Good evening.

I will now call the Thursday, September 4th, 2025 regular session of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order.

May we please have a roll call, Commissioner Stanton?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Mr.

Borowski is absent.

Commissioner Darr.

Here.

Here.

Gray?

Here.

Matisse.

Here.

I'm here.

Stockton.

Ms.

Here.

Walters?

Here.

Yes.

Here.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight present.

We have a quorum, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much.

Are there any changes or adjustments to our agenda this evening, Mr.

Zinner?

No, they're not, ma'am.

Is there a motion to approve?

I so move.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there a thumbs-up approval on the agenda?

Unanimous.

Thank you.

We all received a copy of the minutes of our August 7th and our August 21st regular meetings with corrections to the August 7th regular meeting.

Are there any further adjustments or corrections to the minutes?

Seeing none is there a motion to approve.

Move to approve.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Gray, seconded by Commissioner Wilson.

We got all rearranged up here.

I don't it's going to be okay.

Is there thumbs up approval in the minutes?

Unanimous with abstention from Commissioner Goway Jones for her absence last week or last meeting.

I would I was absent on August 7th, so I would like to abstain from those minutes.

Thank you, Commissioner Ortiz.

Commissioner Ortiz abstains from approval of the August 7th minutes.

Very good.

Going through public hearings, our first case for the evening, case number 231-2025, a request by Crockett Engineering Agent on behalf of Troy Miller properties LLC owner for approval of a site-specific PD plan and new statement of intent to be known as Ashford Place.

The 24.13 acre subject site is located directly north of the terminus of Sagemore Drive and is currently zoned PD plan district.

The rezoning establishes a development plan for the parcel inclusive of 77 single family attached dwelling units.

Additional lots depicted in the plan are designated for common areas.

This case was previously tabled at the July 10th and August 7th, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meetings.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may.

Thank you for the introduction.

And yes, uh public notice was made for this case in the form of postcards on the 10th of June.

Um this was originally scheduled to be read at the uh July 10th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, but was tabled and then was tabled again at August 7th.

Um so that is the I guess why there was only um postcards distributed back in June.

Um notification letters were distributed on the 23rd of June, of which there were 10 for unique owners, occupants, and tenants.

Uh an ad was placed in the Tribune on the 24th of June and then needed to be re-advertised to comply with state statutes as it relates to public hearings for this meeting on the 19th of August.

Um just gonna do some oblique aerial imagery here first to give everyone a little bit of an idea of where we are in town.

Um this is uh north of Route WW Um and the I guess graded site that you can see directly to the south of this is uh the Brooks and to the east of it um is phase one of the Brooks is that large graded site with some looping streets.

Um here's how it just looks on a parcel viewer, which is more updated aerial imagery.

You can see the first phase of the Brooks directly east of this site, um, has been built out and was considered on the same tract whenever this site was annexed, um, and then part of the Brooks um to the south of that was developed as well, and now phase three of the Brooks is is currently under development, um much more built out than this implies through the image, but um still some lots that could be developed.

And then here is just some surrounding zoning.

Um it is uh not bordered by um property that has been annexed into the city to the west or to the north.

Uh directly to the south of it again is the Brooks subdivision, which is zoned R1, and then directly to the east of this site.

There are multiple parcels which are all um uses are dictated by the statement of intent that was adopted in the 2010 annexation of this site with its permanent zoning.

Um so a little bit of background of information regarding this site.

It was classified as being tract five within an annexation that occurred in 2010 by Richland Road and what is is rolling hills now, but at the time did not exist as rolling hills as it needed to be extended farther south to connect with WW.

And this tract was subject to a development agreement, and the permanent zoning that it was issued upon annexation was plan development.

And the statement of intent for this plan development noted that uses permissible were single family detached units or single family attached units with max groups of three for all of uh what is identified in tract five, uh, but the density uh in terms of comprehensively for the site uh could not exceed four units per acre.

Um the only part of tract five that has been developed thus far is phase one of the Brooks and uh per you know staff analysis and and consultation with public works.

Um no elements of the development agreement of for tract five uh needed to be addressed with this proposal.

Um there is uh a stipulation that says a transportation impact study needs to be approved performed with development within tract five, but one was performed in a recent enough time period, assuming greater than what is being proposed development on this site, um, and public works determined that that would suffice that impact study requirement.

Um just to I guess address what many people are here for, uh public correspondence.

There was a decent amount received in regards to this case.

I received 91 written comments, 87 were in opposition, four were in support.

Um I believe there was four comments that came in uh after the agenda was published.

Um they either were physically distributed to the planning and zoning commissioners or were uh sent to them via email prior to this.

Uh and just wanted to note the concerns that largely were outlined in these emails related to traffic and safety as a result of induced traffic, um, as well as availability of parking uh within this site, uh, the capacity of infrastructure uh being both streets, stormwater, sewer, etc., um, green space and amenities or lack thereof in regards to amenities, uh, as well as uh many notes of disruption to neighborhood character, uh concerns about the density of the proposal and uh crime property values, lack of design standards that would be included with this plan development uh and not having a homeowners association or not being a part of a homeowner's association, which the Brooks is to the south of this.

Um for the project itself, the proposed density is around 3.2 units per acre, and this is inclusive of the comprehensive site.

That includes the climax forest as well as the floodplain and the floodway.

The proposal here is 77 dwelling units uh to be single family attached in groups of up to three.

Um, all of them are in groups of three except for one, which is a group of two on the southwest corner of this site.

Um, and they all are considered postage stamp lots, so the entirety of the structure will be contained within one lot, and then it'll have a D lot around it.

So rather usually you hear ABC lots.

Um, this is ABCD.

Um structures will exist on lots A B C and D will serve as a common lot, which uh encompasses all of these dwellings.

Um it'll have 25-foot front yard setbacks, um, which is uh greater than the 20 feet proposed in the previous statement of intent from all the D lots to the point of where the structure begins from the point of right-of-way.

Excuse me.

Access uh to the site will be provided through an extension of Sagemore and Bethpage.

Um both of these two streets do abut the property's southern edge, um, and this was considered the purpose of abutting it to the property's edge uh was so that access could be derived for future development on this tract.

Um and then a note that Margate, um, which is the easternmost street illustrated here, um, is to stub to the eastern property line.

Um that will also require, and that's per our connectivity standards within the unified development code, it needs to stub up to there.

Um and it requires a temporary turnaround, but that will be something that we um ensure is recorded prior to uh getting a decision on the final plat by city council.

Um there will be two parking spaces provided per dwelling unit on the site.

The original statement of intent noted that 2.2 parking spaces per unit would be required, but ultimately stated that it would be confirmed at the time of development plan, so there's some flexibility in terms of what actually uh that statement of intent said.

Um, but it did note that it had to comply with city standards and city standards for single family attached dwelling units would be two parking spaces per dwelling.

Um parking is also allowed uh on both sides of local residential streets, uh, and it should only be allowed on one side of neighborhood collectors.

Uh ultimately parking on street is something that uh can be restricted by ordinance, and that's something that is is more of public works, I guess, discretion on whether or not that's restricted.

Um there's going to be around 60 on street parking spaces from what I measured, and that's not including um areas where there's obviously you couldn't park in front of someone's driveway.

Um so it's not including areas like that.

Um regarding open space requirements, the applicant um has increased it from 25% per the previous SOI to 55% for this plan.

Um and landscaping was um originally going or considered to be 5%, but after consultation with the city's arborist, it was decided that they could meet the 15% requirement, so landscaping will be at 15% here.

Um and then some site features here that just are notable.

There's around one acre of the entirety of the site is encumbered by or not encumbered, but will be utilized for the purpose of stormwater detention.

Around three acres will be for climax forest preservation, and around three acres of the comprehensive site will remain within a floodplain or a floodway.

Some traffic concerns, as I mentioned, many people had concerns about traffic that would be induced on this site.

There was a traffic impact study that was performed in 2014 for the purpose of phase one of the Brooks, which is also on track five, the eastern portion that I mentioned previously.

Um and it considered um there being 87 dwelling units on track five, which is what occurred uh with phase one of the Brooks.

Um the required construction of, and it also required construction of a portion of of what is now Hoy Lake that uh stubbed to the southern property line for them and now has been facilitated to be a point of access down to WW with the rest of the development of the Brooks subdivision.

Um 2017 transportation impact study uh considered 390 dwelling units in the Brooks phase two, and assumed a scenario of 85 additional dwelling units on top of the 87 that already existed on track five, and also assumed a scenario where there would be 276 more dwelling units on track five, um, including already the 87 that existed again.

Um the scenarios for volumes of traffic are illustrated here on the maps that I've provided with 85 units, which would be most akin to what would be yielded through this development.

It would be around 1500 uh average daily traffic on uh what is now Sage More.

It wasn't called that whenever the TIS was performed in 2017.

Um and around 2450 ADT going southbound on Hoy Lake and around uh 2150 going northbound on Hoy Lake.

Um the the 2017 TIS is what was used to inform everything that was necessary for the development agreement for the Brooks Phase 2.

Um all of the improvements that were outlined in that development agreement for traffic mitigation purposes were completed or are completed at this time.

So SAGEMOOR uh particularly was noted in that TIS as needing to be constructed to neighborhood collector standards for the purpose of accommodating increased volumes of vehicles.

Uh neighborhood collectors are intended to accommodate traffic of up to 1.5 to 3.5,000 uh or 3500 uh average daily traffic and the prospective volumes that would be generated by this development with would would be within the capacity of this street as it exists now.

Um and again, Sage Moore abuts to this property line for the purpose of facilitating future access.

Uh parking would be restricted on one side, but again, to be determined by public works if they actually will end up enforcing that.

Um Hoy Lake should be constructed or was constructed to major collector standards, which accommodates uh 3,500 to 8,500 average daily traffic.

Um we are, you know, staff is aware that it's currently largely used for cut through traffic for people who are trying to get on to WW from Rolling Hills.

Um and it has been at least noted by uh public works as being prioritized for traffic calming measures to be installed when that occurs and and if there is an increased volume of traffic that results in uh a greater need for traffic calming measures to be installed expeditiously.

That's something that can be reconsidered by public works uh at that time, but right now I believe it's uh project number 34 uh for street calming uh measures at the moment.

So cut through traffic may be alleviated also with a connection of El Chaparral, which is um something that I'll discuss uh further in this uh project, but that eventually will go from WW up to Richland Road, um which may reduce the need for people to or at least may reduce cut through traffic on Hoy Lake in the first place.

Um and parking on uh Hoy Lake should be restricted, um, not to one side, that's a typo.

It should be entirely restricted on both sides, but again, that's something that would be determined by public works.

Regarding tree preservation, um they're preserving 25% of the climax forests on the or the significant trees, excuse me, on the site, um, and that's not inclusive of those in the stream buffer or in the tree preservation area.

Um significant trees are to be that are removed are to be replaced under the conditions outlined in 2944 G3 of the unified development code.

Um and they've noted this would be three large or medium deciduous trees per significant tree removed.

Uh they've also noted that there will be one tree planted per structure and per common lot uh on the PD plan itself.

Um so there will be phasing for development of this, and this is considered necessary for the purpose of um uh gathering funds for a payment in lieu uh to be made for a development agreement because the extending L.

Chaparral all the way and then building it out to this point would serve as a connection to nothing and was not considered necessary for the the purpose of this development.

Um so development agreement um and the phasing as it's illustrated here allows the developer to collect the funds to make the payment in lieu, um, so the city does have the capacity to pay for this improvement in the future.

Um so within the development agreement um the right-of-way would be dedicated at a certain trigger within a certain time or with the plotting of phase three.

Um and no individual phase that's illustrated here will necessarily result or it will not result in nonconformance as it relates to our subdivision standards.

Uh and the phases here um may change moderately, but we believe that this is uh an appropriate phasing um request at this time.

Uh and again, this is also uh a payment in lieu can be made for the extension of El Chaparral uh in the future at the time where it actually serves a meaningful connection.

Um so ultimately the requested PD plan is appropriate as requested design development aligns with the statement of intent that was considered in 2010.

Um the design exceptions um that are being sought are to accommodate conventional single-family attached development on postage stamp lots, which again is a little bit of a shortcoming of the code to not allow that type of development and based zoning districts.

Um it also the requested density is greater um than the surrounding development, but it does align and is fewer units per acre than what is permitted per the statement of intent that was adopted in 2010.

Um again, no triggers from the development agreement were considered um necessary or needing to be met from that 2010 annexation and the the updated TIS was not something that was considered necessary by city's traffic engineer because of the traffic impact study that was performed in 2017.

Umsite impacts of this development um can be handled uh through the existing street network as well as through the extension of utilities.

Um they it we have the infrastructure capacity to take care of this intensity of development.

So ultimately staff's recommendation is to approve the request of the plan district or if the plan development plan, the revised statement of intent, and the preliminary plat to be known as Ashford Place.

This is subject to technical corrections and um yeah, also subject to an agreed upon development agreement prior to introduction to city council.

Um if the commissioners have any other questions, I would be happy to answer them now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my fellow commissioners have any uh have had any contact with parties to this case outside of a public hearing, please disclose so now.

Commissioner Wilson.

I will note that I was contacted.

However, I did not have a conversation with an individual.

Thank you.

Anyone else receive any outside contact?

Thank you.

Uh folks, I don't mind that you have signs, but I'm going to need you to keep them down.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate that.

We're trying to have a calm a discussion as we can tonight.

That'd be great.

Um questions for staff.

Commissioner Darr.

Um I'm looking at figure nine of the traffic impact study from 2017.

And it just is I'm looking at the north track that they identify as having 85 homes.

And then I'm looking at the track that we're looking at that's under consideration, and it's just like a third of that.

So are we using up all of that allotment of traffic for just this development?

Um what about the two tracks to the east of that?

Or am I not seeing that correctly?

No, for uh you are seeing it correctly that the the however many trips that were considered in one scenario was comprehensively for all the track or all the parcels that hadn't been developed at that point.

Um it also considered 276, so that would be greater than the 80-something that was considered at that time.

So that could be uh considered appropriate um or uh, I guess a valid TIS still, but it also could be that we need to perform a new TIS if these other two parcels do end up developing.

Mr.

Darr, if I may.

The subdivision of the eastern tracks of which sorry, the western tracks that were outside of phase one of the brooks occurred after 2017.

And so what you see on parcel maps today, those tracks were all part of what the study was considering.

There were one tract of land at that point.

They have subsequently been further subdivided and connected with the parcels that are to the north that have access off of Richland Road.

And that is probably why it only appears as though the traffic study is saying 85 trips for the entire undeveloped acreage.

And then as Mr.

Coontzus indicated, they did the alternative of 276 for all of the remaining undeveloped acreage, which was at one point one leftover track from tract five.

Okay.

Are there questions for staff seeing none?

We are going to open the floor to public comment.

I'm gonna do a little bit about our rules for the evening.

Um we're gonna try to get through everybody.

Part of that means that I have to put a time limit on everybody.

So we're gonna do six minutes for the applicants, or if you are here representing a group.

Three minutes if you are here as an individual.

I've got my timer on my phone.

If you hear it going off, I'm not getting text messages.

That means your time is up.

We're gonna use bad language.

We're gonna not disparage people based on any of their inherent characteristics, and we're gonna not be disruptive.

We can get through this, and we will come to a decision at the end of it.

We love hearing from the public.

I am so excited you all are here.

Let's have a good meeting and come to a conclusion that everybody feels okay about at the end of the day, all right.

All right.

Whenever you're ready.

Oh, also name and address for the record.

I'm sorry we have to have that because we're the planning and zoning commission.

So name and address for the record before you start.

Go ahead.

Good evening, Andy Green with Crockett Engineering Consultants.

Office is at 1000 West Nifong Boulevard, building number one.

I'm going to be requesting only three minutes of your time tonight.

And I will turn that over to Tim Crockett to follow me up.

Here to discuss the Ashford Place Development, which David did a great job giving the staff report.

I myself, Andy Green, Tim Crockett, Caleb Colbert, uh here to represent and talk a little bit about the project.

Uh overview again, I won't go too into depth uh of it, but roughly 24 acres on the west side of an existing PD zone property.

Um this is not a rezoning request tonight.

We are simply submitting a PD plan that conforms to the existing zoning on the property.

The current zoning even specifically calls out for the use of a three-unit building, which is what our proposal includes.

Our proposal will also conform to the original statement of intent from 2010 with the original zoning as well as all City of Columbia regulations moving forward.

Again, just a picture shaded in green where the project is located, and again a SNP just showing you what the project looks like as it relates to the network and layout of the property.

So just to talk a little bit about the history of the zoning in the area, as David previously covered, everything in blue back in 2010 was annexed and zoned into the City of Columbia with the PD zoning.

The shaded green tract is referenced tract five within that zoning, which got assigned a residential density of PUD4, that's four units per acre.

In 2013, our client Troy Miller properties purchased a uh 24-acre portion on the east side of the green property.

They're shaded in blue, which is the subject property you we've got today.

So in 2014, the Brooks plat number one, which is shaded in darker green on the uh east side of the tract five here in blue, was um approved from a zoning and preliminary plat perspective.

Following that in 2017, the Brooks Plat number one was constructed.

After that, in 2017, to the south, Brooks phase two was annexed and zone residential that borders the south uh property here that we've got.

Following that in 2018, the Brooks plat number two was constructed, and following that in 22, the Brooks plat number three was constructed.

Trying to paint the picture here that the property was zoned in 2010, it's been there in place all while the Brooks developed uh basically to the east and the south.

All utilities are available and on-site, uh ready to serve the development.

They are appropriately sized and have the capacity, including sewer, water, electric, and stormwater.

Uh here is a conceptual unit plan of the three unit structure.

Just wanted to kind of show that of what uh what we're thinking for the unit.

And then here's a sample floor plan again with the three units and some elevations there on the right.

Phase two there on the east, and then finally in green would be phase three.

And with that, I'll turn it over to Tim Crockett.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Oh, any questions or do you mind taking?

Sorry.

Sorry, Tim.

I'll get back to you.

Any questions for the speaker?

All right.

Easy enough.

Madam Chair, members of the Commission, Tim Crockett, Crockett Engineering Consultants 1000 West NIFON.

As Andy indicated, I would like to have the six minutes for my presentation.

A lot to cover, so I'm gonna go very quickly.

If you have questions, please feel free to answer uh ask them.

I'm gonna cover density, traffic, parking, green space, and the statement of intent.

Uh first of all, the density.

Uh the density, as as indicated by staff is a PUD four, four units per acre, and we're asking for 3.2 units per acre.

You're going to hear uh some correspondence tonight that talks about that's high density apartments.

Uh honestly 3.2, that's uh that's in the range of single family densities all over Columbia.

Most of our densities that we have in Columbia for single family are 1.5 to 4 units per acre.

Uh moderate density at best is at 6 to 10, and high density for apartments uh that this project has been claimed to be is uh 12 to 20.

We're nowhere near that.

So in comparison, you can see where the Brooks is.

The Brooks as a whole, the entire development of the Brooks is about 2.1 units per acre.

Uh the Brooks Platte 3, which is the plat that we directly abut, is 2.6.

There's not much difference between 2.6 and the 3.2 that we're looking at tonight.

Eastport Gardens, you've got some correspondence in uh in your staff report, or excuse me, in your um staff correspondence that had pictures of cars parked all over the streets.

That was in Eastport Gardens uh with a density of 5.3.

Um other densities are similar of similar developments.

The residence at Old Hawthorne is 5.0 Amberton, which this commission approved not long ago was at 7.5.

It was a much denser development and didn't have any parking issues.

No one had concerns with the parking that we had at Amberton at a higher density.

Vintage Falls and of course the village at Old Hawthorne are similar densities that we're proposing.

The traffic is uh going to be a concern.

A lot of folks have issues with the traffic.

The major roadways in this area have been vetted by Catso.

If you're not familiar with CATSO, it's the major roadway plan for the city of Columbia.

There's a technical committee and a coordinating committee.

Both of those have representatives, engineers, and planners from both the city, the county, and MODOT.

So they determine where the major roads go through that throughout the city.

Uh the traffic from the Ashford place was accounted for when the Brooks was developed.

So when the Brooks went in to answer your question, Mr.

Darr, that piece of property to the north, the tract five, took in account 267 or whatever the number it was.

That number, it took the number of acres available by four units per acre, and that's the density that it that it assigned.

That's how many units was assigned to that.

So there's plenty of density left for those remaining two tracts of land.

Streets in the Brooks were built to accommodate the proposed traffic.

So while there is additional traffic coming from this project, Sagemore and Hoyt Lake were expanded or grew to uh neighborhood and major c major collector standards to account for that.

Wider pavements, wider right of ways.

Uh and of course, there's not just the streets themselves, but there are also some other off-site improvements, turn lanes and signals to to be exact.

Here's the traffic uh snippet from that 2017 report.

It's hard to read.

You can see Sage Moore, the green on the left and Hoy Lake, the blue on the right.

It says uh thus the proposed roadways within the Brooks phase two development would adequately serve the proposed subdivision, in addition to the future development of the North Tract, which refers to tract five and portion of this development.

So the traffic uh was all vetted through uh MODOT as well as City of Columbia.

Parking has uh been questioned as well.

Um we are looking at two spaces per unit.

Uh the original statement of intent says the total number of parking spaces proposed is 1184.

That's based on the maximum number of units you can get, four units per acre over the entire tract five.

However, the actual number may be more or less, so as long as it complies with the City of Columbia regulations.

The City of Columbia regulations require two spaces per per dwelling.

There is additional on-street parking that is available.

Here's an exhibit that shows our available spaces that we can have.

Uh I believe Mr.

Kuhn's talked about having 60.

We come up with 68.

Uh, so there is adequate parking if we needed it on the streets themselves.

However, if it became a problem, we have two locations that we can add small parking lots.

So we can add some additional parking if that ever becomes an issue.

Uh so we can have uh upwards of 20 additional parking spaces off site uh off-street parking if needed.

The green space of the total 24 acres that we have on site, uh about 43 percent or over 10 acres is gonna be in common lots.

Then we add in uh the landscaping and yards, that's another 27% or so, six and a half acres.

Total open space is about 70 percent on this site.

You don't see that very often when you're talking about attached single family.

So um, you know, that that's that's at single family density.

Uh statement of intent.

We're gonna hear a lot about where we're just doing the minimums.

We're doing just the minimum.

Well, here's a comparison of the two statement of intents.

The original statement of intent said one family and one family attached, we're doing single family attached.

The maximum number of uh units on the original statement of intent was 96, and we're proposing 77, a reduction in that total density.

Building heights stay the same, parking ratio we talked about.

We're increasing the front yard setback to give it that more single family feel.

Uh landscaping is staying the same, and our open space is increasing greatly.

So we're not hitting the minimums, we're doing more than that.

The statement of intent, I believe, from the original uh from the very original uh zoning out here.

This is specifically what it states.

The plan for tract five is generally described as a plan containing one family and one family attached units and any combination of same.

Units may be contained on a single zero lot line lot, a single family lot, or in a large lot containing several units.

In addition, there may be up to three units in a single building.

We're proposing one family attached on zero outline lots with up to three units in a single building.

We're complying with that original statement of intent.

The proposed plan not only complies with the original statement of intent, but we believe that the original statement of intent intended for this exact type of development.

And so with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Any questions from Mr.

Crockett?

Commissioner Walters?

I'm just interested in this for context.

So was this beginning of 2010 was has there been a single developer in charge or supervising or orchestrating the entire developer, these various phases we've had we've seen here.

In 2010, um there was a single developer that was in charge of all that.

However, during the recession, he lost the property.

It went through bank foreclosure, that bank went under, and therefore it went to the FDIC, and so then it was divvied up and then it was kind of dispersed at that point.

So it it's had a it's had a uh a tough past.

So the the as a previous speaker illustrated of the various phases, those phases were done by different entities.

Uh yeah.

So let's go let's go back to that, Mr.

Walters.

Okay.

Yes.

So let's go to this slide right here.

So all of that right there in blue, that can that comprises of five tracts of land.

That was the original 20 and 10, uh 2010 uh rezoning.

That included some commercial, some other PUD up along Richland, and then this was tracked five.

And so when what happened is somewhere along the way, when it went through the bank foreclosure, it went to uh several investment bankers along the who bought it from the FDIC, it got subdivided into multiple tracts of land.

One clock tract of land was purchased by my client.

The middle next two uh properties were purchased by another individual, and then another developer purchased what's shaded in green.

And so that was the Brooks Platte 1.

All right, thank you.

Yes, any other questions for the speaker.

Thank you.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next person to speak on this case.

Please come forward.

Yeah.

I don't have a list, so work it out amongst yourselves.

Name and address for the record, and then start when you are ready.

Tracy Delavecchia, 600 Sahely Court.

Columbia, Missouri 65201, Sahali Court is in uh phase one of the Brooks subdivision.

Um it's not just numbers and engineering on paper.

While it's true, I'm gonna read this very fast.

While it's true that Sagemore Drive will serve as the sole ingress for 77 families in the triplexes, a situation that alone should halt this proposed development.

I would like to draw attention to a more fundamental issue.

The plan contradicts the planning and zoning commission's own strategies for safe neighborhood streets, a fact that should prompt a reconsideration of the developer's plan.

When I first set my sights on buying a home in the Brooks, the entrance was only off of Rolling Hills onto Hoy Lake Drive.

Hoy Lake Drive was half the size that it is now.

Hoy Lake Drive culminated at a barricade next to the resident at fifty of 5054 uh Hoy Lake Drive.

There's four homes on Hoy Lake Drive in that section that their driveways point to the streets, and you have to be on that busy street now to get in and out of the driveway.

You guys approved that with a nod to the developer, even it because at that time it wasn't a through street, and it was the Planning and Zoning Commission had already approved that those driveways be open to Hoy Lake Drive.

When I went back to buy my home in the fall of 2019, the transformation of Hoy Lake into a connecting street and a bustling thermo thoroughfare was shocking.

We bought our home in 2019.

During the years of construction of phases two and three of the Brooks, I traversed every nook and cranny in my morning four mile walks.

I couldn't help help help but notice that none of the driveways in phases two and three of the Brooks opened onto Hoy Lake, for which I'm deeply grateful.

The Planning and Zoning Commission would not have sanctioned additional driveways opening directly onto a now connecting street.

During my morning walks, I had set I have had several close calls with speeding traffic, rushing from rolling hills to WW, using it as their own personal shortcut around high traffic areas.

Hoy Lake, in its current state, poses a significant danger to joggers, walkers, children's dogs, and families with strollers.

It's a throughfair street right down the middle of a family neighborhood.

I have lived here for nearly six years, and the city is only now taking action to address the safety issues.

It can take five or more years to construct speed bumps.

Apparently, we're 34 on the list.

Fast forward to 2020, and we've been by the time they get to it, it will be 11 years before they address the issue.

Fast forward to 2025 and deja vu.

We have Sagemore Drive in the Brooks phase three with homeowners' driveways opening into it, approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

It's closed off with a barricade at the end of the street.

The Planning and Zoning Commission rightly approved those driveways opening onto the street because it's not a context connecting road and not a busy thoroughfare.

If this development is approved, the situation with Sagemore Drive will be no different from that of Hoy Lake Drive.

The potential dangers of Sagemore Drive being a connecting street cannot be overlooked.

This is a concern for all of you and all of us.

We don't need a crystal ball to predict what the outcome of this will be.

It will be more than a decade since opening up Hoy Lake as a major connecting street for the city to put something in place to address the safety hazards.

Very real safety hazards, not just numbers and not just an engineering report.

The same thing is going to be a good thing.

Wrap up, sorry.

We need a solution to this before the development can be approved, and the problem that we all know will happen, and indeed it's the responsibility of the Commission to do everything in its power to prevent unsafe streets.

The bottom line is the developer is the one that needs to create the streets that go in and out of it, and it's not Sagemore that is the street that goes in and out of his complex.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Okay, folks.

Next person to speak on this case, please come forward.

Good evening.

Pull that down to you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Gail Halsworth, and I live at 5338 Harbortown Drive, adjacent to Hoy Lake Drive.

My husband and I moved to the Brooks in 2018 seeking a quiet place to age in place, trusting that planning and zoning would protect our homeowners' peace and safety.

And if we had known Hoy Lake was going to be a major collector, we would have never purchased the home.

Today, even simple tasks like crossing Hoy Lake Drive to get my mail are dangerous.

There are no crosswalks or speed bumps, and speeding traffic often wakes us at night.

Adding a large new development will only worsen these problems.

Supporters of Ashford Place point to a 2017 traffic study by CBB based on the ITE trip generation model.

In my professional career with data analysis, I learned that all models have blind spots.

This one predicts traffic only from new driveways.

It does not capture cut-through traffic when drivers reroute through neighborhoods as a shortcut.

In other words, the exact traffic we already struggled with is invisible to this model.

The model used to justify that there's adequate capacity on these streets doesn't see the cut-through traffic at all.

This limitation is acknowledged by the ITE manual itself, as well as transportation authorities in Boston, Portland, Austin, and Seattle, which require real-world follow-up studies and mitigation before approving new projects.

Columbia has not taken those steps.

If planning and zoning relies on the 2017 study, it will result in a misleading analysis of the new developments' impacts, inadequate mitigation measures, and long-term harm to the safety and livability of our neighborhood.

We are not anti-growth.

We are simply asking planning and zoning to balance new development with protections for existing residents.

Without major mitigation, Ashford Place will bring long-term safety and livability problems for the Brooks.

Good growth should not leave us feeling victimized.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Yes, sir.

Commissioner Stanton.

Great presentation.

So let's talk about your data.

Yes, sir.

If traffic is an issue, and we're assuming that this is going to increase to not only the invisible traffic that you discussed, but the increase in the development.

What is your alternative to what is on the table right now?

If you were in their shoes, what is your what is your alternative to this?

Well, I think there are several things that would mitigate obviously traffic calming measures within the existing subdivision.

But more importantly, if this is to be approved, he needs to have the roads to accommodate the development.

And it's a matter of are we getting the cart ahead of the horse?

Are we putting something in that we don't really have the capacity or the finances?

If we can't afford the roads, maybe it's not yet time for this development.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here tonight, ma'am.

Next.

My name is Holly McCoy, and I live on 809 Sagemore Drive.

My issue as a resident of the Brooks, and specifically as a homeowner on Sagemore, is the increase in traffic, like she spoke.

Already the street in front of our home has collapsed and had to have been replaced.

That was done in October of 2024.

So I just understand that Troy Miller owns this and he should be allowed to develop it as he see fits, but a new development that leaches into an existing neighborhood when it benefits from or negatively impacts the adjacent area without providing reciprocal benefits.

It's a parasite.

The Ashford Place Development would be an example of this.

And so the appropriate action that I would respectfully request is that Mr.

Miller take this to development and build his own roads into it, the same way that the developer of the Brooks had to build their own roads to develop this.

They didn't cut through another subdivision to create this.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Seeing Oh, sorry, Commissioner Walters, go ahead.

Well, just like you said, El Chaparel could go through.

Can a road be built from Richland?

You have Richland and Rolling Hills.

You have lots of other ways to access this than to use Sagemore, the street that I live on, as their only means to get into their development, which is going to increase the traffic dramatically.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the speaker?

Seeing none, thank you very much, ma'am.

Next.

I was here before, so I've been here.

My name is John Duke.

I live in phase one of the Brooks development, 5317 Harbortown Drive.

I moved in in 2018, and I have seen the Brooks being developed.

I have reviewed this proposal, and it's apparently a high density proposal.

It appears to me that there are three units attached in each lot.

The lots are developed that are basically a little oversized lot.

They're about 96 feet wide at the street.

Generally city lots are 60 by 90.

They can be larger.

County lots are generally 70 wide by 110 to 120, and they can be larger.

These lots are designed for a single home.

Each lot will have three units that have common walls between them.

The units are 28 feet wide, 66 feet long, which is a little larger than a double wide mobile home.

Each unit will have a single car garage within the unit, which will reduce the square footage of that unit by 200 square feet.

The proposal does not indicate if the units will be two-story.

With the time that I got the information, I wasn't aware of that.

The backyard of each unit will be 28 feet wide and 25 feet deep, about the same size as the double car garage.

So it is high density.

The Brooks is a nice neighborhood with great neighbors.

It is quiet and with few exceptions, well maintained.

Talking to the namers, we would like to keep it this way.

Most of us have seen neighbors with rentals and high-density units and do not wish to have the same general issues in our neighborhood.

In regards to traffic issues, currently we have a problem with speeders on Hoy Lake, and it has been addressed several times.

Some of the vehicles may be traveling 45 to 50 miles an hour.

I have actually seen them go faster than that.

I generally drive about 25 to 29 miles per hour on Hoy Lake, and the cars pass me on the curves and on the hills and blow their horns at me and do all kinds of things.

It's a major issue.

And if you want to know how I can tell what the speed of the cars, I'll give you that information later.

Many of the families that presently live in the Brooks have young children.

They ride bikes, scooters, roller blades, and most of them don't look at the street before they roll into it with their bikes.

The proposed states that vehicles are not be allowed to park on the street.

That was the original proposal.

Apparently they have changed that.

And number two is who's going to enforce it unless the city goes out and violates it.

I have concerns about the width of the streets.

The streets are basically 28 feet wide.

And with the fire truck, they probably won't be able to go down there because if there's a vehicle that is a monstrous pickup truck parked on each side of the street, that is going to be nine feet and nine feet.

That's 18 feet.

The fire truck is going to be nine feet wide.

That only leaves a foot and a half for that vehicle to go through if everybody's parked the way they are supposed to be parked.

Thank you, sir.

If you could wrap up, that would be great.

Okay.

The amount of traffic is basically the issue.

The national average is 1.83 vehicles per household.

With 26 lots and only one house on each lot, that would be 47.58 vehicles.

With a proposed of 77 units on 26 lots, that would mean there would be 141 vehicles.

That's a monstrous a lot.

So Bear, apparently, we are going to have a parking problem.

And the problem is musical vehicles.

One car garage and a driveway.

Who goes to work first?

Do they come home first?

Thank you.

Who goes to work second?

Who comes home second?

So how are they going to keep parking those cars off the street?

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Stanton.

Well that's the same question I asked the previous speaker.

Thank you for your your data.

So let's talk better.

If you do not like 77, it sounds like you would like single-family 44, right?

Yes.

26 lots.

Still an increase of traffic.

Yes, but it's only 40 vehicles and not 140 vehicles.

And yes, my next question would be if you were in their shoes.

That's what you would propose is more than single family homes.

That would be any other questions for the speaker.

Seeing Oh, Commissioner Walters, go ahead.

I may not have remembered correctly, but um when the proponents spoke, they spoke about the the uh density of the adjoining one, the can uh existing density of it 2.6 per acre?

2.6 times 24 is 62 units as a comparison versus 87 that are being proposed, just as a point of information.

Thank you.

Well, I my understanding has always been it's been four houses per acre.

Thank you very much, sir.

Any other questions?

Seeing none.

Next, go ahead and start.

Good evening.

My name is Peggy Kirkpatrick.

I live at 713 Sagemore.

I am four houses up from the proposed development.

Um first of all, I want to say thank you to all of you for volunteering and putting up with all of us every month.

Um I am a little bit confused on one thing that um I think Tim, you said it wasn't a rezoning issue, and yet it says here in your own minutes, the rezoning establishes a development plan for the parcel.

I'm a little is this a rezoning issue or not?

Um so that's question number one.

Question number two, Mr.

Stanton, you brought up an excellent point of um.

You asked Holly, who is my neighbor, um, how should these the traffic come in?

Mr.

Miller owns the property all the way to Richland Road.

A part of the land has not been zoned into the city.

It's it's still county zoned.

And I think there's a creek, and he would have to build a bridge.

When he met with the neighborhood, um, which we really appreciate, Mr.

Miller, that you met with us.

Um he was asked about building the bridge or extending to uh Richland Road, and he said it was too expensive.

That's that's a good point.

But he is basically building a subdivision without investing at all in the infrastructure of the roads, um, except for what he's going to build with his subdivision.

And then the last thing I'd like you to consider is that that whole plot is densely wooded, and it's absolutely gorgeous.

We expected it to be developed and naively, we didn't do our due diligence.

Naively, we thought it was going to be an extension, phase four of the brooks.

Um I am asking you to consider if it's in your power, require the developer to put a minimum of a 50-foot buffer, leaving those beautiful trees in place and acting as a uh a change of landscape, if you will, from single-family dwellings to a more dense development.

Thank you for your time.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none, thank you for being here tonight.

Thank you.

Next person to speak on this case.

Please come forward.

Hello, everybody.

My name is Sirochi Sochagi.

I live at 4505 Royal County Road in Columbia, Missouri.

So I just purchased the home a few months ago.

So my uh comment will be very simplistic compared to other people who spoke in here.

I think when I heard about this development, I was just really confused about how it's possible to go through one neighborhood to build another neighborhood.

It's just very weird to me.

So to get to my house, so Royal County Road intersects Sagemore, and you come in from Broadway to get to Sagemore.

And so when I found out that the development would be would be at the end of Sagemore Drive, it just seems very weird that you can come into our neighborhood, and that's the only way to get into the neighborhood, is to come into our neighborhood to then build another development that's inside the neighborhood.

So I know that there are engineering people and people who can do all kinds of, it just seems really weird to have another neighborhood inside a neighborhood.

So I'm not opposed to more apartments, single-family homes, but why can't they have their own entrance instead of coming into our neighborhood to build another neighborhood?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none, thank you for being here tonight.

Next person to speak.

Hi, my name is Caleb Stevenson.

I live at 905 Sagemore Drive, Columbia, Missouri, 65201.

Thank you for considering my input this evening on this proposed development.

I would like to echo a few key reasons why this development ignores neighborhood context and is poor city planning.

Proper city planning dictates that higher density developments are located near primary arterials, in this case, Broadway Avenue or WW, or have dedicated access to not overburden existing infrastructure.

However, this higher density development is located behind lower density developments and exposes current Columbia citizens to increased safety concerns related to traffic and speeding.

This dangerous situation exists despite excuse me, this dangerous situation that will exist despite traffic calming measures of curved streets and enhanced speed limit signage.

Given this higher density development will use a single existing neighborhood street, Sagemore Avenue, without any traffic calming measures.

Our neighborhood has real valid concerns related to increased traffic and speeding.

It's poor city planning.

Second, this higher density development provides little to no green space for residents outside of the floodplain land, and little to no buffer between itself and current Columbia neighbors.

While this development falls under PUD-4 zoning, the arrangement of 77 units on only 12 acres is actually much denser than what zoning allows.

Only by stretching the definition of PUD-4 zoning to include undeveloped floodplain and forest preserve as part of this development, does the zoning actually meet guidelines?

Finally, reviewing the tree survey, only the minimum number of trees are being retained.

The survey even shows five fully mature trees delineating our boundary between the Brooks and Ashford Place on the west side of Sagemore are slated to be removed, even though there is no structure plan there.

Green space should be prioritized, especially as part of a higher density development.

And this zoning request severely lacks it.

This falls short of community expectations, neighborhood compatibility, and it's poor city planning.

These are just a few of the many reasons of why I mentioned here this evening of why this development lacks neighborhood compatibility and community expectations.

It lacks a primary collector street and taxes existing infrastructure of current neighbors.

It falls materially short on traffic safety.

It abuses PUD-4 zoning by incorporating a floodplain into density calculations and completely lacks green buffers between existing neighbors.

It's poor city planning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Next person to speak on this case, please come forward.

Good evening.

My name is Tim Gerding.

I'm an attorney.

I represent John and Tatiana Shin at 408 and 412 Kingston Heath Drive, Columbia, Missouri.

Very near to the intersection of Sagemore Drive.

They own two properties there.

Thank you for allowing me to address the Commission this evening on behalf of my clients.

We respectfully oppose the proposed Ashford Place development on a number of grounds.

As the Commission has heard, this development lacks appropriate infrastructure.

We have a purpose to ensure land use decisions implement the city's comprehensive plan, preserve neighborhood stability and safety, and coordinate infrastructure in a safe and orderly manner.

A planned development should align with these fundamental objectives.

The current proposal disregards these guiding principles by offering no substantive improvements to traffic safety or infrastructure.

There is no credible or enforceable proposal for improvements to ensure safe ingress or egress, road enhancements or pedestrian accommodation.

And without any such commitments, the plan undermines both public safety and orderly growth.

Where will all the parking be?

As I understand it, there can be up to four unrelated residents in each unit of the triplex.

That's up to, if I'm understanding this correctly, 12 people or up to maybe 12 or more cars per per physical structure versus a single family home of maybe only two or three cars.

We understand that uh the street parking would be low, but maybe one space or three spaces per residence would be appropriate, but as many cars as 12 per structure would be would be far in excess.

We have an incompati incompatibility with established neighborhood character.

We should be protecting stable residential neighborhoods.

The proposable is incompatible in scale, intensity, and design with the adjacent single family residences.

The closer this development sits to existing homes, the greater the need in transitions in scale and dedicated buffers, none of which appear to be provided here.

With this proposal, the Brooks neighborhood residents can look forward to being worried about having their children playing near the street as folks speed through Sagemore to cut through the neighborhood.

Why did Brooks members invest in in their HOA organization to pay for the improvements only to have the system stressed by would-be renters of these triplex units?

The HOA, at least for residents near Sagemore might as well not have existed.

This is a simply incompatible land use to this established single-family neighborhood.

Citizens that have purchased housing invested in this subdivision with the specific understanding that it would be low-density single-family homes.

This type of development is completely unexpected, not planned for, and detrimental to virtually every Columbia citizen who with an actual stake in this issue.

This proposal by the developer we would suggest is a development afterthought of sorts.

We have an absence of any legitimate community benefit.

And we have residents of the Brooks invested in their properties here in the Brooks relied upon an understanding that this area would be was at the end of the three minutes.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you very much, sir.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

And I assume that you have I don't remember seeing what you submitted.

I did not submit anything in writing.

Oh, okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And also, while you're coming up, come on, you're fine.

I forgot to say after you asked your question.

The zoning is not changing, but they are completing their their plan district zoning by providing us the plan.

Why was that?

It's just it's a technicality of how it's stated, but the zoning was PD and will be PD in the future.

Okay.

Thank you.

I forgot I meant to answer that question before you walked away.

I apologize.

Please go ahead and name an address when you are ready.

Good evening.

Jack Mayor, I'm in 809 Brockton Drive.

So a lot of my neighbors have addressed some concerns overall.

I want to come at this from more of a master plan perspective.

Currently, Mr.

Miller and another uh multifamily developer individual by the name of Gary Lewis own over 150 acres in between the northern uh parcel and the Brooks and going to Richland Road.

So it is more than likely that most of the land all the way to Richland in the future is going to be some kind of a high density or multifamily use.

So the question for P and Z and the Council moving forward is when is L.

Chaparral going to be developed?

Is it going to be developed prior to all this happening?

Or is it going to be developed after all of the traffic flow has all the traffic patterns have already been congested onto Sagemore and Beth Page and out through Richland.

So and that being said, there is no connector to Richland right now planned.

So that's that's a question for the city to review over time that more than likely all of this land stretching stretching to Richland is going to be multifamily, because why would a single family developer come in, or why would somebody want to purchase and build a new home next to a higher density development?

It just doesn't make sense.

That's why all of my neighbors are here today.

Because we've we've got HOA values that we're trying to preserve.

And you know, this this type of development isn't something that is conforming to our neighborhood.

It's it's just that simple.

Uh you know, I thought being somebody that's in real estate to begin with and uh who works with developers all the time.

Uh I was very surprised when I saw this come uh to P and Z, even before our neighbors were approached.

Um I'm assuming that we weren't approached because it's such an outlandish idea to put triplexes on this parcel that he'd get the backlash that he's seen here today.

Um but I just want to reiterate to you all that uh in my mind there is zero percent neighborhood support here for this development.

And yeah, it's uh it's very uh surprising to me that uh you know P and Z is passing this through to the Council given the bare minimums uh that are being met here, especially the uh preservation of the 25 percent trees that are on the northeast corner, and nothing is uh essentially allowed for a buffer zone here uh to the Brooks neighborhood that has an HOA.

None of this is conforming.

We really shouldn't be acting like this is phase four of the Brooks.

This is a completely different development.

And you know uh at this point the city can't take L Chaparral as anything that's going to be extended in the next 20 to 30 years.

You've got two landowners that owned that parcel that haven't developed the land in 20 years.

So when is L Chaparral going to get developed?

That's the the developer currently is not putting any funds aside to stretch L Chaparral from WW to uh Ashford Place.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Walters.

Well, I'd like to make the statement you and several other speakers have acted like your surprise and so forth.

And I don't blame for many people for being surprised, but this is of record.

I mean, it's been it's been specified that this land could accommodate triplexes at this density from the get-go.

Now, I understand it's not part of every homeowner's typical uh process to go through and re and review this.

I get that, and I'm not blaming them for negative that, but I think it's kind of a misstatement or miss.

It's it's surprising in that you're aware of it, but it's not surprising that this is new.

No, I I I think the surprise is that the city would allow a planned zoning on landlocked parcels and then develop and then have an R1 development to the south allowed, and then not provide any other ingress egress from these parcels here.

That that's what doesn't make sense to me.

Because I mean, if if the intent was to zone this R2 or RMF, then that should have been done to begin with.

Then we would have known for certain what we were buying when we went there.

But it was but it was known.

I mean it says it was from the get-go, it says there would be triplexes here.

No, no, no, no, no, no.

No.

That's what we're doing.

We'll ask staff to restate the statement of implementing.

Plan development, this could be single family homes.

Yeah.

So that's not you clarify.

That's right.

I'll clarify when we get to the point.

When we get to Commissioner comment, yeah.

Now, how about uh any comment about uh the expectation for when chaparral may be extended?

Is that on a uh we'll have them look into that for when we get to discussion?

During the appropriate any further questions for this speaker?

Seeing none, thank you.

And folks, it makes it real hard to hear what they're saying when you start applauding in the middle of their statements.

Just saying.

Next person.

Next person.

Good evening.

My name is Rob Levinson, 4909 Bally Neal Court.

I'm here not only as a member of the neighborhood, but also as a licensed architect for 30 years.

I've worked with planning departments, hundreds of planning departments in over 35 states.

And we're just now kind of getting into the good part of the of the conversation tonight.

The last two speakers have really hit on uh what everyone's talking about the symptoms.

And let's talk about the problem.

The problem is that you annexed these parcels into the city as PUD in the first place.

They should be they should be R1.

And I'm urging you to solve that problem so that developers and all of yourselves don't waste your time and the whole community's time by repeatedly this won't be the first one of these meetings that you have.

You're gonna have a lot more of these meetings because just the problem is it's zoned wrong.

It's uh it should be not nearly as dense as allowing R4 uh essentially.

It should be all R1.

It's in the middle.

It's uh it's a a donut hole that's surrounded by a donut of R1.

What what kind of sense does that make to have super dense neighborhood that's surrounded by low, low density neighborhood?

Um just I as somebody who has served on a planning board, um, thank you for your time.

Appreciate it.

It's a thankless task.

It's not very well-paid job, I know.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for the speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

Next person, good evening, Chris Beckett, 1130, uh shore acres loop.

So about four uh items here.

Uh first was I agree and I poll the with a lot of the concerns that our neighbors have said here, especially about the speeding on uh on Hawaii Lake.

I had to stop a young lady the other day who was passing people on the curve.

Um, Mr.

Miller could access this property from his uh development on Wellington Place.

He owns that uh development, so that there is his access that he could uh access it from there.

Number three, uh the houses in the Brooks average 350 to 700 to eight to 800,000.

Uh when you have that dollar amount of uh of housing, and you're gonna be putting in um apartments that are 100 to 125,000 triplexes, that's not gonna be bringing in the same amount of clientele.

A lot of those types of uh clientele are going to also need mass transportation, which we do not have out there.

There are no bus routes out there, no access to city trails or any way to get uh into town.

Um other question I have.

What about the roads as they tear them up during the construction?

If you look at Veterans Parkway out south of town, as they're building those apartments out there from Grindstone to the uh Circle Drive, that road has was a very good road.

It is terrible right now.

From the roundabout to South Providence is perfect.

I wonder what kind of power Veterans United has to keep the traffic off of that section.

So my one question is does the city or planning zoning, can we require a cash bond to replace that street, Sage Moore, after they destroy it?

Because the large trucks.

I drove larger trucks for 45 years.

Large trucks destroy residential streets.

You cannot patch and repair a street like that.

When you get that kind of big trucks, it's going to destroy the street.

Someone's going to have to replace it.

The city's not going to want to replace it.

So someone's going to have to put up the money for that.

Or in the past, all developers had to merge with the city and to build O Chaparel before they put their own subdivisions.

I don't understand why that uh is not par for the course.

Let Mr.

Miller and the city build that uh L.

Chaparral.

Let him find the money to come up with that if he wants to do it from that uh standpoint rather than Wellington.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Thank you.

Next person to speak.

Please come forward.

Next.

My name is Terry Haupt.

I live at 1224 Shore Acres Loop in the Brooks.

The intended use of this property is a total falsehood from the way it is being presented to this committee, City Council members, as well as the public.

Nothing could be further from the truth than the way it's being billed.

This is as a single family attached dwelling unit that can be individually owned.

Mr.

Miller has no intention of selling any of his units.

He has no intention of building a road across his property.

He owns the property up to Richland.

He has no intention of building that road.

He has no intention of doing any building any amenities or using open space for any recreation.

His only intention is to build as many units as he can to get as much money as they can.

I say this this whole thing is about greed.

Sir, I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to have you speak into the microphone so we have their transcript.

Thank you so much.

As far as the density, I've been told by staff members they're only using about eight acres to build on.

If you divide 77 units by eight acres, we're up to almost eight or nine uh units per acre.

Not the not the two or three, not the two or three that are being discussed here.

So there's a bunch of falsehoods here.

Mr.

Miller needs to provide for and build his own ingress and egress road at a minimum.

He needs to provide entrance to either to to Ashford Place by connecting it to El Chappa Road, which has been discussed, or building it across his property that he owns over to Ashland.

Michland.

This presentation is so mirrored in legalese that even one of our own city council members.

City council members had the right this about had wrote this about it.

From the description of the development, this is a townhome development with three residents per building.

Each town home can be purchased individually and the land is included.

So this is not an apartment complex.

I'm sure some will be purchased for rental, but in my experience, these are an alternative for homeowners that don't want the yard work or perhaps we're like smaller homes.

Let's look at a few comparables.

Kelly Farms over in Stadium and 63.

Access Road was built by the developer.

They didn't require bicycle, they required bicycles.

This project does not.

They have also had to have 10 single-family homes built between individual single family homes and the apartments that were being built.

This project is asking nothing like that to be built.

There's legacy farms out on Sinclair.

Over there, you've got apartments, you've got Sinclair, you've got apartments, you've got a 55 plus complex, and then you've got homes 500 yards away from the road.

Okay?

Springbunk up Springbrook apartments.

Brand new.

Same thing.

In other words, these projects are nowhere near to what's being presented to you tonight.

Finally, several planning and zoning staff members tried to compare what is being proposed here at Ashford Place with the triplex units at Old Hawthorne.

Please don't insult my intelligence.

Trying to compare triplex ownership in Old Hawthorne with this 77-unit Ashford Place apartment complex.

That's what it's called.

It has to be called an apartment complex.

I strongly urge you to turn down this proposal or require major changes before approving it and passing it on to City Council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Darr.

Yes, Mr.

Darr.

Why what what makes you think it's not comparable to the triplexes or attached townhomes in Old Hawthorne?

I mean you had to make a haven't been built yet.

No, no, no.

Have you been?

These Ashford points hasn't been built yet.

So I mean, okay, okay.

Here.

Have you been to um what's the name of it?

Um have you seen Wellington Manor?

Wellington Manor is an apartment complex with triplexes that Mr.

Miller manages, owns, and manages.

I urge you, sir, to go take a look at Wellington Manor.

And I defy you to come up with any comparison whatsoever to Old Hawthorne triplexes.

Folks, no.

We're going to keep the level low so we can all hear each other.

Commissioner Darr, are you finished?

Mr.

Darr, there's a huge difference.

That's what I'm trying to say.

And there would be a huge difference between what Mr.

Miller is trying is proposing and what is in place now at the Brooks.

Any further questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Next person.

Next person to speak.

Jump on up here.

Come on.

Good evening.

My name is Dale Halley.

I live at 5250 Harbortown Drive.

I'm the retired mining engineer that's been here, and he's been very gracious and put up.

Can you get a little closer to that?

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

I've been pestering Mr.

Kuntz, and he's been very gracious in answering numerous questions for me.

Mr.

Crackett uh this week has answered a lot of questions, and I think both those gentlemen.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Normally I'm really loud.

Okay.

So uh Mr.

Stan, you asked a question about what is an alternative solution to this.

And I've looked at the Catso maps, and El Chaparral should eventually be built from WW up to Richland.

And if that could it could be developed from both ends to the middle with the bridge done last, and then that would connect the whole thing, and at which point Ashland or Ashford could be uh completed.

My concern is that it may never have a bridge across the creek.

And I've looked at the CADSO maps.

There's a a major connector that goes through the middle of Hawthorne on the maps.

There's several million dollars worth of homes where that road is located on those maps, so it will never be built.

That's my concern here is that El Chaparral will never be built.

I hope it will, because I know for a fact that everything to the north of us and to the wet uh west of us is gonna be full of homes, and there's gonna be a lot of traffic.

And putting in El Chaparral first is the best thing for the entire community, the whole the whole area, not just our neighborhood.

And I personally don't have a problem with mixed use.

I I encourage it.

So that's all I had to say.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none, thank you for being here tonight.

Next person to speak on this case.

Looking for somebody to stand up.

Okay, I see you.

Good evening.

My name is Tina Thompson, and I live at 1223 Shore Acres.

Columbia, Missouri, 65201.

I wasn't prepared to speak tonight.

I wasn't going to speak tonight.

I have nothing prepared.

This is my first meeting I've ever come to.

I don't know a lot of my neighbors.

I don't have children.

I live uh I don't have children who still live at home.

But I do care deeply about my neighbors who I don't even know.

I watch their children go up and down Oil Lake on their bicycles.

I watch them walk.

I see families walking with strollers.

And I sit out on my porch and I watch the traffic that's already on Hoy Lake.

It's out of control already.

Um people speed down there at night.

I'm out on my back porch and I can see them go really fast.

I see them go fast during the day.

The reason I came up here to speak tonight with nothing prepared is because the speakers before me really touched me.

And from what I heard, there is a way to build uh another access road.

But apparently it's too expensive.

That really disturbs me.

Does it disturb you?

Because this decision is in your hands.

So I just have one question.

What's the price of one life?

And more importantly, what's the price of one the life of one child?

Because it could happen.

And I really truly believe that it will happen.

There's going to be an accident.

There will be.

And it's going to be a child of one of my neighbors.

So that's my question to you.

What's the price of one life?

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Being none.

Thank you for being here tonight, ma'am.

Anyone else to speak?

Please come forward.

Good evening.

My name is Ashley Hoffman.

I live at 905 Sagemore Drive.

I don't have any prepared remarks either, but I did want to make a comment, um, just a few observations on the conversation earlier.

One, I think um, Mr.

Walters, you had asked about why um the neighborhood didn't really expect, or especially me personally, buying a house on Sagemore last summer.

We didn't um kind of anticipate that this was going in.

Um, and that's not true.

We knew that those parcels were for sale and eventually would be developed.

Columbia is a growing city, it needs housing.

Those are 10 minutes to downtown, so we knew that those would be developed to the north of us.

What we did not expect was to be a connector.

And the reason is that the end of Sagemore and the end of Beth Page, I also believe Margate are cold-de-sacks.

Those are rounded ends of streets.

They don't just go and cut off.

The sidewalks are curved, the curbing goes all the way around.

It's a cul-de-sac.

We thought that those were dead in roads and that the Brooks was not going to expand anymore.

Um the other observation I had, I think uh, Mr.

Darr, you had asked kind of why we think that the Ashford place is not on par with uh link side.

Um in the materials that were shared by Troy Miller's team, the rental price was going to be around 1,300 to 1,800 per month for I think two and three bedrooms.

If you go onto the internet and search for that price range, you can see that those homes have a lot of siding.

Uh kitchens are not solid surface countertops.

It's not the same or comparable to old Hawthorn of what people are buying there.

Um I will also um just echo what Dale said that I think that mixed use is a good thing for Columbia, that we do need more affordable housing.

Um, but that putting this Ashford place, higher density um, lower uh it's more affordable than the Brooks.

Putting that behind the Brooks just doesn't make sense that it needs to be closer to more thoroughfares um and not attached to this neighborhood.

That is all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you very much.

Next person to speak on this case.

I'm looking for someone to stand up.

Go okay, here we go.

You can come.

We've got a couple of chairs up here, sir, if you want to come up and go next.

Hello, Dr.

Brian Killer.

I'm at 913 Brockton Drive.

Um I just wanted to address some things that haven't really been brought up is one being on Brockton that I would also serve sort of.

And you, I'm sorry, you're very talled up.

Being on Brockton, that road would also serve as a thorough throw to Hoy or Ho Lake, I can't say that word.

But it like so part of the we go through not Sagemore, but the other road, and you could take across that to go towards Hoy Lake, which is as we talked about, very busy, so people would use that in essence to like as one way to get on more access.

Um and that road is not really designed for traffic, it's not bigger or anything like that.

And another thing to consider is the impact on WW.

It's already an overcrowded two-lane road.

There's just no sidewalks because it's partly countyland.

You see people walking along it.

There's not like even right now, there's not even places to walk.

There's, you know, you drive by the cross of someone who passed away.

I don't before I even came here.

So I think it's just something to think about is also the impact that there's just not really infrastructure there to support so much.

You know, it needs to be built up before we add too much more, because in phase three, we're not even complete.

That's all I have.

Thank you very much.

Any questions for the speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here.

Next.

I don't think so.

No, I'm sorry.

We you because we had some issues, you have to email them in advance.

Um that would have been in advance of the meeting, ma'am.

We do not look that then they should be prepared for you here this evening.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

My name's John Shin.

I live at 4408 Kingston Heath Drive.

I also own the house at 4412 Kingston Heath Drive.

Can you get as close to that microphone as possible?

I think they're having trouble hearing you in the back.

Thank you.

Okay.

So I'm a landscape architect by training.

Licensed in two states, retired.

Former DOD, traveled all over the world.

I've worked for the City of Austin, and I've been various multiple cities in this country and other countries.

Nowhere does development get proposed that is in fact high density.

They're proposing to put three units on the space of my house on the same lot size.

That's three times the traffic, regardless of what the traffic control studies say.

I've never found one that's accurate.

There is always more traffic than what they predict.

Bar none.

This should never have been approved in the first place.

Even though it was one parcel as you cited.

There is no 10-acre park.

When do we get a 10-acre park?

There's also connectivity tied into the MK trail that was mentioned and is part of the requirements for these parcels, parcel five that has now been broken up.

So what happens to all that?

When do we get that?

Never.

Money is going into the coffers.

He's given the city money saying, oh, it's going to be built later.

That diagonal road across the creek, Dale's right.

It's never going to be built that way.

You can't.

If you've been down there and take a look at it, you'd know you're not going to do that.

But I can tell you for a fact.

Oh, it can be built that way, but you're going to spend a lot more money going at a diagonal.

I'm sorry.

I'm very irate about this.

And I do have letters into you regarding this matter.

But nowhere do you put in what is in fact, I don't care how many times they tell me it's not high density.

It is higher density than a single family lot versus three units on the same amount of space and three times the traffic.

You have four cars per unit.

That's going to be 277 times four times two times in and out, plus all the associated traffic with services and everything else.

This all the previous designs for this conceptually show Hoy Lake Connecting as an alternate.

Hoy Lake was the alternate.

The primary traffic was supposed to go over to El Chaparal.

However, it got bought out.

Then the Sagemores was built.

When they built Sagemore, they should have put the Sage More on the property line behind the fire station with houses on one side of it with it if the intent was to actually make it whatever classification you want to make it.

City planners can recommend an engineering staff can recommend all they want.

The city decides things haphazardly on their own, how they're going to classify a street.

Per Ashford, or excuse me, per Ash Street is an example.

Barbara Buffalo is on record saying, hey, let's just change it, going against what the city engineers are recommending.

Okay.

I'm against this.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, sir.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next person.

And I don't know how they do the magic, but Mr.

Zinner can help you.

And are you speaking as an individual or like PowerPoints?

I made one on all of the stuff I've done to my house, so I'm with you.

I made one convincing my parents we should get a dog when I was 10, and it worked.

Nice.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

So my name is Jen Bryan.

I live at 901 Sagemore Drive.

First P and Z Commission.

Thank you for your time and your service to our community.

So I specifically want to speak about the precedent this development sets.

And I know a lot of people have covered this tonight.

Just in a quest to better understand what was going on, I did reach out to David because I'm a CPA.

I hope to be an engineer in my second life, and in my third life, I probably would not be volunteering in PZ.

So you know, as I look at this, I wanted to see if they're proposing this in our neighborhood, where does this exist?

And I was given these examples, which are Amberton Place, we see density near the main road, Bristol Ridge and Bristol Lake Villas again, density near the main road, Bristol Lake Parkway, and then Old Hawthorne and Linksides, people have covered this one already today.

I want to focus on the proximity to the arterial.

Density is best located near a main roadway.

Development, that being said, is imminent.

I live on a I live in phase three of the Brooks.

It is under development.

I'm on a stubbed-out street.

I understand all of that.

Um if we look at the broader context of our neighborhood, we see the land zoned by Gary Lewis, a mature developer in our city.

And then there's also 240 units proposed at East Richland and Rolling Hills.

So the need for chaparral and these arterials that can carry all of this traffic that will happen as a side of town develops, it's so necessary.

Right now we believe this is unsupported density.

There's concerns with traffic, the two spaces per unit minimum.

Um what happens if people have guests, service people come over, they use their uh garage for storage.

There's persistent speeding issues on Hoy Lake.

Sage Moore is a straightaway with the hill that crest.

Um as mentioned, landscaping is the minimum, climax forests and undeveloped floodplain is that meaningful green space for a resident.

A postage stamp lot by definition squeezes the maximum density in the possible lot.

Um less than 50% of the land's truly developable, and then we look at that 3.2 units per acre, it'll feel more like seven units per acre when we consider the way that the land is graded.

Um consistency builds trust within the Brooks.

We paid to have the Hoy Lake Major Collector become the Catso Major Collector via the cost of our property.

Um we're asking for similar treatment that the developer of this property also be held to similar standards to develop out you know the main arterials and roadways that exist in the area.

Um here's some ideas for path forward again.

Many neighbors came up here and offered solutions.

I'm not opposed to density in the right context.

I'm not opposed to development, but we just ask that it be thoughtful at a minimum.

I would say right now that is building those parking spaces, meaningful buffers, um, and maybe considering something that is a bit more dense but reduced density, like R2 cottage style, um, something that could let people attain home ownership at a lower price point.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Seeing oh, sorry, did you No, you're good.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Next speaker.

Next speaker.

I'm looking for someone to stand up.

Go ahead, Mr.

Colbert.

Thank you, Madam Chair, uh, members of the commission.

Caleb Colbert, attorney at 827 East Broadway.

Here tonight on behalf of the applicant.

And I want the commission to ask themselves one question.

Did any speaker come to the microphone and say that the plan that has been proposed is inconsistent with the statement of intent approved by the city council in 2010?

That is what this commission is evaluating this evening.

Does the development plan that's been proposed comply with the statement of intent approved by the planning and zoning commission and the city council in 2010?

As staff noted, the plan does comply.

The plan, and as Mr.

Crockett noted, the plan actually improves upon the standards that are set forth in that 2010 statement of intent.

I also want to respond to some of the comments that were made uh by some of the speakers.

Um there were some comments or some suggestions that these were not single family homes.

And that's not true.

That is just flat not true.

Each of these units will house one family.

And that family, whether they're a renter.

Hey.

They were very polite to you.

Be polite.

Single family attached is still single family.

As a matter of law, single family attached can only accommodate one family in each unit.

And that unit will be on its own lot.

And that means in the future, that lot can be sold and it can be owner-occupied.

But but in any event, this commission does not evaluate land use decisions based on whether the occupant of the building is a tenant or an owner.

We have never made that distinction.

Single family is single family, whether the person living under that roof is a renter or an owner.

Period.

That is, it is cut and dry.

With respect to the density, we've gone over this.

Which Mr.

Crockett was involved with.

If you look at the plat that's attached to the development agreement, he signed and sealed it.

So if anybody could talk about the density and the intent to connect Sagemore to this development, it's Mr.

Crockett.

And you heard him say that it was always intended to serve this Northern Tract.

You know, Mr.

Crockett and I have to stand before this commission over and over again.

So when we talk about density, we have to back it up.

We have to be truthful in what we say.

Just because someone stands at this microphone and says that this is a high density development does not make it true.

Do the math.

We've done the math.

This is not a high density development, and it comes in under the PUD4 that was approved in 2010.

I hope this commission will consider the testimony tonight.

I mean, really, what's the what the neighbors would like to do is relitigate the decision from 2010.

I think when you consider that Columbia Imagined contemplates, encourages a diversity of housing uses, diversity of housing styles in close proximity, it encourages a clustered subdivision where you have large sections preserved for green space.

This meets that intent of Columbia Magic.

You can look at Columbia Imagined, and this plat is an example of the type of development we should approve.

Thank you.

I have I have a question for you.

Yes, ma'am.

I thought I saw it in here somewhere, and then I realized that I was looking at minimum lot size.

What are we looking at for each of these units?

1,700 square feet, 1500 square feet.

I know someone said it.

I just think that's a good thing.

13 to 1500 square feet.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Thank you.

I uh yeah.

Commissioner Wilson.

Thank you.

Um what is the distance between the subdivision and East Broadway?

And pardon.

And to get to the main road, what's that distance?

I'll let Mr.

Crockett come up here and address that if you don't mind.

Uh lawyers are not good at math.

So if we can wait, I don't want to start a precedent of having people come up more than once if that's okay.

But I'm sure that someone can flip someone a note.

I can get them.

Um else questions for Mr.

Colbert.

Thank you very much.

Um that's out of order, I'm sorry, sir.

Next speaker for the members of the public to come up.

And Ms.

Chairman, to answer uh uh Ms.

Wilson's question, we're looking at roughly uh about 1,375 or so feet.

1300.

Just a little bit over or a little bit a little less than a a little over a quarter of a mile, if I'm not incorrect.

Okay.

Are you coming forward, sir?

Yeah.

Oh, yeah, please don't.

The question was how long is Sagemore?

Oh, that wasn't I thought it was from Broadway to That was my question.

Yeah.

But that's Sagemore, right?

Isn't that Sagemore?

I'm not asking specifically about the show.

But we'll get there when we get to Commissioner Concord.

Apologies, Commissioner.

Go ahead, sir, whenever you're ready.

Jim Walls, 4757, Staten Very Loop, Columbia, 65201.

Uh you see, I'm walking with the cane because I just had a stroke.

And I appreciate MU Healthcare saving my life.

Appreciate that.

And I'm originally from Missouri, but just came here from Texas.

So we played these games before.

I kind of stand here confused as I excuse me, following an attorney after I've heard the words from Mr.

Miller himself, say that these homes that they're building are rentals.

They are rentals, and he is going to have them only for professional and semi professional people.

He's not going to make them available for college students or for Section 8 or anybody else.

He's going to be very restrictive on who these kids are.

And so as they safety and occupational health specialists retired DOD and retired military member of Professor Medicine Navy, is he's confusing me when I say this, because I went over to Wellington Place to see what he currently had.

And it's a sanitarian.

Now, is he going to have an open dumpster over there?

Because I think the standards we're trying to maintain are good standards.

We want the whole neighborhood to be good.

But I'm afraid that this actually in place is going to turn, excuse me, I hate to say this word.

It's going to be target, it's going to be a it's going to turn into a ghetto.

Seriously.

And you're going to have a thank you, sir.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Well, the one last thing I want to mention.

Seriously, I think Columbia as a as a safety person, I think we're going to have a real bad traffic problem on WW at Sagemore and on Al Shepper Rail.

I don't know where you're going to put a roundabout in there, or you're going to put traffic lights in there or not.

But we're going to have traffic fatalities at that place at on the on WW.

Thank you so much for the people.

I appreciate it.

Next person to speak on this case.

Can you restate your name?

I'm sorry.

Shahid Wahid, S-H-A-H-I-D, W-A-H-E-E-D.

Yeah, you're gonna have to pull this real close to you.

You got a soft voice.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um the development is behind my house.

Um we built the house in 2019.

There's a creek and there's a wildlife and all that.

So it's a dense.

No, I appreciate the lawyer talking about it about 2010.

But this is 2025.

So and I know I respect the lawyers.

They were the real historically they were the richest non-royals in the Roman Empire.

So and I have benefited from their services many a time.

But 2010 and 25 are two different things.

They can build a road.

And I think somebody said that the city.

I mean, I know we are real America.

East and West calls us fly your country.

But we should be more smarter than that.

So let's prove it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Being none.

Next person to speak.

Good evening.

My name is Elise Reinhart.

I live at 501 Bandon Dunes Court.

Thank you for letting us take your time this evening.

We all want to go home soon, I hope.

Um I am here as a mother and a neighbor.

I have two beautiful children, and I have instilled in my oldest child since she was two to look both ways before she crosses the street.

Um Hoy Lake Drive is the only thing that Columbia public schools can utilize for bus stops in our neighborhood.

They cannot go anywhere else but Hoy Lake Drive.

So no matter what, my daughter has to cross the street.

And when she crosses the street, God love her, she just kind of does one of those.

I'm in the street, and then I'm looking both ways.

And I'm looking the wrong way because I don't know the direction of traffic.

And so it's too late, you know, for her.

So I have to make sure I work from home.

I'm a disabled veteran.

I work from home.

Um I have to make sure I'm at that bus stop with her morning and and afternoon.

And let me tell you, that traffic doesn't stop right now.

And I understand that we are gonna grow, and I want our community to grow.

Um and I when I say our community, I mean Columbia.

Um I see homelessness all over the city, and that is a concern to me.

So I do want housing to improve for everyone.

I'm a nurse by trade, and I do uh try to help people when I can.

Um I just want to make sure my kids are safe from traffic.

And it's impossible, right?

No parent can keep their kids safe from traffic.

But traffic calming measures could help tremendously throughout our neighborhood.

Um, if we're gonna propose like I'm sorry, I don't know all the terms.

Different dense like different types of developments in the different areas, I would appreciate like traffic calming measures and different access roads before just utilizing everything through our neighborhood as it already Hoy Lake Drive is I wish you guys would just walk with me to the bus stop in the morning and the afternoon.

Like it's just constant traffic.

Um, and they're definitely going more than 45 miles an hour, even though it's a 25.

Um, and we can see that because we have those little traffic cameras and or whatever that measure the speed, and I can take my kids for a walk and and I'll look back and I'll just watch somebody drive right by one and they're going 55 miles an hour.

And I'm like, oh my gosh.

Yeah, anyway, I'm sorry, I don't like speaking in front of people.

So I'm just gonna end with um please consider egresses out of the neighborhood, maybe doing like phase three of the Ashford development with you know, first and having it all go through El Chaparel and just you know, maybe that would be better as opposed anyway.

I don't have any solutions.

I just want to make sure we try to work together as a community.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Ortiz.

I hi.

I okay, so I saw, and I know that David talked about this earlier that you all are on the traffic calming um list right now.

Yeah.

And I'm curious, um, have you lived there since 2022 or before?

No, so I lived in the vineyards for the like the last 10 years, and then um my disability came through the VA and I was able to move into uh a bigger house in the the Brooks, which is a very nice neighborhood.

Um, but we noticed the congestion on WW getting a lot more dense because I used to live on um Andretti Circle, which butts up right up.

Like I was on the end of the cold sack, like I could see WW and I watched the the Brooks go in and I watched the development, and it almost got to the point, you know, when the roundabout was placed down at the end of WW past the vineyards.

I'm I'm sorry, I really I can't remember.

Yeah, on Rolling Hills Road.

Um it's almost impossible for residents to get out of the vineyards because there's no traffic light or anything.

So sometimes when I'd be going to work or something, now now I work from home, but um it would be really hard to turn left or turn right, you know, on even getting out of the vineyard subdivision.

Um so anyway, I was grateful to be moving into a subdivision where there was a traffic light there, you know, at the end of Hoy Lake because it's like making it so much easier to turn right.

But I'm sorry, what was the question?

I yeah.

Okay, so my point is I've lived in this area for a long time, right?

Is that what the question is?

Okay, but I moved into the Brooks in June, and then I now regret my decision, not because I don't like the Brooks or just because I I Hoy Lake Drive scares me to death.

I mean, I watch other people's kids um what like riding their their bikes right down the middle of the street, and I'm like, oh my god.

If I knew that family right away, I would probably tattle on those children because I would worry that that would be my kid.

And I mean, my child's afraid to go outside by herself right now because we have construction going on around our house and there's dumpster divers, and I'm sorry, I don't know the right term for them.

People that like to salvage and recycle, maybe, and that go into the dumpster to get items.

I don't mean any negative or derogatory, I believe in recycling, but it makes her nervous, you know, when she sees a stranger that we don't know because we don't know everybody in our community yet.

And I have to reassure her when she goes to bed at night that she's safe, that mommy is you know across the way, and that I will be there in a heartbeat, you know, to to protect her.

But I do wear a CPAP, so that might be really hard to get off in time to get over there.

But anyway, I'm sorry.

Any more questions?

I'll just I'll just wrap up what I was trying to get at.

Um it looks like you your neighborhood or specifically Hoy Lake petition for traffic calming in 2022.

Okay.

I think that based on so the matrix for traffic calming is available online, and everyone can access it.

It's not the most up-to-date.

Based on what David said, I believe he said it was 34 on the list.

Online, it says it's 29.

So that implies that implies probably that more um projects have been placed ahead of yours based on um there's a number of factors that go into it.

Um but I think that based on the things that you and your neighbors have said, I think it would be worth like petitioning the city to say, hey, let's take another look at um scoring this because the pedestrian score is very low.

Um based on everyone's input, I think the pedestrian score could be higher, which could move you up in the traffic management score sheet.

I say that I care about traffic calming a lot.

So I just wanted to make you I appreciate the advice.

Yeah.

I really do.

I thank you so much, guys, for everything you guys do.

Any other questions from the Commissioner Stanton?

Uh Commissioner Ortiz, what is that website so that these people can look it up and don't have to just listen to you.

They can look it up themselves.

Oh God, I'm so I've like Yes, I am here.

So it's under public works, street division, traffic management slash neighborhood traffic management.

And then you scroll down and you go to neighborhood traffic traffic management score sheet 2023, last updated 2024.

But I look at this a lot.

So it's like kind of like muscle memory for me.

But um you can play this back later if you need to.

But essentially neighborhood traffic management.

Okay.

Under Como.

I appreciate you.

Thank you.

I also just want to throw a question out there.

What about schools for the future, like middle schools and high schools and elementary schools?

I just wanted to throw that out there.

Like if we're going to add all this development, which we probably are.

Um if we could just consider you know, I don't want my second child who's only two right now to be in her elementary school, and then you know, because we're never gonna be able to move now that we've bought into the brooks.

I'm sorry, we're not.

Um so yeah.

Uh but the, you know, how they have to add like special um special house uh not housing, um extra buildings outside of the building, you know, that kids have to go outside the school to get to their classrooms.

Yeah.

That will all come when it comes.

It comes when it comes.

Okay, that's what I was afraid of.

Thank you.

All right.

Okay.

Next person to speak on this case, please come forward.

I'm looking for someone.

There we go.

Jeff Stewart, uh Ballingillo Court, 4912, it's the street with the swimming pool.

Uh she mentioned Hoy Lake and the traffic.

If you're going to allow one ingress into this new neighborhood, Sagemore is going to have the same issue, and it's going to be tripled or quadrupled.

There's going to be people once uh once it's built.

And I have uh I'm really sorry that it's expensive for you to have to build an access on the East Richland Road, but you bought the property and now you're trying to uh come through our neighborhood and increase uh traffic and whatever the traffic surveys say, uh do one in your head.

You know, you're adding all these units, and now all you're gonna have you're gonna have all these people coming down this residential street.

You gotta have one ingress for fire police.

So that's why I have to say I don't know if you all have any any questions about that or thought about that.

Thank you very much.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Darr?

If we're not to trust the traffic studies, we're just supposed to each individually do calculations and come up with capacities or go out there and live out there and drive, or how do you how are we supposed to measure the impact if we can't rely on the traffic studies to tell us what just just look at just look at common sense.

You've got you've got one road.

Folks, if you've got one road going in there with driveways coming in.

You've got this 77 unit thing which is gonna have three times as many people in there in these units.

And they're gonna all have to go out this one road, and all these people are trying to get out of their driveways.

Where are these people?

I mean, I don't care what the traffic study says.

Look at you think about use your head.

Think look use a little common sense.

I I I understand what you're saying.

Um but it's not a unique situation.

I mean, every situation is unique in one way or another.

But there are a lot of roads like Louisville, I mean, there's just a lot of roads that are neighborhood collectors that serve way more houses than Sagemore serves.

Or we even will serve with 77 additional units on it where?

Louisville.

In Louisville?

Louisville Drive in off of Scott Boulevard.

Office Scott.

I this is the first one that came on my Thornbrook probably has a road that has as many.

Yeah, but Thornbook, Thornbrook has one road and it's one neighborhood.

What's the what's the adjoining 77?

So it's not the traffic, it's the type of development, it sounds like you don't like.

No, I I don't have any, I don't, I don't, they can build whatever they want to back there.

It's their property.

They built it.

But if they're not gonna have if they're not gonna have an access road other than coming through a neighborhood and increasing traffic uh by fourfold probably, then they ought to have another entry and exit.

And I'm sorry it cost a lot of money, but you should have thought about that before you bought.

Well, obviously you did, because you thought you could convince these people.

All right.

I think we're done.

Thank you very much.

All right, folks.

Here's the thing.

I we've been at this for two hours, and there's still a lot of you who want to speak.

If you keep making outbursts while other people are speaking, we're gonna have to cut it off.

And I don't want to do that because I want to hear from all of you.

But I can't hear the person who's speaking if y'all are yelling stuff from the back.

Okay.

I'm trying to hear from everybody tonight.

Okay.

Who wants to speak next?

Please come forward.

Nathan Bivens, uh 4900 Glide Cove, Columbia, Missouri.

Uh my wife and I moved into um the Brooks in 2020.

But I think I have unique experience in this area because before that we lived for 21 years in El Chaparral.

So I am very familiar with how much traffic has grown on WW.

And I've sat in meetings with that neighborhood association and city planners in the past.

And we've raised similar concerns about traffic being able to pull out onto WW from El Chaparral, and those are minimum requirements for line of sight on that road.

And it's very hard to be able to get into traffic even just you know five years ago.

But I've noticed in the last year, as we have more homes there, the driving and the congestion is getting, you know, much higher, and the driving itself is getting more aggressive because of the amount of traffic traveling on that road.

And I just don't feel that Sagemore should be the only in and out for this development because right across the street is Rosetta Drive.

And so you're gonna have two roads coming out at the same point onto a very busy two-lane highway.

And just this morning, I saw somebody coming out of a Rosetta Drive who failed to stop at the stop sign because if they did, they were not going to be able to get into traffic and they did not want to wait.

And I see this more and more people being more aggressive.

And so for that reason, um, I just don't think it makes a good argument or a safe argument to consider that being the only in and out to this development.

I think there has to be something else planned and put into place before all these units can go in.

Thank you for listening to my comments.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Next person to speak, please come forward.

I'm Pat Weber.

I live at 801 Sagemore, just moving in.

Can you pull up a little closer?

Yes, 801 Sagemore.

New resident watching all this come down.

And uh I we all knew that there would be development, those roads were gonna go somewhere.

We knew that.

Um you ask for suggestions.

I would suggest an updated traffic study, because it's a lot different from 2017.

This is 2025.

And all the traffic concerns do not correspond with the traffic that existed more than 10 years ago.

Um the other thing that, you know, this whole high density business, you know, this is not high density, all that.

Well, are they figuring it on the whole tract?

But they aren't gonna be building on that floodplain.

So they're using the floodplain acreage to say this is not high density.

They're they're cramming it.

If you look, they're putting all the development just on that one area of this track that they're developing.

But they can't build on the floodplain, but yet they're using the floodplain.

Is this correct?

Am I am I right in this?

That they're using the whole floodplain acreage.

To justify the density?

Okay.

I mean, so they're building on X number of acres, but they're basing the density on X plus Y.

So once again, an updated traffic study, all this Hoy Lake business.

And so we see what's going on at Hoy Lake, and we know that all those people who live in the new development, they're just going to get from here to there.

So Sage Moor is a straight shot.

Doesn't even have the curves of Hoy Lake.

It's just a straight shot.

So if at the very minimum, I would like a stop sign at Sage.

And uh what the heck is that street?

We need to slow folks down.

Because all they want to do is get from here to there.

They aren't residential in our stretch of the road.

They just want to go.

And there's nothing to stop them, nothing to slow them down.

And those are my concerns.

So really appreciate your time and your efforts, because I know this is pretty tricky, but it's very important to us homeowners that we continue to have a safe livable neighborhood.

I I wish I wish Mr.

Miller well.

But once again, if you're going to have a development, you need to build your own road into it.

Don't just lean.

I mean, is it is it normal to have that kind of an apartment complex?

Cut through and use a residential neighborhood, single family norm to get there.

I mean it's the only way in and out.

So I worry about that.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, ma'am.

Any questions for the speaker?

Thank you.

Seeing none, thank you.

Next person to speak.

Please come forward.

Looking for someone to stand up.

There you are.

Uh my name is Carl Fudge.

I live at 1107 Shore Acres Loop, uh, Columbia, Missouri, 65201.

Uh to me, this is m nothing more than an infrastructure issue to where the infrastructure is not in place to support this.

When you come down WW and you turn on Sagemore, there's basically a spot for one car to line up to turn, or traffic's gonna be backed up all the way to El Chaparel, which is already a problem, and that's not more than maybe 50 yards.

So when you come in this this thing to turn left on Sagemore, we're gonna have problem traffic problems there.

You're gonna have issues with people trying to back out of their driveways, and like she said, they're gonna get down that street and they're gonna be going 35, 40 miles an hour to reach this, and then with the the density, just like she pointed out, you can manipulate numbers.

If you're gonna build on five acres, but you've got another 15 acres of unusable land, you can claim my density is not as high because I'm not using that land.

Well, you still got the density is still there, you just conveniently use land that's really not being used to create a density number that's not what it really is, which means that the infrastructure really isn't the place.

Then when you talk about 77 units, well, those other two tracks, what's gonna go in there?

The same type of properties that are in the 77 units, because that's what's there, and people are not developers and go, no one's gonna want to buy a home near these apartments, so they'll develop more apartments there, which maybe we need them, but that's fine, we can have them.

However, the developers that do these things need this come to the bat and put in the infrastructure in place to support the developments that they want to create and not piggyback on somebody else's infrastructure to cause harm and undo safety issues to another community just because they didn't want to invest in the infrastructure for their community.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Next person to speak on this case.

Looking for someone to stand up or move, moving works.

Hi, Christy T.

Hart, 4821 State and Ferry Loop.

I just want to go on record the same as what they just said.

The Sagemore is going to be a problem.

And when that's all backed up, where people can't get out of the neighborhood, they're gonna start perusing through the whole entire neighborhood to try to get to Hoy Lake where the stop sign is, or or this top light.

So there's only one stop light.

And Sagemore only has a stop sign.

So that's gonna be another issue.

And so I just wanted to bring that up.

Thank you very much.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Next person, sir, I saw you in the back.

Thanks for everybody being here.

Appreciate it.

I think when the development was bought, there was likely floodplain in 2010, maybe it was purchased.

So they knew that would be utilized somehow, not for development.

And I think if it's equal to or less or comparable to single family homes, why not put single family homes?

If it's the same density, why not do that?

Seems like it uh would be better fitting.

When they knew that, they knew there was the creek, they knew there was a floodplain.

Let's expand the subdivision, single family homes.

Thank you.

Any questions for the speaker?

None?

Thank you for being here tonight.

Next person to speak.

Anyone else?

Last call.

My name is Greg Grimes.

I live at 4816 Kenora Drive.

So during the informational meeting a couple weeks ago with Mr.

Miller, uh the he did state that he was going to be the sole leasing agent for all of these units.

After the meeting, I asked him, what is to keep you from selling your interest at some point in time in the future?

He had no answer for me.

He might have all the good intentions of the world right now, but as we all know, home ownership and the pride of home ownership is very different than people that rent.

There is a need for affordable housing in this community.

I happen to know of one low-cost project, which is going to be going in, I think about a block and a half away from Hickman High School.

That will be owner-occupied.

These are the types of home entry ownership that we need in this community.

There's lots of rentals already available.

Everybody here agrees that everyone should have the opportunity to own their own home.

But what are going to be the controls on these rental properties?

They may say there's only going to be one family per unit.

How are you going to control that?

The best intentions often don't work.

In fact, there's an old saying the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

So while we acknowledge that there is a need for affordable housing in this community, pride of ownership should take precedence.

Given the opportunity, I would like the planning and zoning commission to go back to the drawing board with Mr.

Miller and say, hey, is there any other possibility of developing the same property with actual home ownership?

There's been a lot of concerns about which are legitimate.

I'm that one of those old guys that yells at people, slow down every day.

It's only going to get worse.

Think about this.

Someone earlier asked, what is the price of a human life of a child?

Before we jump to the end of this road, which is all good intended, let's think about this very long and hard.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yeah.

So if the okay, my question is if these units were owner-occupied, the traffic would not be as bad?

No.

The traffic is going to be there one way or another if you're using the same amount of density.

The numbers based on the land usage right now, which has been established, that a larger plot is being taken in consideration to justify the amount of density.

Okay?

Why's dam license statistics?

All right.

We're fudging the numbers.

However, the folks that own homes tend to take better care of them.

They tend to have pride in ownership.

We all understand there's a need there.

God bless those people that can't afford a $400,000 home like mine.

But let's think about this.

Really and truly think about this.

Is this what we want to do to set up a potential safety hazard within a neighborhood?

Because I do not believe, and I could be wrong, but I do not believe that there are any other divisions where they are putting this type of housing unit development inside of an existing subdivision.

Sagemore is a narrow street.

Hoyle Lake, it's bad enough.

And it's a fairly wide street.

Sagemore is a narrow street.

You're going to be having trucks driving up and down it for years.

You're going to have additional people that really don't care because they are transient coming in and out.

They're not going to be there.

They have no pride of ownership.

They're going to be moving in and moving out.

They don't care as much.

Okay.

It's a safety issue.

It's a development issue.

And I think that we you it's incumbent upon you as Planning and Zoning Commission to think about these things.

What's best for all the citizens of the community?

Does that answer your question?

Yes.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Any further questions for the speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here today.

Thank you for your time.

Anyone else to speak?

Anyone else?

Last call.

All right.

We're going to close public comment and go to Commissioner comment.

Where shall we start?

Commissioner Stanton.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I got a couple questions for staff.

Number one.

The neighborhoods that most of our testimonies came from, they were part of a PUD plan, correct?

The Brooks is R1, with the exception of the portion on Tract 5, so the northernmost portion of the Brooks would be the same zoning entitlements as this property.

Everything south of that, which led to the extension of Ploy Lake is R1.

So Sagmore is R1.

Oh, that was R1.

That's correct.

Okay.

Choice of the developer to not seek greater intensity of development as a part of the annexation of the property.

They saw that they wanted to do single family.

At that point, we were making a transition with the UDC to avoid planned district projects, and hence R1 was the more compatible land use given what was surrounding it at that time, and that is why this is not zoned to a more intense zoning classification or sought to be developed as a planned district.

Okay.

I say that to say this.

Okay.

So as I was listening to this testimony, and I don't know, I've got some kind of old map or something.

But I'm just listening to all this, and I'm looking at this map I got is old.

Like the Sagmore development isn't even on my maps.

So I'm like, okay, that was farmland.

I see some crops.

I see Apex Forest.

So I'm like somebody probably thought the same way you guys did when they built your guy stuff.

Because what I'm looking at is farmland.

All that was pharma, what I'm seeing.

All of it.

The developments where you guys are at the all this is farming.

So I say that to say this.

Development is happening.

I have the same kind of angst about the developer.

I don't know all my gotta, you know, I don't like the trust human condition too much, so I'm kind of worried about that.

But the mixed use thing is also in the univ is also in the club me imagined.

I lived in a mixed use environment.

I'm an army brat.

My dad was a field officer.

So we may have lived in a single family home right by a whole bunch of duplexes, four plexus, threeplexes.

And that made me the heck of a man I am right now because I was raised around different income levels and different textures of neighborhoods and housing.

Just because something is dense doesn't make it cheap, because I am very big on affordable housing.

Very, very big on it.

And I didn't hear that word come out.

And I think people that know me well did not say that, because they knew I was going to be on their behind if they did.

So I don't think that these places are going to be much, they're not going to be affordable housing.

If you are thinking that you are going to get some kind of section, you know, I hate to use Section A type homes, all that, that's not what's going to go out there.

I doubt it.

Yes.

I'll be track my time.

I'll develop, I'll develop my thoughts more.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

The way that they did this is in combined lots, but they would be sold potentially as condos because they are single-family attached.

They're not they're not.

They're not designed as multifamily, they are single-family attached homes.

This will be platted as individual lots.

Right.

As A, B, C D lots.

The D lot is the common lot.

That's what I was missing on the platform.

The A, B, and C will have interest in the common lot.

So as an individual is sold in A and B or D uh C lot, they would then have that interest.

It would be similar to a condominium, but it is not a condominium.

That's what I was missing on the plat map, is like a row.

How that worked with the connection.

And then the land that lies outside of the D lot is the common land that would be the responsibility of the developer or a future established neighborhood association that would have to manage that at that point should the property be decided to be conveyed to individual owners.

And then Sagemore is a private street or the public street.

Sagemore is a public street, publicly dedicated street, as is are all the streets within the Brooks.

They have been accepted for city maintenance.

So as a course of approval of construction plans, the concerns that have been expressed about who is responsible for improving or repairing Sagemore, that will be addressed as a part of issuance of permitting.

It may very well be addressed as a part of the development agreement that will be being that will accompany this project such that there is a set aside, so the city is not holding the bag individually to repair damages that are done.

Right, but it's not the HOA isn't paying for snow removal.

No.

It is a public street.

Unless they have chosen to pay for that on their own.

The cul-de-sacks at the end, if I can get to that while we are on the streets topic, those are offset cul-de-sacs.

Yes, the sidewalk does go around them.

That is an option in lieu of putting a temporary turnaround on property that was not owned by the developer.

So they chose to put in the what would be referred to as an eyebrow that is not separated from the main line of the roadway.

So that is not a non-traditional type of way of approaching the termination of a street intended to be continued.

We have seen many development where they have actually continued and blown through the end of a traditional cul-de-sac, which is even more frustrating to the adjoining property owners because that is a clear indication generally for folks that it was an intended terminal street.

This was not intended to be a terminal street.

Furthermore, pursuant to our development requirements, the applicant of the developer of the Brooks was required, did not have a choice, was required to provide the stubs that are shown on the plat and shown within the public records.

That was not an option.

Our staff was insistent that those provisions be provided.

That was the only way the subdivision would have been approved.

I am one of the only members of our staff that was here when this project was approved.

I am the only member of our staff that was here when Tract 5 was annexed into the City of Columbia.

I actually was the staff planner that managed that.

So comments that were made this evening are somewhat disappointing to hear.

Staff was extremely conscientious in what was required based on the then circumstances that surrounded this development.

We took great pains in ensuring that we had a master development plan with a very detailed for that time development agreement to that.

Hoy Lake Hoy Lake was not originally intended to be developed in the direction that it was developed.

And the development agreement applying to Tract 5 and the Richland Road annexation actually had Hoy Lake continuing through Tract 5 to connect with an extension of Hoy Lake or L Chaparral.

And it also included particular provisions that specifically precluded development of the back side of Tract 5 until such connection to L Chaparel existed, with the approval of the Brooks, phase two, the completion of the traffic study, the development agreement that went with that, the road was formally realigned by CATSO Coordinating Committee to ensure that the integrity of the road network plan was maintained.

So this was not done haphazardly.

There was a significant amount of effort taken to ensure that the road infrastructure was going to be taken into account, and based on the traffic studies that were performed at that time and the regulations that we have in place, there was a requirement.

It was the numbers that were provided, the assessments that were made, and the requirements of the code indicated that the development of the upper tract that we are talking about this evening that excludes the existing first phase was sufficient.

And so as we make our decisions, we make those decisions based upon the information at hand and that we know.

Now, the connection between Hoy Lake or between WW to Richland Road, the installation of a roundabout which was not originally contemplated, that was originally going to be a traffic signal at WW and Rolling Hills, that was replaced to a roundabout, and therefore folks that are reverse to those find a way to be able to avoid that.

And that unfortunately goes through Hoy Lake.

And with most traffic studies that are performed by the cities, there is background historical traffic incorporated into them.

Mr.

Zenner.

So that addresses, I believe, many of the questions as to the lack of our consideration of other factors.

But we do have a we have a variety of different things that we have done in order to ensure that the development of the overall area was accounted for before this project was brought in.

Mr.

Zenner, no one on this commission is doubting your staff's diligence.

No, I that the public, however, the public is unaware of the efforts that have been done because most of them have not been here since 2010.

And I think it is important that the public understands that we as professionals take our duties very seriously, and we do our analysis very thoroughly.

So that is that is the purpose for the explanation.

And that is what I am trying to answer here for these folks.

We have not just willy-nilly made haphazard decisions, and that's a term that was used this evening.

But to my question, Sage Moore is public.

It's a public.

That's correct.

Okay.

Those were the questions I had.

While we have staff's attention, any other questions for staff, Commissioner Walters and then.

Just a quick clarification.

So Sage Moore, is it currently a 32-foot-wide street?

Correct.

Yeah, 32 feet of paving.

34 feet of paving, excuse me.

So it is classified as a neighborhood collector.

It was constructed to neighborhood collector standards, but is not classified as such on the Catso Major Roadway Plan.

And the extension would be 34 feet as well.

That's correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yep.

Commissioner Wilson?

I need several pieces of clarification.

The first one being what is the practical result of a negative vote?

I I can't answer that question for you, Ms.

Wilson.

This project is otherwise compliant with the underlying zoning.

The development of this property was restricted because it did not have access.

And the access that was to be provided was lawfully authorized to be constructed in a different location, and the connecting streets that provide access to this parcel were built by somebody else.

Scott Boulevard was built by somebody else in order to gain access to the property that is now commercially developed at the corner of Smith Boulevard or Smith Drive and Scott.

There were millions of dollars poured into that that allowed that property to be developed with no developer contributions to the improvements to Scott.

This developer could not get access to this property at this point because he would have had to have gone through two others.

He does not have the right, or he has the right, he can go ask, but he's not under any obligation to build the extension of El Chaparral.

He is not by the code required to build a major drainage structure over the creek to get to his property on the north side of the creek so he could get to Richland Road.

And he is not required as a result of this development to build a road on his own property.

I mean, the regulations are very clear.

I have Chapter 22 of our municipal code open, which clearly indicates that a developer is not required to construct a major drainage structure.

A major drainage structure is what would be required to be built over the creek in order to support a bridge.

What the developer is showing on his plan and what he is entering into a development agreement for is to assure that we have dedication of public road right-of-way and we have funds by which to build the roadway when that roadway is planned on or incorporated into a capital improvement project that we do.

We do our capital projects through a bond referendum every 10 years.

The 10-year bond referendum that we have presently in was approved, if I'm not incorrect, in 2023 or 24.

So this particular roadway will not be included in that.

It would be potentially included in another.

And as the comments have been made this evening, with with full understanding and full agreement of those that have spoken tonight.

The development impacts of this particular area are going to necessitate that the city take action in order to facilitate development of El Chaparral back out to WW and back out to Richland.

Ultimately, that is going to be coordinated through development of the adjoining properties, which, as properties are brought in, as land becomes scarcer and development needs are made, that is how we build our roadway network.

We do not, like most people would like us to do, build roads in advance of development.

We unfortunately are reactive to that.

We oversize or we will work with a developer to build roadways or at least prepare roadways for construction beyond what their development requires, and that is partially what is proposed for the extension of El Chaparral.

The developer will build his local residential portion, and then we will come back in and we will complete the rest of that roadway with a capital project.

And the whole idea is the developer's demands are initially addressed by his contributions, but he is also paying up front by dedicating all of the road right-of-way, which we will have and secure.

Location of the bridge crossing to get to the north side of the creek to get to Richland has not yet been determined, so there is some flexibility in that.

And that's just the nature of how we have to do road planning.

Our catch our Catsow Major Roadway plan has conceptual alignments, and they do move occasionally, but normally when those major roadways are required to be moved as a result of development, it does go through a very formal process.

It's just not something that we decide in the office and say, well, today's the day we're going to move a major road.

We have to look at the impacts of that.

Gannes Road on the south end of town, uh, not GANs, Phillips Farm Road on the south end of town is a very prime example of that.

We went through multiple public hearings as it relates to how to run that road from Ponderosa Street all the way to the west to uh to Rock Quarry Road.

And so we've gone through a number of iterations, and I would imagine that we may go through a number of iterations with the other roadways that traverse the surrounding area in order to ensure, again, that we are going to be able to have capacity to handle the traffic moving from WW to Richland.

Um timing is everything.

Development pressure results in that, not that this project will not create additional traffic in the short term.

It will.

However, we also realize that we do have plans and we have available developable land that is going to at one point be developed and have to build the infrastructure that is not presently there.

And that is that's how all development occurs within our communities.

Scott Boulevard existed for 15 years without being improved to where it is today, and we have an entire community built on the west side of town without a major roadway.

We we had to deal with that.

We had Water School Road existing the same way.

And we have corrected that now as well, and we are in the final stages of correcting that as you're west of Sinclair to Scott.

So I mean it does take time.

And I think the street that the one lady was speaking of as it relates to Sagemore, given that it is not curved or doesn't have great deflection as we refer to it, is uh the street that is at Royal Country is where the stop sign there is a stub street that goes to the western property line again, a requirement, and that would be probably a location that would be advised in a recommendation if that is your choosing uh the public works consider traffic control measures there uh temporarily until maybe something else is addressed.

But Royal Country is the name of that cross street that is about midpoint in Sagemore.

That would be the appropriate location.

I'll go to Commissioner Gray unless you have got more.

Go more.

Oh, please go more.

Um the prior traffic study is 2017, so almost 10 years ago.

What would trigger another traffic study?

Um so any development that is proposed at point blank period within tract five, we can there is a stipulation in the development agreement that states that we can request a traffic study be performed again.

Um it could be done.

Um the traffic engineer with the city did not determine it was necessary for this project.

Um however, it is any development that is proposed in tract five ultimately has a discretionary clause to allow the city to request a traffic impact study be performed.

And is that something that we can add it's already in the so it's already the discretion of a traffic study requiring a traffic study is already embedded in the development code, the UDC.

It is also part of the 2010 statement of intent and development agreement that goes with the Track 5 property, so there's not really a need for that.

Folks.

What I would offer, what I would offer as an explanation as to what may trigger a traffic study, uh, is if Mr.

Lewis develops one uh develops the middle track.

So Mr.

Lewis has the two tracks to the east, as Mr.

Mayor pointed out.

Um if he decides to develop the middle track that he has and would want to use the extension uh that is being in phase two of this project of Ashford Place to drive his traffic out through Beth Page, which is the street that it would connect to after he comes into the property for Ashford Place, that potentially would be a precipitating factor, depending on what the density is.

Ultimately, however, the connection back to unfortunately, Hoy Lake, which is a to where the connection is to the east, is what is going to be necessary in order for Mr.

Lewis to actually be able to develop his property to any uh density, uh any level of improvement, because it is going to need two points of ingress and egress.

And so we do have there are limitations that are going to probably create traffic impacts on the existing roadway network if other mitigating factors aren't taken into account.

So crossing over uh from west to east to get back to Hoy Lake in order to distribute traffic, at least out of the existing roadway network that is there, again, is part of a process of future development.

And with each development, the traffic engineer is involved.

We evaluate the impacts that that development will be bringing in relationship to the background traffic that is already within the development.

Given we are 10 years out, I would probably tell you that the numbers are probably stale, uh, as many people have said this evening.

And I think the next development that is coming in, I would probably, if I were a betting man, tell you that we are going to require an update because the volumes of traffic that are now crossing Hoy Lake to get to WW have increased greatly.

And that is from multiple different folded sources.

Rolling Hills now runs all the way down to 63, runs from 63 all the way to Richland Road Grace Lane.

That did not exist.

And so as those traffic volumes have increased, that background traffic potentially and how it is distributed off of rolling hills between Richland to WW probably has not been adequately analyzed.

So to what the public has said this evening, that is something that, yes, probably would warrant something to be looked at.

But again, the traffic volumes generated out of the 77 lots that are being created was not viewed as an issue specific given the development capacity of what Sagemore has to it.

And Sagemore would be the direct ingress and egress out of this project, not necessarily Hoy Lake.

And Hoy Lake is being addressed at least within the traffic management program, maybe not as expediently as the public would like, but it is being addressed.

And that priority, as Ms.

Ortiz brought up, may be able to be elevated given the impacts currently that are being felt.

And I think that that is probably again an avenue that the public has to explore with our public work staff.

Thank you.

Anything else, Commissioner Wilson?

Commissioner Gray?

Thank you.

I am sorry, sir.

She can speak for herself.

Thank you.

Commissioner Gray.

I have a clarification.

I have a clarification question for counsel about the criteria or considerations for this decision.

I know this is not a zoning decision.

I just want to make sure that I have the list correct of what I am taking in consideration for this PD plan and preliminary plat.

Well, as as staff noted is compliant, the criteria before this Commission is whether it is it comports with the comprehensive plan.

There is adequate infrastructure.

Support the development.

And that's that's that's it.

That's it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ortiz.

That was my exact question.

Where can I find that so I can just pull it up?

That is uh Chapter 29, UDC Article 6, Section 4, Subsection and 1.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner Walters, go ahead.

I have a quick question about the time delay for getting a traffic calming versus a four-way stop.

Is that super complicated too if they I don't know it's a as a substitute or temporary substitute to have a four-way stop somewhere along Hoy Lake or more, one or two?

Yes.

I would imagine that is.

What I will tell you is four-way stops after the adoption of the UDC are discouraged just because of the because of other issues that are discouraged.

And we do not normally in new subdivisions, you generally do not see four-way intersections.

I am not sure that we would have full stop control uh at the intersection, but on uh given the circumstances, I think again, that is an issue that needs to be brought up with public works.

We really do not have a we do not have control over that.

You couldn't, you know.

As it relates to comporting with the traffic management requirements, if the Commission correct me if I'm wrong, Mr.

Craig, if the Commission wanted to make that as a considerable recommendation of the of the approval of this project, I don't think you can make it a condition that the applicant install side uh stop signs on an existing accepted public street.

Um that has to be approved by public works, and that is the problem.

This is not something that public works in the City of Columbia own and maintain all of the streets within the Brooks.

The process by which you get traffic controls or traffic calming is through our public works department.

It is not through this body.

If it was something that was interior to the development that was being proposed, possibly, as a condition that you were going to do that subject to the approval of public works.

But public works controls our public rights of way.

And that's part of where the public needs to go and express their concerns, which I think this record will clearly encapsulate them.

Uh and we can share that with our public works traffic engineer uh and our director to find out how they would like to approach this.

But we have to, they're they're having to balance a lot of other factors, as you all probably are well aware.

But is there a way or that the their HOA could contact the public works and say we would like to discuss this with you further?

I'm they're more than welcome to contact Jake Ray, who is our city's traffic engineer.

Jake Jake Ray, and uh he can be contacted in the public works department, um, and Jake will take the phone call, Jake is one that does, if I'm not incorrect, the evaluations as well for neighborhood traffic calming.

He oversees that program.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Stanton.

I am just on that a hint.

It seems like the Commission is up here trying to give you weapons to use.

I hope somebody is taking notes.

Ms.

Ortiz gave you a website, Mr.

Mr.

Mr.

Walters has given you the engineer.

Play chess.

We have given you the weapons to use to get traffic traffic calming down, uh, to present those things to public works.

Play chess.

Any other Commissioner comments?

Are we getting close to making some kind of motion, maybe?

I would make a motion.

Commissioner Walters, go ahead.

I think to inform the public all motions are made as a in favor of, regardless of what you want.

It's just the way we do things.

So regarding case number 231-2025, the ask replace PD plan, SL statement of intention revision and preliminary plat.

I move to the approval of the request for the plan development plan, revival revised statement of intent and preliminary plat to be known as ash per place, subject to technical corrections and subject to an agreed upon development agreement prior to introduction to the city council.

Second motion for approval made by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Okay.

Seeing none.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commissioner Galloway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

I vote yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Commissioner Wilson.

No.

Seven to one.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Before we go on to the next case, I want to put on the record so that it is in the transcript that we as a commission recognize that there is a problem on Hoy Lake.

We have taken our time on this case to talk a lot about that problem and about the solutions that the community has tried to get for that problem.

And I would hope that City Council and the public works department will expedite that as well as potentially a stop sign at Royal Country and Sage Moore as we move forward.

Just wanted to get that on the transcript outside of the case.

Moving on to our next case.

Case number 274 2025, a request by Amber and Mark Weigel owners to allow 11 South Heather Lane to be used as a short-term rental for a maximum of eight transient guests and up to 210 nights annually, pursuant to Section 29-3.3 B V and Section 29.64M2 of the Unified Development Code.

Folks, if you could be quiet as you exit, we've got three more cases to do tonight.

Thank you.

The three-bedroom two-bath home has an attached two-car garage and sufficient driveway capacity to support two UDC compliant parking spaces.

The driveway and garage spaces are to be used when the dwelling is in use as an STR.

The two point or sorry, point two one acre subject site is located on the west side of South Heather Lane, approximately 300 feet south of the intersection of West Broadway and South Heather Lane.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may.

As you mentioned, this is for 11 South Heather Lane to be used as a short-term rental for 210 nights and up to eight transient guests.

And there are 33 of those.

And an ad was written in Tribune on the 19th.

Here is an aerial of the site in question in red.

It's surrounded by single family structures, similar similarly zoned R1.

And just of notice there is uh Broadway located to the north.

It would be to the right of your screen just the way the picture is oriented.

The property zoned R1.

It is not the primary residence.

It is a three-bedroom, two-bathroom home with the eight requested transient guests.

There needs to be four parking spaces on site.

That was uh will be covered in the two spaces in the driveway and two in the garage.

In 2024, the home was used for 129 nights.

At least eight of the 23 parcels within 185 feet of the subject site are owner occupied, and there are no approved short-term rentals within 300 feet of the property.

The designated agent lives across the street, one minute away.

There is an active illegal short-term rental case, which will be closed after completing the short-term rental licensing process.

And we received one phone call uh asking about how uh violations are tracked.

Uh the in conclusion, the condition use permit analysis supports approval.

The short-term rental regulations provide an oversight means to address impacts and approval would support broad policy strategies and actions of the conference of plan.

Our recommendation is to approve the requested short term rental subject to a maximum of eight transient guests, a maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage, and the two garage spaces be made available while the dwelling is in STR use.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my fellow commissioners have had contact with the party to this case outside of a public hearing, please disclose so now.

Seeing none.

Any questions for staff?

Commissioner Ortiz.

So someone reported this as illegal.

Uh the way it works is the housing and neighborhood services identified, was sent just a list of all the short potential short-term rental properties, and if they're identified as being one, if they were non-compliant, they're just kind of marked by our housing neighborhood services as uh operating as a short illegal short-term rental until they gain compliance.

They were also provided they all of our operators that are not registered long-term or short-term rentals have been provided to notices at this point of violation.

First notice was sent June 5th, the second notice was sent at the beginning of August.

Uh and so we are now preparing for the next phase of enforcement, and that will be to start to collect um uh case information in order to have legal action uh pursued with the uh municipal judge.

Uh they took two stages.

One was all of the short-term rentals that were not already a long-term rental, registered long-term rental.

They broke it into two.

Um so they focused on those that were not long-term rentals.

Um, and those were obviously operating illegally.

Long-term rentals, on the other hand, required a little bit more uh delicate uh uh action because they may have been operating as a greater than 30 day long-term uh situation.

So that is how the that is how our neighborhood services staff has triaged uh all of our uh identified short-term rentals that we have provided them.

And then when our vendor is finally acquired, a monitoring of our short-term rental pool within the City of Columbia will be done through that vendor contract.

Um, and that will be done on a monthly basis by sweeping roughly a hundred to a hundred and ten different sites.

Thank you.

So no one called and complained.

This was just found in a sweep.

That is correct.

Okay.

Important distinction there in my mind, Commissioner Wilson.

But there was a call to ask how violations could be reported.

That is correct.

Which is good.

Because that means the system's working.

Okay, excellent.

Any other questions for staff?

Seeing none, we will go to public comment.

Any members of the public who wish to speak on this case, please come forward.

Hello, I am Amber Weigel, and this is my we own this home, my husband and I.

Um our son went to Mizou in 2022.

We live in San Diego.

I came out for uh, I think it was like a summer orientation weekend.

I stayed in a hotel and realized there wasn't a lot of options for parents coming from distance with their college kids.

We were referred to a local realtor, we purchased this home as a place to come visit with our son, have a place where he could come, we could cook with him, he could stay with us.

Better than a hotel room, we called the city at that time, we asked if there was anything required.

We were told no, absolutely not.

The only thing that was required at that time was if we were going to do a long-term lease, like a 12-month lease, uh, there was, I believe a certificate of occupancy was required, and they assured us over and over that for what we were doing, there was no uh regulations in place.

We would have certainly complied with those.

We were not aware that anything was going to be put in place until we received the letter in June that said we were out of complaints and we were surprised by it.

We called, we uh my husband called spoke with Patrick, and um we've been going through the process since, and we've provided everything that's been requested.

I manage the home personally, I take a ton of pride in it, I stay in it myself a few times a year.

We have, as mentioned, our neighbors across the street who helped me with any random odds and ends.

Smartlock doesn't work, someone's having an issue, he runs over.

Um the neighbors have been very in favor of it.

Uh we had one issue when we listed on Verbo and we immediately pulled it after that issue.

We had some um kids throw a party, which obviously is against the house rules, but Verbo doesn't allow as many um uh it doesn't allow you to put as many screening check marks in place as Airbnb does with regards to must verify identity, must be of a certain age, etc.

So we pulled it from there.

We've been with only Airbnb ever since.

Um I will say it's rented every football weekend, many weekends from April through the end of the year, and then um first three months are kind of busy, it's not really booked in um first quarter of the year.

But we've really had no issues.

We've improved the house, we've improved.

I think the neighborhood, we've um probably invested 25,000 into improving, like I said, we've put in a fence, we've painted, we've done flooring.

Um, and we've gotten nothing but positive remarks on Airbnb.

We're a super host on there when you search uh Como rentals, we're the first one that comes up as guest favorite.

Um so yeah, we we're happy to comply with whatever the fees or rules are.

Um but we just weren't aware, obviously.

Thank you.

Any questions, Commissioner Stanton?

Did I see that the person the contact person is across the street?

Yes.

And you have been operating this since 22.

Correct.

This has been the hottest topic in Columbia, Missouri for four years.

It's not like the hottest hottest thing.

Like we have been battling the short-term rental for like four years.

So I hear like you didn't know anything about it, it's kind of like so.

You live in California or something.

But I'm saying, well, so so I say that to say this.

I need to know that the person is watching your property is in the no, like for that person not to know that this is the hot like this is on the news like every week, like for four years.

Yeah, I mean, certainly you know, I'm like, you know, let's that person really gonna be on top of things, and I for them not to tell you that this has been the hottest topic.

I understand.

So I don't maybe there's other short-term rentals that have issues or parties or um cause disturbances in the neighborhood.

But I mean, I was asked for letters of recommendation from our neighbors, they were all like, sure, we'll we'll be happy to write you a letter of recommendation.

I've I've had no issues except for that one which I mentioned, which was I think two years ago now.

Um, I'm talking about the regulation.

No, I understand.

And we're we live in San Diego, we don't live here.

In California, there are much more um stringent restrictions for short-term rentals.

So when we were in escrow, that's why I called the city because I my realtor said there was no, there's nothing you need to do, and I was shocked.

And so I said, Oh, I want to call and hear for myself that that's the case.

So obviously I don't watch the Columbia news, but as soon as we receive something from the city, we responded to it.

I mean, that's the best that I can do.

My understanding in terms of an agent in place, or I think registered agent, I don't I don't know what the term it is for our person across the street, but my understanding of his responsibility to me when he's agreeing to be that person is that he's within the county, which obviously he's one minute away.

Um, that he's within the county, that he's available 24-7, that it provides some protection for either neighbors or guests if something were to go awry.

I don't think that I have an ability, obviously to make him pay attention to the city council meetings or otherwise.

I don't know.

The only way that I knew about this again was like the letter which I responded to.

Um I I did the best that I could in terms of the information that I had when we purchased.

Um you know, and if I receive anything in future years that something changes, we'll certainly comply with that as well.

Um yeah, I I don't know how what better I can do.

Yeah.

It's just crazy to hear it.

I do have a 21-year-old who lives here, and I I'm sure that he's not aware of it either.

And and I don't think that there's uh inability for me to maybe get that kind of news without being informed.

Thank you.

Any other questions for this Commissioner Ortiz?

Uh I just maybe it's more of a comment, but you have an investment in our community.

You have this home.

Yes.

So I think that having that investment, you should be invested in what's happening in our community too.

So I know that you're doing the right thing.

You're here right now.

Of course.

Yeah, no, and it's great.

And you know, not everyone's doing that, so I commend you for that.

But um you are, whether or not you live here, you have an investment here.

Um and I would just recommend you pay a little attention outside of the mail with peace and love to you.

Thank you so much.

Any other questions for the speaker?

You sure picked a night to show up all the way from Sandy.

So maybe maybe it was a good thing.

I don't know.

I appreciate you traveling to be here.

It is very important to us that the owners show up.

And uh thank you very much.

Any other final questions?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any other member of the public to speak on this case?

Seeing none, we will close public comment and go to commissioner comment.

Is there any commissioner comment on this case?

I will just make the comment that I commend our staff on catching this.

Um it is a good sign to me that we're gonna be able to catch these folks that uh you know maybe didn't know or are trying to do something malicious.

Either way, I'm glad the first one that came forward was someone who went, thank you for the letter.

Please can I file my application?

But good job to y'all for catching them.

Um if there's no other commissioner comment, would someone like to make a motion?

Commissioner Wilson.

We'll give it a go.

Oh, Commissioner Comment or the motion.

Please, yes, go ahead.

In the matter of case number 274-2025.

I recommend approval of the requested STRCUP subject to a maximum occupancy of eight transient guests.

Maximum 210 days of annual rental usage.

The two car garage spaces shall be made available while the dwelling is in STR use.

Is that it?

I thought there was another thing.

All right.

Second motion made by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, Commissioner Stanton, may we have a roll call?

Yes, you may, madam chair.

Commissioner Broski.

Oh, excuse me.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commission Galloway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Um, yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Commissioner Wilson.

Yes.

Animous, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Next case, case number 277-2025.

A request by Colin Freeman agent on behalf of Black Dog Enterprises LLC owner to allow 1501 Paris Road to be used as a short-term rental for a maximum of four transient guests and up to 210 nights annually, pursuant to Section 29-3.3 V V and Section 29-6.4M2 of the Unified Development Code.

The two-bedroom one-bath home has sufficient driveway capacity to support four UDC compliant on-site off-street parking spaces.

The point one five acre subject site is located at the northwest corner of Paris Road and Wilkes Boulevard.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may.

For public notice, we uh notified the uh surrounding property owners via early notification postcards on H4 that the matter was taking place.

We then followed up on August 18th through public hearing letters, uh alluding to this uh meeting here, and we distributed 49 letters in an ad was run in the Tribune on the 19th of August.

Here's an overview of the site just to kind of familiarize yourself and see where it's located.

It's surrounded by single and multifamily structures in the R1 and RMF zoning districts, the kind of single family structures are to the north uh and the east where the multifamilies to the west.

The property is zoned RMF and is not the applicant's primary residence.

This is a two-bedroom, one bathroom home.

And with the four uh requested transient guests, it requires two parking spaces, and there are currently none on site.

I will get into that on the next slide.

This was used for 80 nights in 2024.

At least seven of the 35 parcels within one 185 feet of the subject site are owner occupied.

And there are no approved short-term rentals within 300 feet of the property.

It appears there may be one unlicensed short-term rental though within that buffer.

So you're getting back into a little history of why there is no uh on-site parking there.

In the Benton Stevens overlay previously, there was the ability to have your on-site parking be accommodated off-site.

And in 2017, that option was taken out of the code, making this a legal nonconformity.

And now with the change from the residential past residential use to now commercial use, the property would be required to meet today's standards of having that on-site parking.

And furthermore, the gravel parking that was being used by the applicant was created illegally by the past owner.

And through the housing neighborhood services, it was deemed that parking could no longer be used unbeknownst to the property owner uh while they're operating or have been operating their short-term rental.

So again, they would need to have uh at least two spaces added to the site.

The designated agent lives one minute just next door.

And there is a similar to the last case, there's that active illegal short-term rental case that will subsequently be closed after completing the short-term rental licensing process.

We received five letters in support.

They all indicated that they were great neighbors and took great care of the property.

So in conclusion, the conditional use permit uh analysis supports approval.

The short-term rental regulations provide an oversight means to address any impacts.

Approval supports broad policies, strategies, and actions of the competence of plan.

Staff's recommendation is approved or requested short-term rental, conditioning use permit, subject to a maximum of maximum occupancy of four transient guests, a maximum of 10, 210 rental nights annually, and two UDC compliant parking spaces be added to the be added to the site on a parking pad within the rear yard of the subject site prior to the issuance of the certificate of compliance or business license allowing the dwelling to be used as a short-term rental.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my fellow commissioners have had any contact with parties to this case outside of a public hearing, please disclose so now.

Seeing none.

Are there any questions for staff?

Seeing none, we will open the floor to public comment.

Are there any members of the public here to speak tonight?

Please come forward.

Good evening.

My name is Taylor Adams and I live at 302 West Broadway Avenue.

We're gonna have to have you come one at a time.

I'm sorry.

You're fine.

You can sit right there.

Okay, okay.

Um we're gonna go to the case.

A little creepily in the back.

I don't know.

Uh sorry, I'm um good.

Yeah, my name is Taylor Adams.

Um I own part of that house with that guy and that lady and my wife.

Um it's right adjacent to his house.

And it came up for sale and it was one of those things where it was like, well, you gotta buy the house next to you.

Um so we purchased it, I think two years ago um from Muzzy Properties, and we've had it since.

Um we've put about $30,000 worth of work into it.

We short up the basement, we redid the deck, we've uh fixed the kitchen and the bathroom and just kind of gone through and just made the house updated it to today's standards and just uh but we've been operating and we want to be in come we want to be in compliance.

So that's kind of where why we're here today.

Wonderful.

Uh any questions for this speaker?

No.

Oh, Commissioner Ortiz, go ahead.

Yes, man.

So you are along with your wife and the other two, you are Black Dog Enterprises LLC?

Yeah, me and that guy really are.

Like that's my that's my partner during the day.

Um that's my husband.

Um so we spend most days together unless you know something comes up.

Um been kind of going through a little bit of an influx.

Colin um you don't mind if I tell them.

Colin uh had a stroke a couple um months ago, and uh sometimes he has seizures, and so that's kind of um is he's laid up for a long time.

So um yeah.

So we've just we've been kind of working on this, and so but he's he's my partner.

Potentially an easier question.

What's the dog's name?

There's a lot of them.

Um we've actually been having a lot of trouble with them too.

We've been losing dogs this year.

So it's been a rough year.

Um so we got the dog that kicked it all off for me was a D, and then he's he had a dog named Eleanor and Esther, and so we got all these black dogs running around.

Um Charlie and Luna.

Um so yeah, so that's those are the black dogs.

Thank you.

Any further questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Gray.

Um Do you plan on adding the two spaces?

Absolutely.

I just called Doug this morning.

Um I Colin came in and we went up.

Well, you guys don't let us in anymore, so that's kind of weird.

Um so I called Doug and talked to him.

Uh I got the number for the guy to cut the curb, and they've I've got it like started on the I don't even know what to call that program.

It's the program where you pull permits.

And so I've got a permit started for us, and I'm like, we're I mean, we do this is what you know, we we do construction work, so um.

We we build decks around the you know county and the city and all that.

So um this is something we're gonna tackle our pad at least, and then the curb, we're gonna have the approach for by uh dozer Dave.

Uh very good.

Any further questions?

If not, next.

Thank you.

You don't all three have to come up if you don't want to, but you can if you want to.

I'm gonna come up.

I didn't think I was going to.

Um I um name and address, sorry, yeah.

What was that?

Name and address.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot.

I've been here a long time.

So if you know.

Um Allie Freeman, Alison Freeman is my name, but I go by Allie.

Um I live at 1415 Wilkes Boulevard.

And um we um we've created a really special place.

Um with this Airbnb, I'm kind of manage it.

I clean, I do all of that in the scheduling.

And it's been wonderful.

We've had the guests that we've had and have been great.

Um positive feedback, um, been a super host, which is kind of fun to see.

You get like this little badge and stuff, um, which is kind of fun.

Um, but what I've noticed is that a lot of it is parents that have come to visit their kids.

And it's just a great place.

It's close to downtown.

It's so there, we're getting families that come in and want just a place to call their home, and then they call it a cozy place to be.

And um we've created that.

And we also it's a place for our family to come and and be there and visit.

Do we need to can I keep sorry?

No, go ahead.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um so I just wanted to say um we built a little home there, and we've met a lot of the people who have stayed with us and we're there in close proximity.

We also have a son, and so it just feels like it's we've had really great success with it.

And um kind of proud of what we've built, and just so you know, we're we're ready to be compliant and do those things that need to be done.

Um that driveway before that was something that was previous to us.

So just so you know, this is kind of where we're at, but we're ready to tackle it if need be.

So that's all.

I'll can probably ramble on, but I know we want all want to go to bed.

So I'm done.

Any further questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you so much for being here.

Did you want to come up, sir?

You don't have to if you don't want to.

Okay, very good.

Any other member of the public who wishes to speak on this case?

Seeing none, we will close public comment and go to Commissioner Comment.

Any commissioner comments on this case?

Seeing none, would anyone like to make a motion?

Commissioner Ortiz.

Why me?

You made eye contact.

Oh, okay.

I I actually don't make motions very often, so let's um let's do it.

Okay.

I move to approve, or in the case of 277-2025, 1501 Paris Road.

I moved to approve the requested short-term rental conditional use permit subject to a maximum occupancy of four transient guests, maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage, and two um unified development code compliant parking spaces to be added to the site on a parking pad within the rear yard of the subject site prior to the issuance of the short-term rental certificate of compliance or business license allowing the dwelling to be used as a short-term rental.

Second.

Very good.

Motion made by Commissioner Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none.

Good thing, Madam Chair.

Uh Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Orties.

Yes.

Um, yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Commissioner Wilson.

Yes.

Unanimous, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Madam Chair, if I'm in, if I may, real quick before we move on to the next case.

I just point for staff.

I was looking on the Secretary of State's website as uh we were going through this hearing and as uh on the agenda is Black Dog Enterprises plural, which shows uh an address of Kansas City and organized in 2002.

I assume that's not you guys.

There is Black Dog Enterprise.

Yes, which is I believe the correct so if uh there might need to be corrections.

With or without the yes.

Without the yes.

Without the S.

Thank you.

You're no one.

And we'll we will make that change accordingly.

Thank you.

Next case, case number 280-2025, a request by Michaela Hayes agent on behalf of Matthew and Michaela Hayes owners to allow 103 Park View Drive to be used as a short-term rental for a maximum of four transient guests and up to 210 nights annually pursuant to Section 29-3.3 V V and Section 29-6.4 M2 of the Unified Development Code.

The three bedroom, one bath portion of a home has an attached one car garage and sufficient driveway capacity to support one UDC compliant parking space.

This request, if approved, would allow the home's main level to be used as a short-term rental.

The .4 acre subject site is located at the northwest corner of East Walnut Street and Park View Drive.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may.

Public notice was distributed in the form of early notification postcards on the 8th of or August August 4th, rather.

And then they're followed up two weeks later by the public hearing letters on the 18th, and then we distributed 21 of those, and an ad was run in the Tribune on the 19th.

Here's an aerial overview of the site.

This property is surrounded by R1 zone properties.

So hence they'll all be single family homes.

And there was also uh Stevens Lake at the top of your screen, which is uh to the north, or to actually to the south there, but the way the pictures oriented it is at the top.

Property is zoned R1, as I mentioned, and is not the primary residence.

This is a three-bedroom, one bathroom portion of a home is required that uh two parking spaces be uh required on site, giving the four transient guests requested.

This will be uh served by one parking space in the driveway and one in the garage.

In the past year it was used for 10 nights, and at least five of the ten parcels within 185 feet of the subject site are owner occupied.

There are no approved short-term rentals within 300 feet of the property.

The designated agent lives about 12 minutes away or six miles, and there are no active violations pertaining to this uh property, and we received one neutral letter indicating they would like to see better property maintenance.

But my inkling is that this was uh pertaining to the past property owner as the there were multiple landscape violations prior to the actual uh applicant's ownership of the property.

In conclusion, the conditional use permit analysis supports approval.

The short-term rental regulations provide an oversight and means to address impacts and approval would support broad policy strategies and actions with the comprehensive plan.

Staff's recommendation is to approve the requested short-term rental conditional use permit subject to a maximum of occupancy of eight transient guests, a maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage, and the one car garage be made available while the dwelling is in SGR use.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Seeing none, are there any questions for staff?

Seeing none, we will go to public comment.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this case tonight?

I'm Terry Hall.

Um I'm at 2509 Brookside Court, which abuts to Park View.

I'm a longtime resident there.

I've been there for 30 years.

I bought the home because it's a beautiful quiet neighborhood.

Um we have a golf course right behind our house, and as you know, the park is uh block or two away from us.

Um it was mostly uh homeowners at that point.

Obviously, in 30 years, it's changed quite a bit.

Um we've seen more long-term rentals come in.

We've seen an Airbnb happen.

We've seen uh a house two, three houses down for me that it's now owned by a church, and they uh rotate drug addicts in so that they can give them a chance to rehab, which is very admirable, but there have been many problems associated with that.

Um I've seen um these re revolving door of uh people that that come in and live in these different places I mentioned.

Have uh shot fireworks in the middle of the street over the holiday, uh preventing cars from coming through.

We had to sit there and wait while they move their children and their fireworks out of the street.

We had noise issues and parking issues with Airbnb, um and so on and so forth.

And um we have already have indigents that live in Stevens Park, the unhoused people uh are frequently around.

There have been break-ins.

Um I don't know that much about the new owners.

They haven't had the place that long.

Um, but I'm just not really a fan of uh a revolving door of people I don't know coming in, and it also makes it hard to tell who is a suspicious person in your neighborhood versus who is their renting.

Um that's pretty much it.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Oh, I'm sorry, I have one comment to add if I could um to something one of the council members said about the lawn issue.

Um and you are correct, the previous owner did have a big lawn issue of letting it get all overgrown.

But I have seen with these new owners, they have also had at least one incident of that.

And they did eventually come in and clean it up.

But just so you know, it has happened with the the present owners as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh any questions, Commissioner Ortiz.

You refer to um an Airbnb in your neighborhood.

So I'm assuming that is not on your street, nor is it on park view.

Um what um Airbnb are you referring to?

Um the Airbnb I refer to was on park view, but is no longer those people have moved and it's a single homeowner now, which is lovely.

Uh uh.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Is that it?

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Seeing none.

Thank you.

Next person to speak on this case, please come forward.

Good evening.

Uh Matt Hayes, 103 Park View, the owner.

I'll be brief.

Um we did struggle to find somebody to mow the yard this spring.

We got that taken care of.

I think all that is addressed.

Um we've been very happy with the people we have now.

If there's any issues, we'll get that taken care of.

All of this is true.

It's what we're gonna do.

Um the biggest thing I want to point out is uh 10 nights last year, and our intention is not to hit anywhere near 210 nights.

That's not the use of the property for us.

We bought it for us.

Um we bought it for some folks that used it the same way we intend to use it, which is to come and visit.

They just had a long-term renter upstairs.

We just thought this was a better use for us.

That way we didn't have to worry about bad tenants or whatever.

If they're a bad tenant, they're gone after the weekend, and we'll make sure they never come back.

So that's our intended use of the property.

We'll maintain it as best we can.

Um to the standards we would maintain our own home down south.

So that's all I have.

Thank you.

And thank you for traveling.

Any questions for the speaker?

Nope.

Seeing none.

Oh, sorry, Commissioner Stanton.

Go ahead.

Make sure you communicate with your neighbors.

Yeah.

We'll do.

Nothing but a comp uh complaint away from being losing it all.

Oh, yeah.

No, that's fair.

Well, and we have with the with the folks on the street.

We didn't go too far backwards, so that's a mistake on our part, but yeah.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Thank you very much.

Any other members of the public to speak?

Please come forward.

Hello, my name is Christina Roberts.

I live at 2508 Brookside Court, Columbia, Missouri, 65201, which is um a neighborhood that we have to pass through to get into.

We have to pass Park View to get into Brookside Court because it's at the end of a dead end that's at the end of a dead end that's at the end of a dead end.

First, I actually have a question.

This the letter that I received said maximum occupancy of four transient guests, and this says eight transient guests.

And so I was wondering about that discrepancy.

And I can I have a photo of the letter as well.

I just minimum.

Okay.

And uh I moved out to go to college, and I came back and repurchased the house for my mother's estate when she passed away ten years ago.

Um I have seen the neighborhood grow from uh being in between two golf courses to being in between a golf course and a and a um park.

I'm sorry, I'm not very good public speaker.

You're doing great.

Okay, thank you.

Um at the time that Stevens Lake Park was purchased from Stevens College to become a park, there was uh discussion of whether or not um it should be turned into rental property as zoned for rental property instead of a house housing or instead of a park.

And I believe that the city and the community all agreed that it should not be uh zoned for um rentals, it should be can stay as a park and uh single family homes.

And I also am strongly um I strongly believe that the purchase of all these single family homes by non-residential owners to rent um out to um uh to rent out is what is driving up the um homel homelessness that we see the problem of homelessness and uh the problem of young families not being able to afford housing because they are busy paying rent at high prices for these single family homes that are not available on the on the market for purchase because they are being rented out.

And um I do agree that I I also question how um non-residential umers will um make sure that the uh house is being kept in order and how it is like how the uh renters are um being uh respectful to the neighborhood and um not and not causing trouble as they may have they had previously said.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further members of the public to speak on this case, please come forward.

Seeing none, we will close public comment and go to commissioner comment.

Any commissioner comments on this case?

Seeing none, would anyone like to make a motion?

Here, obviously.

Commissioner Walters, go ahead.

Just to make a comment for the last speaker, in case you're not aware, the reason we're going through this process of registering STRs as opposed to the Wild West we had before was to create uh some oversight and to give property owners like you uh the option or the uh process to uh lodge a complaint if there is a legitimate infraction.

And if the party, the owner of the house uh receives two bona fide complaints, then they can uh re lose their ability to have a Airbnb.

So anyway, it's maybe a small solos to you, but at least there is opportunity for you to be a watchdog as well, or if things don't work out, you have uh you have recourse.

Any other comments or motions?

I make a motion.

Go ahead, Commissioner Walters.

Uh in the matter of uh uh case number two eight zero-2025.

Uh I move to approve the requested SDR C UP for 103 Park View Drive, subject to maximum occupancy of four transient guests, maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage, and the one-car garage shall be made available while the dwelling is in SDR use.

Second.

Who wants it?

Motion made by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none.

May we please have a roll call, Commissioner Sandon?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray?

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Stockton?

Yes.

Commissioner Walters?

Yes.

Commissioner Wilson.

Yes.

Madam Chair, it's unanimous.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

That concludes our business for the evening.

We do allow for public comments of a general nature.

If any member of the public would allow to would like to speak on something of a general nature, please come forward at this time.

I just think this was useful, these three STR cases, and I'm wondering if the changes are made, then none of these conversations would have happened in thinking.

Thank you, Dee.

Any further public comment?

Seeing Oh, yes, please come forward.

Okay.

You're gonna have to say your name and address again.

I'm sorry.

Christina Roberts, 2508, Brookside Corp, uh Columbia, Missouri 65201.

I we recently got um, I'm not sure if you're aware, but the East Walnut recently received five or six speed bumps.

And six.

And two of them have not been marked, and so they're very difficult to see.

Um I was wondering what what is the proper um way to go about getting those marked with the white lines that the other five have.

If if you will allow us, we will have someone from staff get in touch with you.

We don't do that, but we'll make sure someone from the city gives you that information unless Mr.

Zinner, you have got it handy.

Uh it would be our it would be public works, and it would most likely be our street maintenance division.

Uh Richard Stone, who is the division manager, is probably the point of contact, or Jake Ray, our city's traffic engineer.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comments?

Seeing none, we will go to staff comments.

Mr.

Zinner.

So your next meeting is two weeks from today, September 18th.

That's we start at 5 30 p.m.

with our work session, and we will uh convene just before 7 for our regularly scheduled meeting, which is a little bit shorter than tonight's.

Uh it has three topics on it, uh, a design adjustment and a final plath 7th Street behind the Boone Electric Cooperative Building.

Uh, this is public water supply district number fours or nines, I can't remember.

Uh maintenance building, and they're looking at doing an expansion and some construction on it.

Therefore, uh sidewalks would be triggered, and that is what the design adjustment is about, and that the property has not been formally final platted.

Uh, therefore, that is the purpose of the final plat.

Uh we have uh a drive up facility, CUP for a new bank uh at 310 West Nyphong.

This is the corner of West Nyphong and Bethel Street.

And then we have one short-term rental uh at 1506 Windsor Street, and this is in the Benton Stevens community, RMF zoned.

Um it is for, if I am not incorrect, uh two transient guests.

Uh it will have a condition associated with the installation of necessary parking, because again, like this evening's request, uh, the development of the dwelling unit relied on on-street parking, and therefore there is not a driveway.

So you know where we're talking about.

Here are the maps.

And that is your agenda for our September 18th meeting.

We are gearing up with more uh in October.

So and do not anticipate this to be a repetitive pattern where we only have three.

Uh we do have a number uh in the queue right now for uh our first meeting in October, if I'm not incorrect.

Thank you.

Uh with that, we'll go to Commissioner Comments.

Commissioner Stanton.

I would like to commend staff and the system.

It seems like the STR process is working.

We're rounding up these desperados and bringing them to justice and compliance.

I love it.

And I think uh we just have to keep the faith in the system.

It seems like it's working so far.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Commissioner Ortiz.

I will not be at the next meeting.

So I would have I would plug this at the next meeting because I know it's a little early, but at the end of the month, September 29th through October 5th, um, local motion and other places across the country are participating in Week Without Driving, which is a challenge that was started by a disability rights advocate to challenge folks to experience life without um being a driver in a vehicle.

There are many of us out there, I'm one of them, who do not drive due to either medical issues, age, um aging out or being too young to drive.

Uh and then and there's a lot of other reasons as well.

And I just wanted to challenge my fellow commissioners and those out there who are always driving, maybe, or maybe you don't, um, to kind of uh get the perspective of a non-driver um and also think about the infrastructure that we have in the city and how um it accommodates drivers um versus non drivers or pedestrians.

So that is all.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Seeing none, would anyone like to move to adjourn?

I move to adjourn, Madam Chair.

Second.

Motion to adjourn made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Without objection, we stand adjourned.