Good evening.

I will now call to order the September 18th, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.

Please may we have a roll call, Commissioner Brodsky.

We may.

Commissioner Darr.

Here.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Here.

Commissioner Gray.

Here.

Commissioner Ortiz is absent.

Commissioner Stanton.

Commissioner Stockton.

Here.

Commissioner Walters and Commissioner Wilson are absent.

And I am present.

We have a quorum of six.

Thank you.

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

Zinner?

Yes, there are.

The first item on the agenda, case number 284-2025 has been requested to be tabled.

We have slides prepared for that.

Very good.

With that adjustment, is there a motion to approve the agenda?

Second.

Approved or motion made by Commissioner Stanton seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Thumbs up approval on the agenda.

Unanimous.

Thank you.

We all received a copy of the September 4th, 2025 regular meeting minutes.

Are there any changes or adjustments to the minutes?

Their motion to approve.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Thumbs up approval of the minutes.

Unanimous with Commissioner Brodsky abstaining.

Very good.

With that, our first case for the evening is a tabling motion on case number 284-2025, a request by Crockett Engineering Agent on behalf of Consolidated Public Water Supply District No.

Industrial General Zone Property to be known as Consolidated Water Plat No.

And an associated design adjustment from Section 29-5.1D regarding required construction of sidewalks.

The approximately 3.56 acre subject site is located northeast of Nebraska Avenue and 7th Street and includes the address 1500 7th Street.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes.

As indicated that the applicant has requested that this item be tabled until the October 23rd meeting.

That is to allow the staff and the applicant to coordinate and review options for the elimination of a private electric easement that traverses this particular project site that was identified after the packet's production that is going to be in future dedicated right-of-way that was shown for the northern portions of North 7th Street after the final plat is approved.

So we need to resolve that matter.

It could re could result in an additional design adjustment needing to be advertised for, and then the staff report being revised, or it may have several other potential outcomes.

So with that, we are supportive of the October 23rd date certain tabling request and believe that this project can then be brought forward and discussed at that point.

Very good.

Are there any questions for staff about the tabling motion?

Seeing none, we will go to public comment.

This is just about the tabling motion.

If there's any public comment on the tabling motion, please come forward.

Seeing none, we will close public comment and go to Commissioner comment.

Is there any commissioner comment?

Commissioner Stanton.

Madam Chair, my colleagues have no further comments.

I would like to intend motion.

Please do.

As it relates to case 284-2025, 1500 North 7th Street, design adjustment and final plat.

I move to table the case till October 23rd.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Very good.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none.

May we please have a roll call, Commissioner Brodsky?

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commissioner Gowway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

And my vote is yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

That case will be tabled to October 23rd, 2025.

Our next case for the evening, case number 288-2025, a request by Engineering Surveys and Services Agent on behalf of the Bank of Missouri owners seeking approval of a conditional use permit.

The 2.31 acre property is located at 310 Niphon Boulevard.

May we please have a staff report?

Mr.

May, thank you, Madam Chair.

So real quick public notice.

So here's our aerial, as you can see, we're at the southeast corner of Naiphong and Bethel Street.

You can see in the immediate vicinity is the uh Gentry Estates Assisted Living Facilli.

Thank you.

Then uh further to the south, you have Rockbridge High School, uh southeast, directly south of course is the Bethel um uh park.

Uh and then you can see Providence uh corridor off to the upper right, and then uh to the extreme left, you have the Forum Boulevard uh corridors or kind of in the middle of those two major corridors.

Uh so as you stated in the opening statement there, uh this is a request for a conditional use permit to allow drive-through in the MN district.

Um it would be in conjunction with the proposed banking center.

Um our code actually uh designates this as a conditional accessory use.

Uh so of course it would be uh an accessory use to a bank.

It's a it's a customary accessory use to a bank.

Uh and then it would also require the conditional use permit.

So uh it's subject to the use specific standards uh in 293.3 J, which are specific to drive-throughs.

Uh, and then it would also be subject to the design guidelines and standards in 294.6C, which we'll get into both of those as we move along here.

Um of the requirements of the uh use specific standards, I believe, is a site plan uh which we have here.

It depicts a two-story banking center uh with a three-lane drive-thru, which is the uh red rectangle there to the right hand side.

That would be the east side of the property.

Um property is then um accessed by the uh private uh streets that also serve the Gentry Estates um uh assisted living facility.

Uh one kind of caveat here, or one important thing to note, I guess, is uh the intersection where the private drive meets NIFON, which is in the upper right hand corner, the upper uh the northeast corner here.

Uh that is limited to a right in, right out.

And I do believe there's actually a center median there that would preclude you from taking a left-hand turn out of here or a left-hand turn into the site from uh NIFO.

Uh the other uh entrance would be on the southwest corner of the site onto Bethel Street, and that is an open intersection.

You can go either way.

So uh the other point here to note is the um uh one of the requirements of the drive-thru stacking lanes uh is that they don't interfere with circulation.

Uh the arrows uh next to your the south end of the drive-thru stacking lanes just shows that there is uh uh uh one lane of traffic probably.

There's probably room for two there, but uh just showing that that doesn't really interfere with that.

Um and the likelihood uh is kind of low that it would given that those are the required stacking spaces, uh the required three.

Uh and of course they've got three in each lane here.

So uh we talked on most of these things, uh at least the first point here, the access points on Bethel and Niphong, uh and the right and right out on Niphon, of course.

Um getting to the use specific standards now.

Uh the typically or or just generally speaking, um the intent of those standards is to reduce visual impacts and uh audible impacts, uh it promotes safer circulation for pedestrians and for vehicles on the site and uh uh in adjacent areas.

Um and then also it's intended to just reduce uh potential conflicts and traffic uh and things of that nature.

So uh they are generally applicable uh where a drive-thru would be adjacent to an R1 or R2 district, and they would require a level three buffer and then some additional standards.

Uh the this doesn't apply in this instance because we are adjacent to other MN properties, and then of course the Gentry Estates property south is uh PD.

And as you can see, that's a kind of a multifamily PD, so it does not fall into the R1 or R2.

There is an R1 property located northwest of the intersection of Bethel Street and NIFON.

You can see on the upper right left-hand corner of the map.

And that is actually, I believe, a water utility facility there.

So there are specific regulations in the use specific standards for drive-throughs that require a conditional use in particular.

One of those being the site plan requirement.

And then of course, there's like no speakers oriented towards an R1 or R2 district so that there's no noise pollution.

Drive-thru lanes can't occupy a required front or side yard.

And then of course there's the appropriate screening and buffering required.

In terms of the preliminary site plan that was submitted with this, it is compliant with these provisions of the UDC.

It shows that it is compliant.

The lanes are not located in the front or side yard, and then also the buffing screening and buffering are denoted or shown on the landscape plan that is included with the site plan.

Now moving on to the design standards and guidelines.

They were created generally to address the bulk and appearance of new construction in relation to its context.

Relief from these standards and guidelines requires a board of act uh board of adjustment action for a variance.

One of the primary items that we see often is the requirement for a entry door facing a street.

There's a 20% transparency requirement on any street-facing facade of a new building.

And then there's also wall plane and roof articulation requirements.

So they come to us with uh construction plans and uh those would be addressed at that time.

And uh just for your reference, there uh is currently no request for a variant.

So the and the site plan doesn't really show um elevations or uh you know roof plane articulation, things of that nature at this point, uh, but those will be addressed when the applicants come forward with uh building plans.

So just a note.

All right.

Uh moving on to our evaluation criteria.

Section 296.4 M2 gives us six evaluation criteria for any requests for a conditional use permit.

Uh they are listed there uh in abridged versions.

And um first of all is that the conditional use would comply with the standards of the underlying zoning district.

Uh second is that it's consistent with the goals and objectives of the comp plan.

Uh it has to conform with the character of the adjacent area.

And adequate access must be provided.

Sufficient infrastructure must exist to serve the use.

And the final one is that it will not cause any significant significant adverse impacts.

And so uh we've evaluated the uh conditional use permit request, and we found that the proposed drive-thru is consistent uh with the evaluation criteria and all other UDC standards.

It is a customary accessory use, and the site plan shows that it would be compliant with all the uh particular requirements.

Um it does lie within the commercial district in the comp plan, which would be supportive of this type of use.

Um the bank uh conforms to the context, it's actually across the street from another bank, uh, a dental office.

Um it is next to uh a couple of undeveloped parcels that uh are also zoned MN, as we mentioned before.

Uh and then again it to the south is this um assisted living facility, which is a more uh densely populated, uh intensive kind of residential use.

Uh but this would be kind of uh uh one of those intermediate uses between uh uh a neighborhood commercial, such as what's being proposed here, and another, for instance, uh the further to the south is an R1 uh zone, which is actually uh part of the school.

So access is sufficient, as we said.

Uh we have two points of access that uh will not only serve this site but also uh the sites adjacent to it southeast of the intersection.

Um and again, we have that right in right out on NIFON that will uh help to alleviate um some of the conflicting uh traffic flow and it'll force uh folks around uh to the southwest corner to enter the site if they're coming from the east uh niphong.

So that will help alleviate some of those uh traffic issues that might arise from uh a little bit higher level of traffic here that's brought with really any use, but uh a bank uh being a commercial use, it'll see a little higher level, but not uh anything to the extent uh that would cause any major issues.

So our public works uh and other utilities uh uh providers have all reviewed this uh proposal, and there are no concerns that have been um brought forth in terms of uh providing services to the site.

Everything is in place and uh has capacity to serve it.

So uh and then just generally staff doesn't uh anticipate any uh significant adverse impacts and the primary one would be traffic and and the right-in right out is a big step to addressing that.

So uh with that uh our recommendation would be to approve the requested conditional use permit uh for a drive-thru in the MN district.

And I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

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 questions for staff.

Seeing none, we will go to public comment.

If any members of the general public would like to speak, please come forward, state your name and address for the record.

We allow six minutes for the applicant and groups and three minutes for individuals.

Start when you're ready.

Thank you.

Uh my name's Matthew Curity.

I'm with Engineering Surveys and Services offices at 1113 Fay Street.

Again, a civil engineer on the project.

Um there it goes.

Okay.

So again, as we mentioned, we're looking at conditional use permit for the drive-thru on the bank.

So I want to address the uh requirements and conditions of approval here.

Um so first off, again, we have adequate infrastructure around the site.

Um I've highlighted on there in green the sewer, blue the water, red electric.

So you can see we got utilities around there as well as sitting at the corner of Nyphong and Bethel with access off an existing private road.

Additionally, this is kind of then looking at the site late on on the or property late on this site.

Uh you can see the drive-thru positioned away from the street frontage from Bethel and Nyphong and away from the uh residential areas.

You know, I've highlighted then that private drive we're uh referring to as well.

And then again, from point of access, we got signals at both Bethel and NIFON and um uh Nova Way and Niphon as well.

Also from an access standpoint, just a little more specifics about it.

We've mentioned the right in right out.

You can now see also the island and media and that prevents any uh left turns in and out of that driveway, as well as the full access onto Bethel.

And currently under construction is a connection that will connect that private drive across all the way to the roundabout.

So there'll be access all the way out to the other signal.

So great access into this property.

Uh again, as mentioned, the drive-thru does have its own separate lane, does have adequate site dis uh stacking distance.

Um the parking itself has two points of access, so you know anything ever where the backup, there's another point in and out.

Um but I've drawn arrows just showing how the circulation works.

You can see the right in right out from NIFON, the full access coming in from Bethel.

Uh and again the circulation pattern that allowed them to go out east all the way to the roundabout and into uh Novaway and over the Shakespeare's if they wanted to from there without getting back on NIFO.

I went the wrong way.

Oh my gosh.

Okay, there we go.

So also in terms of circulation, uh, the this also well accommodates pedestrians and bicycles.

So I've highlighted in gray.

There's the existing pedway and sidewalks on Bethel and Nyphong.

Uh there'll be a sidewalk also added to the private drive.

So you've got circulation in, kind of the say the entry, main entry point's gonna be on the south side of the building, but you've got access from that sidewalk into the into the building, and also have some sidewalk connection from NIFON directly into the building as well.

And this will allow you know good circulations from you know all you know, all modes of transportation.

Um again, this was uh there was a traffic study done on this.

Um as of right now, with this bank, you know, we're talking about peak hour generation, about 270 vehicles.

The whole traffic study had anticipated a nearly 1200 vehicles.

So we're well under the anticipated.

Uh I did want to highlight, you know, in that study there was a pharmacy assumed at this corner.

This bank replaces that.

Pretty similar traffic generation, maybe a tad bit more overall.

Um again, this the drive-thru has been positioned, so it's uh you know, directing any speakers away from the residential.

Um, lighting will comply, and we'll comply to all the other UDC standards, you know, as mentioned in the discussion.

In terms of the surrounding conditions, uh, this is nothing unusual for the area.

Uh I've highlighted here all the different businesses that have drive-throughs along this corridor.

I can see Central Bank all the way to the left side of the picture, Walgreens Pharmacy, Hawthorne Bank, you know, coming all the way across to the other bank, Seven Brew, Scooters.

You know, there's multiple drive-throughs along the area, pretty consistent to that character of it.

And you know, again, being uh arterial corridor.

Uh and even from the comprehensive plan, we're conforming with the ad.

Ultimately, this is an infill site.

Um, you know, we're not going and reaching outside and sprawling.

We've got it, we've got all the ex is this existing infrastructure needed to develop this site.

You don't need new services for that.

It's you know, there's no environmental concerns, there's no trees, sensitive areas we need to be concerned about.

It's walkable area, it's bikeable.

Um again, we got this frontage on a pedway.

And we're gonna have the street trees as well to again help and encourage the pedestrian use along the area.

Um, again, in summary, it's again hitting the same same uh items that city hit.

You know, we got the adequate infrastructure, good circulation, safe access, um, the the drive-thru separated from the rest of the parking.

And we position the drive-thru such that it's you know not gonna be an adverse impact to the neighbors.

Um not impacting the residential R1, R2 districts, you know.

And uh, you know, conforming to compare character of the area and uh really no negative impacts to the uh circulation of traffic on IPOM, Bethel, and you know, all the stacking is gonna be off the main streets here.

So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Are there any questions?

The speaker seeing none.

Thank you very much for being here.

Anyone else 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?

Commission Commissioner Stanton.

If my colleagues have no further questions or comments, I would enter 10 a motion, Madam Chair.

Please do.

As it relates to case 288-2025, 310 West Nyphon Boulevard, conditional use permit.

I move to approve the requested C UP for a banking center drive-through facility in the MN zoning district.

Second.

Thank you.

Motion made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none.

Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call.

Hey.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

And my vote is yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Our next case for the evening, case number 290-2025, a request by Ken Germond on behalf of German Egner Family Trust to allow 1506 Windsor Street 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 two-bedroom, one bath home will have to install a driveway accessing Windsor Street to accommodate the required two UDC compliant on-site off-street parking spaces if this request is approved.

The point one seven acre subject site is located approximately 125 feet east of the intersection of Ripley Street and Windsor Street.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much for that introduction.

We sent out uh early notification postcards on August 21st, followed by public hearing letters on September 2nd.

We sent out 67 of those to abutting neighbors of the site.

And then we also ran a tribune ad on September 2nd as well.

Here's an aerial view of the subject site, the uh main east-west street along the bottom of the picture there.

That's uh was a walnut, I believe it's walnut street.

Uh and then it is accessed off of uh local residential streets over there in the Benton Stevens neighborhood.

Uh this is a street view of the subject site.

I wanted to illustrate this because as you alluded to, we have an interesting driveway case with this uh specific request.

The driveway that's pictured here on the left part of the screen that is not accessed by the uh by the applicant that is for the property to the east of this site.

Um, but I wanted to illustrate just this so that way we can get a better idea of um what the subject site is presently improved with.

So it's currently zoned RMF and is not the primary residence of the applicant to two bedroom, one-bathroom home.

The max occupancy would be four per IPMC.

I apologize, I should say four on there.

Um last year it was offered for 84 nights.

Uh 35 of the 42 parcels in the surrounding area were identified as staff by uh be currently being used as rental purposes.

Well, we did not identify any STRs within 300 feet of the subject property as well.

Uh there's one current open code violation tied to this parcel and it's pertaining to an illegal short-term rental operation, which we are here to rectify tonight.

Um as mentioned, the property currently has no driveway access, and two parking pads on site would have to be provided before the issuance of any sort of uh STR compliance or business license would be approved.

Um that is something that the applicant is aware of and is currently working with the building and site team in order to rectify.

Uh the designated agent does live in Columbia and lives right next door to the subject site.

Um we received six letters regarding this case.

They were all after the publication of the staff report, um, three of which were provided digitally, and then three should have been provided physically to you guys this uh tonight.

Uh we had one in opposition and five in support of this case.

In conclusion, the conditional use permit analysis uh supports approval of the site.

The short-term rental regulations provide oversight and means to address any negative impacts that may occur, and the approval supports broad policy strategies and actions of the comprehensive plan.

Uh staff uh recommends approval of the requested STR CUP, subject to a maximum occupancy of four guests at any time, a maximum of 210 nights of rental usage annually, and the construction of a driveway/slash parking pad on site accommodating two parking spaces to be constructed prior to the issuance issuance of a short-term rental certificate of compliance or business license.

And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions the commission has.

Thank you.

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

Seeing none, are there any questions for staff?

Seeing none, we will go to public comment.

If any member of the public would like to speak on this case, please come forward.

Is the applicant here?

Yeah.

Let me just see if we have if you don't mind.

No, I don't.

And I live in here.

Can you say it into the mic?

I probably have Ken Germond, uh 1504 Windsor.

And the applicant lived next door to the six property.

I just wanted to give the commissioners a chance to ask you any questions if anyone had any.

Commissioner Santon.

It's detrimental that you showed your face.

That's why we're I'm glad you came up.

Right.

Tips to scale quite often.

Okay.

Okay.

Thanks.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Any other questions, Mr.

Garmond?

No?

Thank you very much.

Oh, sorry.

Did you it's uh uh uh since you're here, I'm just curious where where you're gonna put the parking.

Well, it's an open question.

The um in the picture there, so the ex the property line is not clear.

Like I've seen a plat several years ago that kind of showed the property line between the two tracks of James Bayless um driveway there.

But I uh even the county doesn't have the plat, so I don't know where I exactly I saw that.

But um and then I have another data point where a survey was done um a year or so ago, I think, and they said that in the back of the property, the property line is consistent with the fence.

So I don't know that I have access to that shared driveway.

Anyway, kind of the initial hope was they could share that driveway and have a pad just to the um what would be to the east of the house where that kind of where the bush is would be option one, kind of what I was hoping, or you have to put it basically in the front yard on the left-hand side of the pathway there.

The water meter is in that stone structure there on the left.

Thank you.

Does it doesn't really affect anything?

Just curious.

Okay, good.

Thanks.

Thank you very much for being here tonight.

All right.

Any other members of the public to speak?

Seeing none, we will close public comment and go to commissioner comment.

Any commissioner comments on this case?

Seeing none.

Oh, Commissioner Stanton.

Well, madam chair, if my colleagues have no further comment relating to this case, I would like to entertain a motion.

Please.

As it relates to case two 90-2025.

I move to approve the requested STR CEP subject to the following.

Maximum occupancy of four trans A guests.

Maximum of 210 nights annual rental usage.

And the construction of a driveway parking pad on site accommodating two parking spaces prior to issuance of a STR certificate of compliance or business license.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none.

Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

And my vote is yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

That concludes our business for the evening.

We will go to public comments.

If there are any comments from the public of a general nature, please come forward.

Good evening.

My name is Jay Gephardt.

Um civil engineer with the civil group, but I'm actually just here for myself tonight.

And I apologize, you got an early night, and I'm keeping you.

So I'll uh but I've got three things I'd like to discuss briefly.

Um the first being um, and I haven't talked to Pat about any of this, so um, but um I I do want to talk about Pat in that he is one of the hardest working um city employees there are, and I I can't tell you how much I appreciate all that he does.

And um and I by no means uh want you to take what I'm saying is uh uh criticism of Pat um in that because he works very very hard at his job and um I appreciate everything he does.

He helps me a lot.

Um the first thing is is this uh uh small lot integration into the R1 zoning.

I know um in just coming to the work sessions I've listened and I've um I've heard the process, but um and I understand the reasoning uh for why it's being done the way it is.

Um but from a from a guy looking from the outside in um who who stares at the code every day um and and tries to apply it and explain it to clients and and things, um it would be um helpful um I think not to get this at the end, and then you you guys are already vested in your your decisions at that point, kind of because you've been working on this for 18 months and you've been thinking about things and for us to come in and you know I don't know how long we will have uh to make comments, but most of us are pretty busy um you know, working 60, 70 hour weeks, and it's just hard to um you know it it I've made this a um kind of a uh a purpose of mine to try to help.

So um uh and I I don't have a solution, and it's you guys are way into this, and I don't not try and just upset the Apple card in any way on that.

It's just um there's a lot of things here, and Pat's really good, and he's he's actually really good at seeing the perspective of uh developer, but he he just doesn't do what I do.

And so there's um I think there's things that I could help with.

And I don't know if you guys do this um in something like this again that you bring in a consultant to sit through your work sessions and be there to answer questions or um uh offer opinions, not not necessarily to I mean we're not appointed by the wouldn't be appointed by the council necessarily or anything like that.

It'd be just there is a more of a consulting role um just to provide perspective um to what you're talking about because the work sessions the way they're structured.

I mean, even though I come and I listen, I can't say anything.

Um and it's um and then by tomorrow I'll have forgotten everything.

And then uh the third thing is um in general the the UDC in general.

Um it's a almost we're going on nine years, right, Pat?

Nine years in March.

Um, you know, the planning staff is very short staffed in far as I'm concerned and being able to address changes.

And I think there's a lot of things that even the city staff has that they would like to see changed, and there's just no time um for them to to put that together.

And I don't know what the solution to that is, but I really do think after eight, nine years, it's it's time to revisit that document.

There's some really good things about it.

There's some things that could be better.

And um, you know, and I I I have a vested interest in this, and you know, like I say, I use it every day.

Um, but it's uh something that I wanted to bring you to your attention, and because it was a short meeting tonight, I thought, well, this is a good time um to do that.

And again, I just uh I don't want anyone to think things and criticizing the what's going on.

It's just I want to try to be helpful and try to um provide uh information if I can in any way that you guys uh see see fit and think is appropriate.

So that's really all I had.

If I may, I will say that at least for the short term, or not short term, for the sh small lots.

We are viewing this, at least in my mind, and I think in staff's mind, this is the halfway point when we give it to city staff and to the larger community expecting the developers to get it, break it, and then give it back to us before we get to a final version because we want to see among other things visualizations of what would you do if you had this.

Um so we get an idea of of what it looks like.

So I think we're at the halfway point, not the end.

So we'll get 18 months.

A couple months.

But I I I don't I don't think that you're going to be handed a final product so much as a first draft is what I'm saying.

I get that.

It's just like even tonight when you guys were talking about streets.

I mean the guys that sit there and design streets all day long, they have a lot of ideas of things and that but they're boxed by the code.

And um, you know, being able to uh get them involved and having the ability to have um unique designs for unique situations um that fit you know instead of the standard 28-foot street and a 50-foot rideway type of thing.

Um it's interesting.

I was it was I learned something tonight.

I was telling uh David when he's talking to me, it's the uh the code in the in appendix A, Pat, I think it's paragraph six.

It talks about um this being for predominantly uh new development and doesn't apply basically to you know what I'm talking about?

Okay.

And that um that's just something I've never really even seen and really thought about before until tonight, it just happened to be up on the screen.

But um if that is actually applied where you don't have to come in and get a design adjustment, like I was talking um a few weeks ago.

I had a uh project, it was a little survey where we're on Meadow Lane and we were asking for design adjustments.

Uh we had an existing street that was 16 feet wide and a 20-foot ride away, and we were being asked to dedicate ride-a-way, and maybe I didn't need to do that because it's already in the appendix.

Uh just says that I don't have to do that if I'm not doing new development and it's just moving in a line on a plat and creating two legal lots.

So anyway, I just bring that up that these things, as you know, if you use the code very much, you realize you fix one thing and then you realize you got about two other things that happened unintentionally, and and it's just it gets really complicated pretty quick.

And so to have a couple months to review that really is just kind of the beginning of a discussion because there's so many things that it affects.

It touches spider web type thing.

It just touches so many things when you go and change one thing.

So Commissioner Stanton.

I do I'm sorry.

Yeah.

So I'm I'm glad you you came up and you discussed this.

So I want you to put Pat's hat on.

And he's going to give the development community this.

You just brought up a good point about kind of taking the gloves off of the development community and letting them be innovative and thinking out of the box relating to that.

Um would you do that?

How would you get into your pet?

How do we go to the next phase to the community, the development community?

Well, one thing I'm glad I don't have Pat's job.

So um, but um Tony I uh or Anthony, I just don't um have a good answer for you.

Um I wish I did.

Um, I I spend a lot of time doing layouts and and thinking about development and how things should uh work together.

Um I find I'm myself bound by the code many times.

And you know, I we got away from the plan districts, but in the plan districts I was free to to suggest things and do things differently.

And now there's a process, and I got to get a design adjustment.

And sometimes, you know, clients just don't want to do the design adjustment, even though they like the idea just because it introduces the uncertainty of getting what they're asking for approved.

Um there's there's a lot of things like that uh involved in it.

So um, but you know, talking about utilities tonight, and Pat had the idea of running it along the property line.

Well, utility company is probably not going to like that because you know, like electric utility says they have to have everything within 15 feet of pavement or they you know they won't approve it.

So you know they they've got to be able to work off pavement.

So they much rather tear up concrete than tear up someone's yard and uh you know get their vehicles stuck and things like that trying to fix something in a rainstorm, you know, in the middle of the night.

So but that's um just example after example after example of of things that can um uh affect this and to you know how do you involve us?

Maybe, you know, I was I was came tonight and I kind of changed what I was gonna say just because I was listening to Pat and he's saying, you know, we're gonna give it to them to see if they can, you know, what doesn't work and make suggestions.

I think that's good.

Um but there has to be more back and forth than that, and then it's not just a like here, Jay, write up your comments and we'll take them into consideration type thing, because it's almost a discussion rather than a um, you know, just here here's my comments.

Um, you know, it's the the guys that I know that do this are all super busy.

And so to carve out time to do this is is a big commitment um to do.

So um, you know, whether you're talking about Tim Crockett or myself, I'm sure Tim would agree with me.

It's just it's important enough that we're willing to do it, but we've got to be able to um feel like we're what we've got, you know, our comments and stuff are being uh incorporated into it.

And right now it just feels you know, the way the work sessions are set up, it just feels like you know, even if you participate, you're not can't participate.

And so that's that's that's just how I feel.

So I appreciate that.

Let you get home.

Sorry, Cody has something Commissioner Darrell.

It it's it's a little tricky, I think, because you're wanting to, and I think it all comes down to the amount of staff and time resources we have, which is not very much, is you want more input, we want more input from the development community in some ways, and and you know, 18 months is what we get, and you want 18 months, and now we've got lengthened the process a whole long time, but we're also wanting to, and Pat has mentioned this many times.

You know, he's got a list of things in the UDC he wants to address.

You know, we're taking it step by step right now is the small lots, and he's got a list of things that he will be addressing.

So if we lengthen this small lot process, well, it's even longer before we get to the next thing that we need to change.

So we almost need to compress it to get to more things as opposed to lengthening the process.

Yeah, I I agree, Cody, 100%.

And it's just it's just the way it's being done.

You know, we're gonna come in and throw darts at the end at this instead of being able being part of it from the beginning.

And if we were part of it from the beginning, then maybe it wouldn't take so long to do.

So much back and forth.

And but it is very much constrained by this man's staff um and what they can actually accomplish.

And so one last thing I'll say is 18 months, it's not like we were spending 18 months every two weeks.

I mean, and I I get it.

I just since we're being transcribed.

I just want to point out for those who haven't been watching the process as closely, this hasn't been the only thing we've been doing for 18 months.

I I get it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But no, it it it does we do need to go faster 100 percent.

And um, and I I'm I guess what I'm saying tonight is is I'm willing to help if I can help.

Um and I'm not here to criticize or uh put down what's being done.

It's I'm just trying to make it better if I can.

So we appreciate the offer.

Any final questions?

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other members of the public to speak tonight?

Seeing none.

Staff comments, Mr.

Zinner.

Ums, Mr.

Gebhardt.

We'll we'll talk and see what we can do to incorporate those that need to participate in this process.

That is our intent, and the intent is to have a dialogue.

It's not to just accept comments and then basically thank them and then don't do anything with them.

This process requires the ability for those that are actually interacting on the day-to-day side to be able to find use out of what we've spent our time discussing.

The last thing I want to see happen is a set of regulations adopted that sit and don't get used.

So we we will have to cross that bridge.

And it will be a task that we will have to figure out how do we, how do we make progress.

So your next meeting is October 9th.

And we have a number of items on the agenda, and unfortunately, what occupies a lot of our time is what will occupy a lot of this agenda space on the 9th.

We'll notice that there is only one item out of this entire agenda of nine items that is actually a rezoning request.

These are all short-term rental applications that aren't within 300 feet of another short-term rental.

However, they are not owner-occupied dwelling units.

There are eight short-term rental applications, and then there are uh there is one rezoning application from AG to IG.

That is uh a parcel that is adjoining and just to the north east of what was at the corner or is at the corner of uh U.S.

Highway 63 and Paris Road that was rezoned for the purposes of uh an RV park, a commercial zoning designation.

This is the property that is to the northeast of that.

Um we'll unpack that request of why we need IG in this particular location.

It does have frontage along the Paris Road corridor, so that may be a little bit of the explanation uh for the IG designation.

The rest of this is pretty standard fare for what we are spending a tremendous amount of our time on uh as a staff.

Uh so you have familiarity with the parcels we're talking about.

The first two slides on the left of this graphic are short-term rentals, uh, one on Southwest Boulevard, one on St.

Michael Street, uh, the I A to IG parcel there that is just off the interchange of U.S.

63 and Paris Road, uh, East Ash Street uh and North 9th, and then uh South Old Highway 63 uh in an apartment complex.

Uh and then our final short-term rental request off of 4216 Forum Boulevard down on the south end of town, just south of uh Nyphong uh boulevard.

Those are your nine items for the eight uh for the uh October 9th agenda of the October 20th agenda uh at this point has um not nearly that many items on it, but if I'm not incorrect, they are.

We will have uh the October 23rd agenda, we'll have our tabled item uh for uh final plat and that design adjustment, and then I believe the remaining items on that agenda, which are two or three are short-term rental requests as well.

Volume on concept reviews for actual development.

Uh I can tell you that that volume is still uh robust.

We are still conducting concept reviews on things that aren't short-term rentals.

Uh so we will hopefully over our winter months be able to see some things that are coming in.

Uh we are also uh, of course, exploring areas of where we are looking at plan zoning districts that are seeking to be moved out of plan zone.

So we are continuing to continue to see uh requests for that type of activity as well.

Um may not be aware.

Uh uh.

My senior planner Miriam has uh she resigned her position uh in uh mid-October or mid-August.

Uh so we will we are down a senior planner at this point.

Um Mr.

Smith will begin his tenure with the City of Columbia uh for the second tour at the end of this month as our new director.

So at this juncture right now, uh we are uh in a in a moment of transition.

That moment of transition uh is having an impact as it relates to moving on to our next major initiative, which is the city's comprehensive plan.

I would also like to inform you that the short-term rental regulation amendment, which I did indicate was intended to go forward on uh the October 6th agenda with City Council first reading, is not being introduced.

It will be being held until such time as we are able to have a work session with the City Council to describe the purposes and the intent of that regulatory amendment.

We appreciate the correspondence that the Commission has produced.

That has been provided.

However, it was a management decision to hold that off.

So we will continue to be processing short-term rental requests as we have been through the Commission until such time as there is some resolution to that amendment.

The short-term rental contract for our vendor services, however, will likely be being introduced at the second meeting in October for council, such that we can hopefully secure those services before the end of this calendar year to assist.

And so the public understands that may be interested or follows us on television.

Compliance with the short-term rental regulations began June 1 of this year, full compliance.

We are beginning the process of prosecution at this point.

So we strongly encourage those that are still not licensed to please avail yourself of this process to avoid the process of having to go through being cited and being prosecuted with the municipal court.

While our staff will work with you to ensure that we can get you through the regulatory process as easily as possible, but we are beginning the process now of enforcing after two notices being sent.

And if you have not responded after receiving those notices, you are most likely going to receive a notice of a court hearing date in the near future.

With that, I appreciate your attention this evening.

As I indicated during work session, we will hold our annual elections for planning and zoning commission officers at our first meeting in October.

And we will be looking at hopefully wrapping up the technical component of our evaluation of the UDC at this point, so I can start to bring you back the text changes that are specific to Article 5 and Appendix A.

With that, that is all we have to offer.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We will go to Commissioner comments.

Are there any Commissioner comments this evening?

None.

Commissioner Stanton, did you want to say something?

Madam Chair, thank you.

I'll move to adjourn.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Without objection, we stand adjourned.