly been as

significant often as the discussion relating to zoning. So now what this does is it allows

the discussion to basically be equally had, but possibly over two meetings and from two

different vantage points. So furthermore, pursuant to your -- the options available to you

as it relates to recommendations made by the Commission, the Commission has

generally multiple options normally in a land-use decision such as the rezoning action,

it's approval, denial, or -- approval or denial, and then you do have the right to request an

item to be pulled off of the consent agenda if it has been voted by 75 percent or more in

the affirmative. So what has been processed here tonight is consistent with your -- with

your -- with the way that the UDC is structured, and does probably exemplify an

opportunity for public engagement as it relates to these sometimes sticky issues of

annexing property and of applying that zoning, and it's often the annexation is sometimes

more equally a concern as it is related to the zoning as we heard in some public

testimony this evening, because the zoning is really what gives them the option to do the

development.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And the specific concern that was being expressed to me is

that when a vote is taken on consent agenda items, there is one vote on the entire

consent agenda, so there's no separate vote that shows how Council felt about

annexation of new properties.

MR. ZENNER: Correct. Because they do not actually vote during the public hearing

on the annexation, which always precedes the permanent zoning -- the combined

permanent zoning annexation. So there is no vote, it's just a public hearing. They

receive public comment and testimony.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And then they vote as a group on the consent. So that -- that,

Commissioner Burns, is why we are trying to help our fellow citizens understand where

the annexation is happening and where City Council's vote is.

MS. BURNS: I want to be helpful.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yes. With that said, I still need a second on Commissioner

Carroll's motion.

MR. MACMANN: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Seconded by Commissioner MacMann. Commissioner

Carroll, let's go ahead and get -- get a roll call.

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.

Stanton, Ms. Burns, Mr. MacMann, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier, Ms.

Kimbell, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Loe. Motion carries 9-0.

MS. CARROLL: We have nine to approve; the motion carries.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. With that, we will let our desire be known to City

Council, and I will take a motion on Case 246-2022. Anyone? Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: In the matter of Case 246-2022, approval of proposed Bristol Ridge

Plat No. 2 preliminary plat, I move to approve.

MS. KIMBELL: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by

Commission Kimbell. Any discussion on this motion? Seeing none. Secretary Carroll,

may we have a roll call.

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.

Stanton, Ms. Burns, Mr. MacMann, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier, Ms.

Kimbell, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Loe. Motion carries 9-0.

MS. CARROLL: We have nine votes to approve; the motion carries.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Such recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Thank you very much. With that, we move on to public hearings, and case number 265-

2022.

MS. PLACIER: Excuse me, Madam Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes?

MS. PLACIER: Just a point of clarification. On the agenda for tonight and in my

notes, I notice that oddly enough the zoning -- the annexation and zoning were 246 and

the plat -- preliminary plat was 245. So we had it backwards in our -- we put in our vote --

MS. GEUEA JONES: I'm misreading this?

MS. PLACIER: In our vote --

MR. MACMANN: Commissioner Placier is correct. Which is the correct -- staff, can

you tell us which is the correct -- which is correct.

MS. CARROLL: We’re correct in our vote.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Wait -- 245 --

MR. ZENNER: The -- 245 -- 245 was the subdivision, and 246 is the zoning. I'm

looking at this the same way. I'm wondering why did we approve the subdivision first?

MR. MACMANN: Madam Chair, may I recommend that we remove and revote.

MS. GEUEA JONES: No. Let's -- we don't need to revote. If I can get a thumbs up

approval to correct the record and our transcript, please? I see a thumbs up approval to

reverse the case numbers on the votes we just took. Am I getting a nod from -- great.

Thank you. I want to make sure everything is clear. I apologize. I read the last sentence

and got all mixed up. With that said, now we will move on to our last case for the

evening.

Motion # 1 - In the case of 246-2022, recommend approval of the requested R-1

permanent zoning pursuant to annexation. VOTING YES: Stanton, Burns,

MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Placier, Kimbell, Wilson, Loe. VOTING NO:

None. Motion carries 9-0.

Motion #2 - Motion to remove the annexation from the consent agenda. VOTING

YES: Stanton, Burns, MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Placier, Kimbell, Wilson,

Loe. VOTING NO: None. Motion carries 9-0.

Case # 245-2022

A request by Crockett Engineering (agent), on behalf of Fred Overton

Development, Inc. (contract purchaser), for approval of a proposed 106-lot

preliminary plat containing 103 single-family lots and 3 common lots on a

tract of land containing 53.80 acres. The subject site is located to west of

Phillips Park and northwest of the terminus of Bristol Lake Parkway. A

concurrent request (Case # 246-2022) seeking R-1 (One-family Dwelling)

permanent zoning, upon annexation, is to be considered by the Planning

and Zoning Commission at its October 6, 2022 meeting.

See Minutes from Case 246-2022 for full discussion

In the matter of Case 245-2022, approval of proposed Bristol Ridge Plat No. 2

preliminary plat, move to approve.

9 - Burns, Loe, Stanton, MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Kimbell, Placier and Wilson

Yes:

VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS

Case # 265-2022

A request by Crockett Engineering Consultants (agent), on behalf of

Columbia Independent School, Inc. (owner), for approval of a zoning map

amendment from PD (Planned Development) to R-MF (Multi-family

Dwelling). The subject site is located southwest of the intersection of

Timber Creek Drive and Stadium Boulevard.

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 R-MF zoning map amendment.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Before we get to staff questions, if any of my fellow

Commissioners have had outside discussions that they would like to share with the

Commission so that we can all benefit from the same information, now would be the time.

Seeing none. Questions for staff? Seeing none. Excellent work. Are there any

members of the public who are here to speak on this case?

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MR. CROCKETT: Madam Chair, members of the Commissioner, Tim Crockett,

Crockett Engineering, 1000 West Nifong. I believe Mr. Kelley did a thorough job in the

staff report. I believe it's straightforward of what we want to do. Columbia Independent

School wants to grow, and they've acquired this piece of property. They want to repeat it

and combine it with the existing piece. And so we had some discussions with the

planning staff with regards to the conflict of an open M-N tract versus a PD tract, how we

want to go about the development of this piece of property, and the conclusion was is

look for an open zoning of some type. Obviously, I don't think anybody is in support of

going M-N. I don't thing -- we certainly wouldn't request that. And so leave the M-N

alone, and then rezone this to the like zoning that's -- that's there now. Yes, it's PD, but I

believe that with the adoption of the UDC, I believe a lot of those plan components are

addressed already in the Code. Furthermore, one thing Mr. Kelley didn't really touch

on was this PD plan was approved back in 2004, and that supersedes the current

stormwater regulations. So really the stormwater regulations under the PD plan are far

less than what the current stormwater regulations are. So by rezoning it, we would

basically nullify the existing PD plan on this tract, and then that would kick us into the

current stormwater standards, which is much more stringent than what is there today.

We understand that. We believe it's the right thing to do. I'm not saying that the original

PD plan didn't have any stormwater, it was just much less than what the stormwater

ordinance would require. And so that's -- that's one benefit by rezoning it to an open

R-MF is that we would get full benefit of 2007 stormwater regulations, as well as the

UDC. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Crockett? Seeing

none. Thank you very much.

MR. CROCKETT: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there anyone else who is here to speak on this case

tonight? Seeing none.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner discussion? A motion perhaps?

Commissioner MacMann?

MR. MACMANN: Seeing no other questions or concerns by my fellow

Commissioners, in the matter of Case 265-2022, requested rezoning from PD to R-MF, I

move to approve.

MR. STANTON: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner MacMann, seconded by

Commissioner Stanton. Any discussion on this motion? Seeing none. Secretary

Carroll, may we have a roll call.

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.

Stanton, Ms. Burns, Mr. MacMann, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Placier, Ms.

Kimbell, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Loe. Motion carries 9-0.

MS. CARROLL: There are nine votes to approve; the motion carries.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

In the matter of Case 265-2022, requested rezoning from PD to R-MF, move to

approve.

9 - Burns, Loe, Stanton, MacMann, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Kimbell, Placier and Wilson

Yes:

VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no comments from the public.

IX. STAFF COMMENTS

MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Zenner, would you please give us a preview.

MR. ZENNER: Preview. So you've got your next meeting on October 20th. We will

start with a tantalizing work session to discuss more of our favorite topic, short-term

rental, and we are making great progress, so be eager to show up, please. And we will

have meal service again, and that meal service, if I am not incorrect, is Jimmy John's and

we will have non-meat alternative sandwiches for those that would partake in that food.

We do have a number of cases on the agenda. We have one that we added from this

evening's agenda, so that is under our public hearings. But you have, as I referred

upstairs today, a gaggle of cases coming up, and then somebody wanted to know what a

flock of turkeys was, and I can't remember what we came up with, but it was a really

good name.

MR. KELLEY: A rafter.

MR. ZENNER: A rafter of -- we have a rafter of turkeys for the month of November or

coming for November. That's the coming attractions next month. So a gaggle of geese

this month at the end, and then a rafter of turkeys for November. But you have a

subdivision, a single subdivision plat off of -- that's combining two lots on Hinkson

Avenue. This is a plat that has not seen previous Planning Commission action; therefore,

it is coming to you for legal lot status. And then we have the five public hearings that are

listed in the next section. The tabled item for Woodcrest Chapel, that rezoning from Ag

to PD with a PD plan. We have a new request for a conditional use permit for a

self-storage facility. This, as I understand it, is -- this is up just to the northeast of the

Vandiver-U.S. 63 interchange. This is Mr. Paul Land's property that is on the east side of

U.S. 63 just past the interchange, and the applicant is ARCO, which are the same folks

that came forward with the request for the U-Haul facility that is being built on the

Business Loop. So the proposal is consistent or similar to that, that is why it is a CUP.

It is a self-storage facility that will exceed 14 feet in height, which is what would be

allowed to be permitted by right, so you'll get a CUP on that, along with a site plan and

probably some other architectural renderings. We have an adjustment to the PD plan for

the old Houlihan's property, if I recall correctly, at 2541 Broadway Bluffs. There is an

expansion that is proposed to enclose the -- enclose and potentially expand the outdoor

seating area on that property when it was being utilized as Houlihan's. And it triggers a

major amendment because it's increasing the square footage under roof. Then we have

another rezoning request. This is at the southeast corner of Bull Run and St. Charles.

This particular area may be familiar. We have the Jimmy John's that is built on the south

side of Bull Run. We rezoned property immediately to the west of that to allow for a

mixed-use event center. The property that is then on the corner of St. Charles and Bull

Run has now been acquired by the same property owner that sought the rezoning for the

adjoining property to the east, which was zoned M-C, and they are seeking to have the

PD of this subject site rezoned to M-C to match the rest of that event center to allow for

future development. And then we have finally gone back through our sidewalk -- the

pedestrian -- the sidewalk master plan and gone through the Bicycle and Pedestrian

Commission, the BPC -- I was drawing a blank here. They finally -- we were able to get

back to them. They were able to take action on the recommendations made by the

Planning Commission when you did your review about a month about a month and a half

ago as it related to the plan. And so the plan now is coming back. Formal report, formal

presentation will be made either by Mr. Kelley or by Mr. Skov at this upcoming meeting

on the 20th of October to discuss that so we can forward it along to the City Council. I'm

not going to spill the beans on what happened, I will let that play out and have you wait in

suspense. With that, we have a couple of maps here to show you. The locations of our

upcoming projects that have maps with them. You have the 504 and 506 Hinkson

property there here on the far left. Then we deal with our Woodcrest Chapel property

there in the middle, and then our property for ARCO and the CUP for the U-Haul storage

facility on the far right. And then our remaining parcels, the old Houlihan's site here off of

Broadway Bluffs Boulevard -- or Road, and then our property there off of Bull Run and St.

Charles. With that, that is all we have this evening. And we will look forward to another

meeting, and I would like to just clarify for you all this evening, we didn't write 12A, so if

it's confusing, and not able to be understood, don't blame us. Ultimately, as well, that

particular section of the Code actually does not fall within the purview of the Planning

Commission. And so if there are recommended revisions that may need to be made to

that, that is likely going to need to be addressed directly to City Council by

correspondence of the Commission, given that it does not fall within your wheelhouse of

regulatory authority. I will also explain, and many of you may know this that have been

around long enough, when the stormwater ordinance was adopted in 2007, it was after a

very, very long and engaged process of our design professionals. It has been amended

more recently. If I'm not incorrect, in 2016, there some amendments to it. Again, it went

through that same very engaged process because of the impacts that stormwater

management and regulatory application has. I would imagine if we're looking at some

things that are substantive, if that is what your concerns are and you want those to be

looked at, they may take some time to process. That's the only reason I let you be

aware of that. If there are opportunities within our sensitive feature section and

identification of sensitive features which we did amend, if you recall correctly, several

years ago, we can probably look to that to figure out are there areas that we may be able

to address I think to get to Ms. Dokken's point that she made. We've had a lot of other

things, of course, on our plate, so we have to prioritize what we do need to get

completed. We are getting ready to start the processes of preparing to work with our

purchasing agent for three individual RFPs that will be sent out that we were authorized in

a funding for through the budget process, one being for the comprehensive plan, one

being for our transportation plan, which is required by federal law, and then the third is a

zoning study to address central city neighborhoods that was requested to be added to

the budget by Councilman Peters. So all of those are going to be consultant-driven

processes, but they will probably involve, at some point, the Planning Commission. At

what point, I can't tell you yet, but we do have comprehensive plan material which we will

be directly engaging you with because that is your statutory responsibility. And so we

have to be careful about what we add to the plate for next year least we get bogged down.

And we still have to complete our favorite topic of short-term rental.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commission Loe?

MS. LOE: We're getting that one done. Come on.

MS. GEUEA JONES: So close.

MS. LOE: And steep slopes has been on the agenda longer than I've been on the

Commission, so --

MR. ZENNER: Steep slopes was -- it was addressed. It was addressed and

apparently it wasn't addressed --

MR. MACMANN: And changed, mind you.

MR. ZENNER: Address, changed, and apparently not addressed well enough, so we

will -- I think again, we have some purview within the UDC. I think the better regulatory

tool is likely 12A, and I think identifying the problems succinctly will help to maybe focus

some attention by Public Works, which would be Public Works and our -- our utilities

division, stormwater side, would probably be the ones engaged in that -- Aaron Keys as

well as --

MS. LOE: Okay. Fully -- fully agree. We spent many hours hashing through steep

slopes. And in my memory, without checking my notes, is that it was a somewhat

compromised solution, which many of our solutions are, so no -- no -- nothing disparaging

about that. however, this is not the first time we've bumped up against this specific issue

in the 12A, and I -- I don't like when things aren't clear. And if it is impacting our approval

or our understanding of where subdivisions have a -- can be laid out, you know, they

should be -- I think we should have some clarity on it.

MR. ZENNER: What I will do, based on the topic, based on the discussion that

occurred this evening, I'll -- we need to reach out to our -- our staff and BSD because we

rely on their application of 12A through the review.

MS. LOE: Right.

MR. ZENNER: So what I need to understand, and we had a similar situation with our

City arborist as it related to Spartan Point up by Battle High School and tree preservation,

we will need to clarify with them what their -- how they're applying the independent

standards, and we can come back and report that to you.

MS. LOE: Right. No. If they're interpreting it one way, we need to understand that.

MR. ZENNER: Exactly.

MS. LOE: And that may help them -- help us all understand what the language could

be to better clarify.

MR. MACMANN: Yeah. The same page would be awesome.

MS. LOE: That would.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Commissioner MacMann.

MS. LOE: Thank you.

MR. ZENNER: I have nothing else to add. I've talked myself out already, so --

X. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS