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

May we please have a roll call, Commissioner Brodsky?

Commissioner Stockton.

Here.

Commissioner Walters.

Here.

Commissioner Wilson.

Here.

I am here.

Commissioner Darr.

Here.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Here.

Commissioner Gray?

Here.

And Commissioner Ortiz.

Here.

Commissioner Stanton is absent.

We have a quorum of eight.

Thank you.

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

Zinner?

No, there are not, ma'am.

There are a motion to approve the agenda.

Move to approve.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Gray, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz.

Is there a thumbs-up approval of the agenda?

Unanimous.

Thank you.

We all received a copy of the November 20th, 2025 regular meeting minutes.

Are there any changes or adjustments to the minutes?

Seeing none is there a motion to approve.

I move to approve the minutes.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there a thumbs up approval of the minutes?

Unanimous with Commissioner Wilson abstaining.

Excellent.

Our first item for the evening is a withdrawn item, case number 13-2026, a request by CB Butch Surveying LLC agent on behalf of NABLE and Dana.

Excuse me, BE owners for approval of an R1 one-family dwelling permanent zoning upon annexation of a 6.57-acre parcel located approximately 1,400 feet southwest of the intersection of East Gans Road and South Gannes Creek Road.

This matter has been withdrawn by the applicant from further consideration.

Do we have a staff report on the withdrawal?

The withdrawal is just that.

It is a withdrawal.

This item uh was identified as actually being a candidate for another form of annexation and therefore uh is being presently prepared for processing uh utilizing what we refer to as a contiguous annexation agreement procedure.

Um as such, uh the permanent zoning request that was scheduled for this evening is not necessary.

Very good.

Well, thank you.

And we don't have to take any action on that, right?

Like the I know that's a silly question.

This is just asking if we can do uh uh we don't have to do anything else.

This is just notifying everyone that it's been withdrawn.

Exactly.

I mean well, we should see if there are any objections to it's not a tabling, so it's a withdrawal.

So no, you're I'm sorry, you're correct.

There's no action needed from the commission.

It's so rare that we withdraw instead of table.

All right, very good.

Um in that case, we will move on to our public hearing for the evening.

Case number 19-2026, a request by Monarch Architecture Agent on behalf of James and Janet Rogers owners for approval of the conditional use permit C UP to allow an accessory dwelling unit, ADU, to be constructed on property addressed 105 South Glenwood Avenue, pursuant to the standards of Section 29-3.3 G G and Section 29-6.4 M2 of the Unified Development Code.

The approximately 0.69 acre subject site is zoned R1, one family dwelling, and is located 380 feet south of the West Broadway and South Glenwood Avenue intersection.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may.

Thank you for the introduction.

For public notice, we sent out early note and post early notification postcards on November 3rd, just alerting the uh surrounding uh properties of this action.

We sent out public hearing letters on November 17th, and there are 31 of those, just alerting everyone for the public hearing and the date which that would transpire.

And then we ran an ad in the Tribune on the 18th of November for the same reason.

Here is an aerial overview of the subject site highlighted in red.

The subject site is zoned R1, and so are the uh adjacent properties.

And is also the site itself has a single family residence on it, and uh the neighboring properties also have single family properties.

Just to help kind of get your bearings a little further here, to the north or to the right of your screen is that west uh West Broadway Boulevard.

With this being a conditional use permit approval, it is required request in the R1 zoning, it is required that it conditioned use permit is a sought.

The proposed ADU is uh depicted to be 799 square feet, and it the ADU requests must meet the use specific standards in 29-3 G G and the conditional use standards of 29-6 M2i.

Here is the uh submitted plot plan for the ADU.

As you can see, the attached plan, uh the ADU will be attached to a new garage, roughly 43 feet to the west of the principal residence.

Of note is the aggregate uh main floor square footage of the garage in ADU.

It is depicted as being 1,839 square feet.

This is important because that combined square footage must be less than that of the first floor of the principal residence, and currently it is not.

So though a building permit has been issued to expand the principal home principal home's main floor by 220 square feet, bringing it to 1,841 square feet, and making the accessory structures permissible.

So the accessory structures are permissible contingent on the addition to that primary dwelling's main floor.

The analysis by staff finds that the uh request is compliant with the use specific standards of Section 29 3 GG.

These largely contemplate the height, setbacks, structure size, et cetera.

Though the following criteria will be evaluated with the building plans.

Standard five of those use specific standards are relates to building height, and that height must be must not exceed 24 feet or that of the principal uh structure.

And the applicant has stated that the unit will be compliant, though without the elevation private staff, we cannot make that termination ourselves, and that will wait.

And also standard six relating to the parking demands.

The floor plans were not submitted as part of this submission, so that parking requirement cannot be determined.

Though as per trade now, all parking would be sufficient, but without those floor plans in hand, we're not going to make that assertion.

The ADU C UP requests are subject to also the general criteria of Section 29-4 M2I.

This section contemplates the compliance and conformance of the zoning, the comprehensive plan, neighborhood character, and the adequacy of the infrastructure.

So we'll kind of rattle through these here.

So criterion A, the applicant is compliant with the use specific standards and pursuing the condition use permit as required in the R1 zoning district.

Criterion B, this CUP would support many comprehensive plan goals and recommendations, and also recommendations from the county and city housing study.

These being land use and principles and policies found in section found in the livable and sustainable community section.

This portion uh states that ADUs can be part of the planning process when looking to increase density at the neighborhood level.

Going on to the next bullet, the land use and principles policies in the growth management section.

This notes that accessory dwelling units can be an option to increase density.

And uh transitioning over to the Boone County and Boone County and City of Columbia housing study.

This notes that ADUs are an alternative housing model to expand and improve housing opportunities and a way to capitalize on already existing infrastructure.

Going to criterion C here, staff does not believe an ADU would be inconsistent with the neighbor character or detrimental to the neighborhood properties.

The applicant has stated there are many detached garages with livable areas already existing in the neighborhood.

Criterion D, there is adequate access uh proposed as depicted with the plot plan.

Criterion E, there is sufficient infrastructure already in place, though a 16-foot utility easement would need to be dedicated for already existing overhead electrical facilities on the site.

Criterion F that it is unlikely that the ADU would impose adverse impacts to surrounding properties.

Janet Rogers intends on residing in the property and will in the property will be renovated and maintained.

We received two letters in opposition and one in support.

The letters in opposition stated there is a concern with the intent of the proposal, safety, privacy, and inaccuracies and inconsistencies within the application.

Both those letters also noted that the request is not consistent with the neighborhood's character.

The letter in support states they are in favor of the ADU and that the lot is deep and can accommodate infill without compromise compromising neighborhood character.

In conclusion, the general uh conditional use permit review would support approval that and it would be compliant with the use specific standards per the provided plot plan and staff analysis.

Staff's recommendation is that the CUP that you approve the CUP request subject to the following, and that no more than one of the two dwelling units may be a rental unit at a given time.

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 parties to this case outside of a public hearing, please disclose on now.

Seeing oh, sorry, go ahead, Commissioner Brodsky.

Yes, uh so the Rogers family are friends of mine uh from many years from high school.

Um I did know about this application.

Um, didn't know any of the specifics, um, but uh they shared the letter with me that we all looked at asked me about uh visual aids that they could bring.

But that's the extent to my communication.

Thank you for that disclosure.

Anyone else?

Seeing none, are there questions for staff?

Go ahead, Commissioner Bradsky.

Slow on the draw there.

Um of the issues raised by one of the neighbors is that currently the house, the way it is built now, wouldn't allow for the amount of square footage on the additional buildings.

And the wacky reality where the garage and the ADE were built and the renovations on the house aren't, and those ratios aren't maintained, what would be the result?

I would say the course of action there would be have the addition to the primary dwelling done first, which there is already a permit out for has not been concluded yet.

And then they'd be allowed to permit the other uh aspects of those accessory dwellings, that being the garage and the dwelling uh accessory dwelling unit.

Would that that how you say that?

That would be that would have been my suggestion as well.

Is that while we are offering the single condition here, which is a standard planning commission condition in an R1 ADU situation, that if the Commission is concerned in regards to the addition, the garage and the ADU addition occurring prior to the addition of the home, that the home addition needs to be initiated.

Um that does not necessarily ensure, and I would say initiated, not completed, because uh the the um economies of scale with having a single concrete truck going out to pour the foundations for all of that need to be given consideration.

Uh but the construction of the home needs to proceed prior to the issuance of any permit for the accessory structures.

Uh if that is done, and then the construction of the improvements to the primary home fail, but the garage and the ADU get done sooner.

Um we're speculating that that would be the case.

Uh at that point, and uh a variance request before the Board of Adjustment would need to be brought forward to address the issue of more accessory square footage than principal square footage.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Seeing none, we will uh go to public comment.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this case?

If so, please come forward.

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

You'll need to state your name and address for the record when you begin.

Good evening.

I'm Marge VM, representing our R1 property at 124 Lindell Drive, immediately adjacent to 105 South Glenwood on the west side.

My husband and I purchased our first home in Columbia 59 years ago, specifically with R1 zoning for a single family residential neighborhood with privacy and safety for our children, as well as preservation of the character of the neighborhood with green space in our yard, air and light.

We have not been disappointed as R1 enforcement has been consistent with stable zoning over these many years.

This application for a conditional use permit for a variance to construct an accessory dwelling ADU in an R1 neighborhood will place a permanent two second home on the property, not a garage, but a permanent second home that already has a large four-bedroom home.

This appears to be against the 2024 regulations set for ADUs in R1, and it would be more appropriate and acceptable for an R2.

The impact of this request should be more accurately described as an effort to rezone one property in R1 to R2 density.

The variants will set a precedent for the dissolution of R1 neighborhoods, not only in our area, but for all R1 neighbor residents within the city who have purchased their property in good faith and who trust the city for stable zoning.

With loosely enforced and compromised R1 zoning, people will not be attracted to purchase homes in Columbia in the future with this uncertainty and growth in financial outlook of the city will be affected negatively.

We received a letter from the Rogers family indicating there will not be any long-term rental.

However, in two news sources, they have indicated their true intent to do so, as well as the architectural drawing, which indicates a two-story structure connected to a three-car garage with stairs to the second floor and access by the ADU.

This indicates to us the possibility of two future rental units.

Personally, the ADU will have significant on our property with increased occupants noise, trash, increased traffic, and additional parking as we navigate the narrow street.

As there is little vegetation on our boundary, the new structure will be constantly in our view from our living space, and with a small boundary will impinge on our back small backyard, intruding on and greatly reducing our privacy.

This request for a second permanent dwelling structure on R1 lot directly adjacent to our R1 property in R1 neighborhood, in our opinion, should not be approved.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Are there any questions?

Oh, ma'am, would you just wait a moment?

Are there any questions for the speaker?

Seeing none, thank you very much for being here.

Anyone else to speak on this case?

Please come forward.

All right.

I'd like to thank the planning and zoning.

Oh, I'm sorry, your name and address for the record before you begin.

Thank you.

My name is Scott Holand.

My wife, Kristen Beam and I live at 111 South Glenwood Avenue, immediately adjacent to 105 South Glenwood, and sharing the full 286-foot southern boundary.

We oppose the request for a CUP to allow an ADU at this location.

Our home was built in 1908 and is located in the Westwood edition of the historic Old Southwest.

This Westwood edition was developed between 1905 and 1930 and has a unified historical character that should be preserved.

This proposal would introduce two dwelling units on a single R1 lot, which is only permissible through the discretionary approval.

While the lot may meet dimensional standards, the proposed use itself is not consistent with the historic R1 character of this neighborhood and sets a precedent that could have significantly adverse impacts on the old the historic old Southwest and in relation to our notable historical property.

We also believe this proposal does not entirely align with the city's comprehensive plan, Columbia Imagine.

Goal 1 specifically calls for preserving neighborhood character and discouraging contextually inappropriate redevelopment in historic neighborhoods.

Policy three, which is which is cited in support of this project, uses generic citywide language about growth and infrastructure efficiency, but it does not provide guidance for R1 historic neighborhoods.

The proposed garage ADU footprint would approach 1,850 square feet and potentially two stories, which is at maximum allowable scale and not characteristic of surrounding development.

We also have several other important concerns.

The legality of the AEDU depends entirely on future expansion of the main house to maintain square footage subordination.

The existing 120-year-old home shows visible exterior deterioration and success of that expansion remains uncertain.

No architectural elevation verified height measurements have been provided.

The proposal references being under 25 feet while the legal limit is 24 feet, and a mass of that size typically reflects two full stories.

The floor plan shows interior stairs between the ADU and the garage storage, creating uncertainty about whether this space could later function as habitable area.

Privacy impacts are not accurately reflected.

Existing vegetation is not described, and direct sight lines into adjacent yards exist.

I included photographs in the rebuttal letter.

Also, the report only addressed sight lines from the frontage road and failed to address site lines from secondary streets such as Moffitt.

Taken together, these issues create real potential for significant adverse impacts to adjacent properties and the historic old Southwest neighborhood.

For these reasons, we oppose the approval of this CUP.

At minimum, the absence of complete architectural and other relevant information warrants a deferral so the proposal can be fully evaluated by staff, the commission, and the public.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for the speaker?

Seeing none, thank you for being here tonight.

Next speaker on this case, please come forward.

My name is Kristen VM, and I live at 111 South Glenwood Avenue.

I live there with my husband Scott and our two children.

We oppose the CUP to allow an ADU at 105 South Glenwood.

And a few of our concerns are number one, it is uncertain whether or for how long the owner would reside in the ADU.

While neighbors were told that there was no intent to rent, one of the owners is quoted in local media referencing their long-term rental plans, highlighting that future use is uncertain and not enforceable through the CUP.

I would also like to emphasize that although the public notice letter met notification requirements, they were received in the neighborhood after November 18th, and the staff report was not available until the end of the day on November 26th, one day before Thanksgiving, during the busiest travel season of the year, significantly limiting the opportunity for neighborhood review and comment.

And to work with the Historic Preservation Commission to prepare a historic preservation plan, including surveying areas of historical significance and developing strategies for their preservation.

Further, the report recommended development of guidelines and standards in relation to existing residential neighborhoods before realizing development pressure.

So this was marked as a high priority by the community, yet none of these planning processes have occurred.

In summary, the lack of any architectural detail to assess compliance with the historic nature, the extremely large size of the overall proposed structure, which appears to be approximately 3,000 square feet and up to 24 feet tall, the lack of any effort to incorporate neighborhood planning in conjunction with the historic preservation commission, and the unfortunate timing of the notification over the holiday, together warrant a deferral to allow more time for the public to assess the impact of the proposal.

Thank you for time.

Thank you.

Any questions for the speaker?

See none.

Thank you so much for being here tonight.

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

Hi.

Hi, my name is Adrian Stalwick.

I live at 212 Hearth Avenue.

Adrian, can you pull it?

Yeah.

There we go.

Isn't that better?

Yes.

Okay.

I'm with uh Adrian Stalwick 212 Hearth Avenue.

I'm with Monarch Architecture, and I've been working with uh the Rogers family on the addition to the home at 105 South Glenwood and plans for an accessory dwelling unit.

Um there's a lot of concerns that have been brought up in the two letters by um the neighbors that I want to go through as much as I can in the six minute time, but I'm sure you'll have questions, and we may not be able to get through everything.

Um but I'll be referencing a letter that I sent today that you should have copies of.

Um and I want to start with just kind of some overarching um context for the accessory dwelling unit.

So the Rogers family, which is here tonight, Kitty uh Janet, who goes by Kitty Rogers, her son um Brian is here, and his uh fiance, Aaron Seahorn, are collectively working on this project.

Uh Janet is the owner of the property, and I apologize for the clerical error.

Uh, a beneficiary deed is the most recent deed, and um Janet's husband died in 2024, Jim.

And a few years prior to that, he was diagnosed with leukemia, and um Janet or Kitty and Jim moved out of the house.

But Jim spent a lot of time there, so it was not vacant.

Um since his passing, they've decided that the best course of action for their family would be to build an accessory dwelling unit at grade because it can be much more accessible for Kitty to live in, and Brian and Aaron and their children would live in the main house.

Um I have called the Rogers family like the poster child family for accessory dwelling units because they are really typifying the people who can benefit from this.

Uh, an aging person who wants to live closer to family, a family that's also that's concerned about an elderly parent, but also their children and how how can they create affordable housing for their family at a property that uh Kitty has owned for 40 years, and uh her son has intentioned to you know keep this in the family.

So uh to go just starting at the first bullet point in my um letter, I want to address the disruption to the character and nature of the old historic Southwest neighborhood.

Um, as I've mentioned, the Rogers family is really deeply rooted in this neighborhood, and we um appreciate the concerns of the neighbors, uh, but we're also aware that historic neighborhoods in a lot of ways are kind of ideal candidates for accessory dwelling units because they have a lot of existing detached garages.

Um it's pretty it's almost easier to design an accessory dwelling unit in historic neighborhood than it is with one with attached garages that you know project in front of the house.

And there's a lot of existing accessory structure accessory um structures, I'll say, that have living space on Glenwood, even.

So I feel like there's a lot of precedent even in the old um Southwest neighborhood for this type of structure.

Uh a second concern that's been raised is that this ADU would set a precedent degrading R1 protections across all R1 districts.

And our thought is really this project is not that unique because there have been other cases that have come before the Planning and Zoning Commission requesting a CUP to build an ADU in an R1 zone.

So this is not the first project, and it wouldn't really be precedent setting.

I think what would uh uh allay concerns is that uh as the staff report notes, it has been customary practice to condition approval of the CUP in an R1 zone such that only one of the dwellings on the lot may be placed into a long-term rental status.

And we are in support of that condition, and I think that that um you know, unlike situations where you might have an outside developer wanting to come in and build an accessory dwelling unit and rent it out to two separate rent out the main house and the ADU to separate parties or use it as a short-term rental, which are known very contentious issues, their intended use I think is uh pretty standard.

The next um bullet point is regarding the Columbia imagined plan.

And while it is true that policy three, uh my reading of it didn't specifically reference ADUs in R1 zones.

I made a copy of the map uh that's given growth priority areas.

And uh it talks about accessory dwelling units, like options should be considered to introduce density and alternative housing options in established neighborhood strategies to achieve this goal may include accessory dwelling options.

So if you look at tier one, it doesn't talk about zoning, but it's clearly covering a large swath of Central Columbia, which includes R1 and other zones.

So going on to the next topic, um, just the property owner and intended occupants.

I think I've already uh clarified that.

Um then the second point, ADU construction is premature until the main house edition is complete.

Um couple points just to clarify there.

I think that there is another regulatory mechanism that ought to um allay concerns about the front house perhaps not getting added on to that addition not being complete, but an accessory structure you know being constructed, and that would be the withholding of a certificate of occupancy.

Um my conversations with the planning staff indicated that that that could be a reality.

If the um ADU were constructed but the front house was not added on to, then the they could not move into the ADU or the main house.

And that's sort of a uh regul mechanism that exists to deter any builder from engaging in a project that they can't complete.

Um the other thing I think it's worth noting is that if the Rogers family had decided to build an ADU above the garage, then this wouldn't even be an issue because the footprint of the detached structure would be smaller.

But it really makes no sense for them to build a second-story ADU when the intended occupant is uh an elderly person.

Um the third point is that Monarch's architecture submitted plan doesn't provide sufficient information to assess visual privacy impacts to neighbors.

Um I just note here that the plan was reviewed by city staff and found to be fully compliant with uh the regulatory requirements.

Um I do not recommend that clients finish the architectural design for a project if we don't have the confidence that um a conditional use permit will be granted.

It's a lot of expense.

So we proceeded with the design to a certain point to where we had confidence that, like, yes, more or less this is what will work.

We can work within this framework.

Um, and that's what um this uh drawing was created.

So I submitted a drawing that you all saw with colored diagrams.

Um the neighbors uh manipulated the PDF and deleted the colored diagrams to reveal a draft plan below, which is a typical course of action for how I would work.

I took one of the plans that most represented something that you know could work for the clients, but it's not a final plan in any case.

Um and it does show a staircase because as noted in our original submission, the uh Rogers family would like to have some storage above the garage.

Uh so you have to get to the storage via a staircase.

Can you wrap up?

Yep, sure.

Um there's more that I could go on here, uh, but I'll I will stop.

Thank you.

Any questions from Stollock?

Um, go ahead, Commissioner Darr.

How many ADUs have you done in Columbia?

You know, I've designed a lot of hypothetical ADUs.

Um, but I I've constructed my own ADU, uh, designed and constructed that one.

I worked um on a design for one other one that has been permitted and constructed.

Um I've kind of helped advise some other people on some ADU conversions, but I wasn't formally a process of those.

It formally in the process.

Okay.

Thank you.

Other questions.

Um I have a question.

Um if you want me to wait and ask staff at the end, that's fine.

But it it occurs to me that there may be a misunderstanding of how the ADU ordinances work, even if they wanted to construct a second ADU, which would be three units above the garage, our ordinances don't allow that the way I understand them.

Our ordinances don't allow that the way I understand them.

Is that how you understand them?

Totally.

Like it would so I think that the neighbors are concerned that the Rogers family could illegally expand the ADU into the second story space, which is uh just a little presumptive to assume that the Rogers have you know intentions to do something illegally and that I would ask that the the CUP not be denied on the suspicion of potential like misuse of the project of the building.

And you don't have a building permit for the garage or the ADU at this time.

The only building permit that has been procured is to add on to the main house, which they have intended to do all along, but also is necessary to increase the the total area of the main house footprint so that the aggregate area of all accessory structures is less than the main house.

Is that expansion of the main house in conjunction with it looks like probably needs to do some renovation to the main house?

So are we talking about a larger renovation and this is just part of it or definitely deferred maintenance on the house.

And so like the neighbors showed some pictures, the some shrubs have already started to be removed, which is revealing, you know, just in uh damage to the facade that needs to be repaired.

So they're already working with they have a they have a building permit to renovate that house and add on to it.

They've started the work, they're doing assessments on the interior of it.

Um they've you know talked with the plumber about connecting to the sewer, all that sort of stuff.

So that that is rolling the addition to that house.

And it will be more than just an addition, it's an addition and a pretty large-scale renovation.

And there's not currently a garage on the property, or is there a lot of people?

There is a garage that's like not in very good condition and would be demolished to build the new it's a detached garage.

It looks more like a shed.

But yeah, I haven't been in it myself.

So thank you.

Any other thing.

Real quick, is the proposed new driveway actually the old driveway?

I mean, will it will the the driveway that exists on the property now?

Would that still basically be the width of the if they repave the driveways?

Will it be will the new driveway be any wider than the existing driveway, I guess?

I I have not measured the existing driveway.

It's paved.

Um that's fine.

I just didn't know if it had to come up yet.

So we haven't really gotten into that specifics.

Okay, thanks.

Anyone else seeing none?

Thank you very much for being here tonight.

Okay.

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

My name is Brian Rogers.

Um I currently reside at 1201 Tory Pines Drive with my mother and fiance and our two kids.

Um I just wanted to reiterate that we're really excited to move back to the neighborhood.

And we um we're looking forward to adding value to the house.

And we feel poorly that it has fallen into such a sad state.

Um but our plan, yes, is to renovate the entire place to add on and to create a suitable living space for my mother.

Um it it makes sense for us to do it at the same time in terms of cost efficiency, um, just the construction process.

If we had to get them out there twice.

It would add a lot, a lot of expense to the project.

Um just in conclusion, like I grew up in that house.

I love the neighborhood.

I love the school system there.

And I've always wanted to move my family back there.

And now that we have the opportunity, um, I hope you can grant us a permit so we can all live there safely and comfortably.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Next speaker on this case, please come forward.

Uh my name is Mike Martin.

I I reside at 206 South Glenwood, which is up the street, two houses and across the street.

So like right there.

My wife and I raised our family on Glenwood.

Um we've been there for what are we talking?

23 years this year.

And we've been familiar with the Rogers house the whole time.

And it's been great to see the big bushes in front of the house.

I forget what they're called, but they're gone now.

And you've got this this beautiful home behind those bushes.

I'm gonna have to speak as a distant observer supporter of this plan because there is no way that my thoughts on this can supersede immediate next door neighbors.

If they don't like it, you know, that's that's gonna have to take a priority, and I get that.

But uh and in that sense, I'll I'll say that we have two other ADU type dwellings on Glenwood that were built over garages and are very nice while we were living there.

One is one door one house over from us, and the other is two houses over from us, both on the same side of the street.

They were used as long-term rentals, and I think they still are.

The one uh had veterinary pathology students in it for a long time, and the other I think has had a variety of people with the university, and you know, folks that that want to live in the old Southwest.

And they're they were very appropriate to the to the homes that they're with, a couple of the nicest homes on the street, and have have done great.

So no no issues there.

And I realize this is a different plan.

But so you've got that.

Then Adrian's reputation as an architect, especially with ADUs, is is great.

She uh she even gave a class on constructing them.

She lives on Hearth, she understands the whole nature of the neighborhood.

I mean, I think she's got an ADU on her property, and it's very, very cool.

So um, you know, and that that to me is is is really important.

Um the other thing I'd say is, you know, we did not get copies of the letters for either supporters or opponents of this plan.

We only got the notification of the meeting.

And I went online and checked out the staff report and the agenda that usually has the additional information, and none of that was there.

And I think that's really important to know.

I mean, I'm I was hustling over here from another meeting tonight, walking, because my my wife was was bringing the car, and I come in and I'm like, oh my God, somebody opposes this.

Two people oppose it, and they both live right next door.

So that's really important for other neighbors to know before they come up and speak.

So this sounds like, you know, um uh probably could be a really good plan.

It sounds like it's gonna need some work, and man, you've got to keep those next door neighbors happy.

So good luck with this.

You're working with a great architect and great neighbors, and that house is great.

It really is.

It's very cool.

And it's nice to see there's a there's an old Volkswagen station wagon in the back, an orange, and there's another car, and it's just we have a whole lot of young families coming into the neighborhood now, and we're seeing that kind of change, and I'm I'm hoping something works out that uh makes this you know winnable for everybody.

So thank you, commissioners, and good luck with this.

Take care.

Thank you.

Any questions for Mr.

Martin?

Oh, Commissioner Ortiz, go ahead.

Hi, um, just as a point of clarification, the letters that um we have in front of us were sent after the agenda was published.

So that's why they're not attached, but they should be attached.

If this were to go to council, um they'll be attached.

They're not online though.

They're not gonna be able to do that.

Right, because the agenda was already published.

Right, okay.

So I but and I I don't think we got I don't remember getting anything in the mail about them.

But yeah, I hadn't I hadn't seen them.

But anyway, um there you go.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Thank you for being here tonight.

Next speaker on this case.

Come forward.

Hi, I'm Aaron Seahorn, and I live at 1201 Tory Pines with my fiance Brian and his mom, uh Kitty, Janet.

Um I find this whole process very fascinating.

Um I it's been really interesting to you.

Can you pull the mic towards you, please?

Yeah.

It's been really interesting.

Is that better?

Yes.

Uh, to walk through this process and um kind of learn about how the the whole thing works.

Uh but what I what I really want to stand up here and say is that um I am very enthusiastic about affordable housing uh in a prior lifetime I worked uh for a nonprofit that we helped people transition from homelessness or domestic violence situations into new housing, whether it was apartments or um duplexes or what have you, but the most important thing that we did was we helped them furnish their homes with donations from the community.

And I don't have a lot of things that I get up on my soapbox about, but affordable housing is one of them.

Um and also just the fact that we have the opportunity to have Brian's mom so close to us in the house that he grew up in is really um it's special.

My parents live two hours away in Kansas City, and I would love to have them uh close to me.

And you know, they're not getting any younger.

Uh and I worry about what is gonna happen to my mom or my dad should one of them you know pass on.

Uh and so it's especially with the gym um passing away, uh it's just been really um important that we have Kitty as close to us as we can.

Um the other thing that I just want to clarify is that um the article that was written by a lovely student journalist named Will.

He's very excited about the whole ADU process.

Um I um was very enthusiastic in um my conversations with him, but um I just want to point out that uh I did say that we have a desire to build an ADU to support an aging family member, and also to showcase to communities how they can start to build affordable housing.

If it got misconstrued that I have plans for the future to rent that out as an Airbnb, that is not my intention.

Um I mean, I would love Kitty to be there until you know she's 110.

We don't know how long people are gonna be with us.

We don't know how long any of our neighbors are going to be with us, but the um the intent was never to um to rent it out as an Airbnb, and and that's really what I wanted to um uh get across to you all as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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.

Hi, I'm Kitty Rogers.

I will be the one living in this if it gets built.

Ms.

Rogers, can you give us your address, please?

I'm sorry.

I live at 1201 Tory Pines, and I lived at 105 South Glenwood for 40 some odd years until my husband got ill and I had a problem with hips and knees and couldn't do stairs.

So even though the house has four bedrooms, three in which three of which will be occupied, I cannot do the second floor.

There will not be a second floor on the ADU because I still cannot do stairs.

But my soon-to-be daughter-in-law suggested this was her idea that that we build this ADU for me, and I was thrilled that my children, my soon-to-be daughter-in-law, want me to live with them or live as closely to them as possible, and they want to take care of me in my old age.

I hope it's a long time that they have to do this, but we don't know.

And I I think a little two-bedroom or two-room addition to the garage would be just excellent for me.

That's all.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Anyone else to speak on this case, please come forward.

Come on.

Hello, my name's Lewis Wilson.

I live at 404 West Broadway.

I'm some distance from this project.

Um generally in the neighborhood and generally in the old Southwest since the south side of West Broadway.

More or less creates the northernmost boundary of the old Southwest.

I live at a house that was built roughly 1920.

The house next to me at 400 West Broadway was built almost somewhere within the same branch, a year or two different.

And to the claim that the neighborhood has a history of being an R1 neighborhood, it wasn't until I believe 1935 that the city through general ordinance adopted zoning prior to 1935.

There wasn't zoning.

And there's a history in that neighborhood of actually more mixed use than people think.

The house next to me at 400 when I moved in, I noticed it had separate electric meters.

And over time I got to know the neighbors, I inquired, and they had found original plans for the house.

The house was once a single residence below with four rentable bedrooms above.

And I've been in the house and I can see the modifications were made to stairways to do that.

There's houses on Stewart that also have apartments above.

So the actual history of the neighborhood is one of actual more mixed density when there were no R1s.

R1 zoning is an artifice that was imposed upon a neighborhood that functioned as a what I would call housing housing that meets more we call the missing middle.

In other words, a little higher density.

Density isn't a bad word when you're just adding a person here or there.

We're not talking about six-story apartment buildings or anything like that.

So in general, I would like to say that I'm in favor of this proposal.

I don't see it as a negative in fact.

That might be something I might like to do someday too, although I'm not asking for your favor at this moment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

I I have one.

Do we know did this go out to the old Southwest mailing group, Westwood neighbors?

The historic West Broadway neighborhood thing, yes.

That.

I can't recall properly.

I get a bunch of posts.

I also like to clarify I'm not speaking on behalf of the neighborhood association.

But I am the mailing recipient for those things, and I get too many of them to keep track of them.

And I simply I follow your agenda to know what's coming up here, so I might have, but I I cannot promise you that it did happen.

Thanks.

It just curiosity.

Appreciate it.

Thank you very much for being here tonight.

Anybody else to speak on this case?

Please come forward.

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

Are there any commissioner comments?

Commissioner Darr?

Um staff, can you refresh my memory for this conditional use permit?

Is this just for the applicant or does it follow the property?

Like I'm thinking like short-term rentals, it's only for the applicant and they sell the property that conditional use permit does not follow.

Yeah, the no, the ADU would persist if the property would be sold.

This was a CUP, this is a CUP for the use.

So uh the property will be entitled to this.

It is not tied directly to the property owner themselves.

It is property specific.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other commission Commissioner Walters?

I'm making a short comment.

Just to broaden the context for this discussion of ADUs is that this is not something new and radical that the city is taking on.

The ADUs are occurring nationwide.

And many, many, many municipalities are dealing with incorporating them for various reasons, mostly like ours, like what concerns us locally is uh housing cost.

So I just thought to maybe for the record put it out there that this is just not something that's someone's wild hair idea to start with.

Commissioner Ortiz?

I'll just add there was some concern that this may turn into a rental.

There's nothing stopping R1 properties from being rentals right now, um, nor should there be.

Uh so if that's a concern, it's going to persist.

Anyone else?

Um I would just add that in this particular part, a lot of the lots are quite large, and a lot of them have detached garages in the back that are two and three-car garages, often with a second story, whether that's for storage, whether that's for you know, a I don't know if we want to call it a rumpus room, a she shed, a man cave, or whatever entertaining space.

I know that there are a lot of structures that are similar, at least in footprint and elevation, if not in direct use.

Um in addition to that, I would point out that we have had many discussions with staff about ADUs being built without coming for proper permitting because they are not fully disclosed as to what their use is going to be.

And whether that's because it was before we had the ADU ordinances or whether that's because the use changed over time or whatever.

There are a lot of carriage house style buildings, particularly in the old Southwest, that I would suspect are probably ADUs but never came through this building or this body or city council.

So I I don't know that this is something that would be the first time it's ever been in the neighborhood kind of thing.

Now those properties that have those undocumented ADUs?

I don't know what what we want to call them.

But those don't get rental permits because they cannot be determined to be multiple dwelling units on the same property.

In this case, as was suggested, we can limit the property to one rental permit, regardless of how many dwelling units are found on it as part of the CUP.

And looking at legal to make sure I'm not misstating our abilities.

Yes, it's actually on the recommendation.

We can not for short-term rentals, but we can say that only one of the two dwelling units could be given a rental license.

Or one rental license per property.

Correct.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I I don't think we have to worry about this turning into a situation where we are looking at uh you know duplex style multiple rental properties at the same time kind of thing.

So anyway, that that's just kind of where my head's at as we're looking at this.

And I um you know, I I generally want to be sensitive to the neighbors, especially when they are directly next door.

I don't know that their hesitations and concerns should outweigh the ability of a property owner to use their property in a way that is responsible and not out of character with everything else in the neighborhood.

And that's where I'm struggling on this particular case is balancing those two things.

So just to comment and think out loud so folks know where my head's at.

Commissioner Walters.

They would have one rental license.

Well, that's what I'm saying.

Just for the benefit of the audience.

Correct.

The conditions in the permit would are not personal to the property owner, but would you know to use a legal term about run with the land?

I know.

As long as long as it's can it's continuously in existence if it was torn down or built back again, then the obviously the the conditions as they exist wouldn't apply.

But as long as that structure is there on the property.

Thank you.

I understand.

I just want to make sure the audience understands as well.

Commissioner Wilson.

I have a question.

I don't know if it's staff or legal, so I'll just ask the question.

Um making this motion, does it need to be noted that there is the dependency of the CUP on the expansion of the square footage of the original property?

Because it's not there.

So does it need to be stated in the record, I guess is what I'm asking.

The issuance of the accessory construction permit for the garage and the accessory dwelling unit that is desired that's the subject of this uh hearing cannot be issued.

It would not be issued.

Not for the fact that the existing permit for the expansion of the primary structure has been issued.

If you want to ensure that we do not proceed forward in issuing the accessory structure permit, which would be the garage and the ADU, I think it is appropriate to indicate that construction must be initiated prior to the issuance of the accessory structure permit.

That would be potentially calling for a footing and foundation inspection or something else.

The project would have to be initiated.

Is that already provided for in uh in code though?

I don't believe it is.

Okay.

And that's I that's that's the reason I'm advising that it be structured that way just so we it cover all of our bases.

Oh I'll agree with staff on that.

I am sorry, Mr.

Zinner.

Can you say that again until the addition is initiated?

Is that the word we are looking for?

Until the until construction on the addition to the primary residence has been initiated.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Commissioner Wall Street.

I am confused now.

Wouldn't it be better to s not better to say that uh occupancy of the accessory dwelling unit could not be approved until such and such occurs.

Because when if you were in a if you hired one contractor to do both the whole project and they wanted to simultaneously do some foundation work for both for both.

Should we get it as it get sticky in terms of well, they can't go here, they can only go here.

I think I thought that the occupancy thing was was uh that mentioned was mentioned earlier was a better protection for lack of a better word.

While I would tend to agree with you, uh, Commissioner Walters, I think that the concern is is you don't want a structure going up if we're not positive that the principal residence is being built.

The problem we have here is is a technical issue.

The permit for the expansion of the house has been issued.

So my our building department staff will look at the fact that we have an existing permit to expand the structure.

Therefore, there should be a permit issued for the accessory structure.

There is no limitation based on the fact that what they have in their records says that the primary home is being expanded.

Um technically that would be a very correct position to take.

However, based upon the concerns raised by the neighbors, if you're not going to initiate construction on the home by in essence beginning work on it and possibly calling for an inspection, and you start the ADU and the garage at the same time, and then you stop doing the work.

And I would agree that it's probably not you don't begin, you don't go down a path to do this type of renovation work unless you're going to complete it, because you are going to tear up an existing house.

I I think it is better.

I think it is better and more appropriate from the concerns that the neighbors have expressed about the scale of the dwelling and the garage that will be built to the rear, that we be assured that the primary home is being expanded before we authorize that.

I think the issuance of the CO, that is a secondary that's a secondary element.

Because if the house is not done, but they get the ADU and the garage done first.

Again, I think you you you we run into a we run into a situation that I'm not aware of that we've had that occur anywhere that in within the community to where you have got a fully completed structure and you have got a partially completed structure and you're being asked to issue the CO.

It's very possible that the CO on the partially completed structure, because they initiated construction could be issued.

And that is where my concern is.

I don't want to tie it to an AD, I don't want to tie it to a s to the actual certificate of occupancy.

I think you need to tie it to the actual physical beginning of a construction project.

And they may call for, they may, they may, they may do a footer inspection for the expansion of the house first.

And the contractor may be out there getting ready to do the footer for the garage.

I mean, they we're going to issue them a land disturbance permit, probably to do it all concurrently, but before the land disturbance permit would be at an at-risk permit at that point.

That is how we would handle it within our permitting process.

But to issue a full vertical permit for the garage and the ADU, I think needs to be restricted until we have at least initiated construction and an inspection will have occurred on the primary house.

At that point, we're somewhat assured that they are going to proceed, or more likely that they are going to proceed forward because they have made an investment.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments?

Go ahead, Commissioner Sidney.

Just wanted to vocalize uh we talked about Columbia Imagined and some of the things that we're striving to achieve in this community.

And I know you mentioned, you know, preservation is one of those, and I think the Rogers family is attempting to do that.

And we need to recognize that they're looking to improve this property next door to you, which will eventually raise your own home value, correct.

So I I I do have some personal circumstances.

My mother-in-law cannot visit us because we live in the historic Southwest and our bedrooms are on the second floor.

And so we've lived here three years.

Well, five, I guess.

And she never comes to visit.

So I have some heart strings for this situation.

And if you're fortunate enough, you have looks like similar names on here to live so close.

Consider yourself unique and lucky.

So I also have heart strings for affordable housing and density.

Whether you know it or not, Columbia is uniquely vulnerable.

We're on a top ten list for affordable housing in the future.

And everybody that has a house in this room is extremely fortunate.

A lot of I see a ton of students that every day just check that office.

They will never have one.

So it's this is a serious issue.

And I know that there are optics, and I lived in an old historic neighborhood, and I understand the value.

But we're in 2025 and it's a different era.

And I think we need to be open to the fact that there's different circumstances.

Multi-generational housing is something we need to consider.

You know, we don't have the luxury of just sprawling and sprawling and sprawling.

We know that we don't have the resources.

We have too many humans.

So I'll try to cap it there.

But I I've thought a lot about this.

I saw it come through, and at first I was very sympathetic, but the longer I thought about it from a larger standpoint, I think there are processes if it is obnoxious.

I did live in a historic neighborhood in Springfield, and somebody built a giant ADU for their motorhomes, and it was atrocious.

And so I get it.

Like I get the fear, but I I trust that this community and this municipality has those protections in place.

So I think it is always a compromise.

Like we said the other day, the best compromise is nobody's happy.

But um I'll be voting in favor of it.

I think that it's a unique and clever solution, and I think that ultimately the neighborhood will benefit.

And others might find it to be, you know.

Kiddies back, you know, all of these great things.

Anyone else with comments?

See none, would anyone Commissioner Wilson?

I was gonna attempt to make the motion.

Yeah.

All right, let's see what we can do here in the matter.

Case number 19-2026 105 South Glenwood Avenue ADU conditional use permit.

I recommend approval of the C UP request subject to the following.

No more than one of the two dwelling units, maybe a rental unit at any given time, and the construction on the primary property must have been initiated.

Second.

There is a motion and a second.

I'm getting a nod from legal.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

See oh Commissioner Gray, go ahead.

Uh yeah, I plan on supporting this motion.

I think uh if the criteria are that it aligns with the comprehensive plan and there is adequate infrastructure, it seems like uh it is in the character of the neighborhood, and it is an attempt at restoration and preservation.

And I support families.

Uh so I plan on supporting this.

Thank you.

Any further discussion on the motion?

Commissioner Brodsky.

Just real quick, uh Commissioner Stockton, did you do the second?

It was Commissioner Gray.

I did.

Yeah.

Any further discussion?

See none.

Commissioner Brodsky, when you're ready, may we have a roll call.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Commissioner Wilson.

Yes.

My vote is yes.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray?

Yes.

And Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

That concludes our cases for the evening.

We will go to public comments.

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

We keep to the same three-minute time limit that we do for case comments.

Good evening.

My name is Jay Gephardt, and I'm a civil engineer and a land surveyor own a company called Civil Group.

I'm here on my own tonight.

I have to say I appreciate the challenges you guys face for this.

And I was in the work session earlier, and uh some of the things that you were talking about are very, you know, just segue right into what happened tonight.

Um so I, you know, the challenge here with the small lot integration is going to be um what you are doing tonight is can you know trying to convince uh neighbors the change is okay.

And I appreciate that.

One of the things, the other challenges, though, that you know is you talk we talk about a replat of an existing lot in your work session.

And if you have an existing lot and you re-plat it, you break the stormwater redevelopment exemption.

Okay.

So this is a question more for Jesse, because Kavanaugh, when he wrote that um ordinance, he uh used the word exemption and he used the word exception.

Legally, I'm ignorant of the difference.

But if you read this chapter 12A, um if you're one acre or smaller, and you have any amount of impervious area, you are uh I think it's ex it's an exception to the ordinance.

So you did it what I way it was explained to me was it does not apply, period.

And then you go on, and there's other things in the Chapter 12A for that application of your one acre or greater, and you have a 12 percent of Imperius area, you are exempt.

And so um my my question or point for you all tonight is is that you guys are doing a great job of um chapter 29.

Pat is the expert in chapter 29, but there's other chapters in in all this stuff is interconnected and it's like a spiders web.

And every time we touch something, it expires through.

And you guys know that real well in in Chapter 29, but I'm trying to point out that there's other things.

So if you guys do this and you're successful, and um, but I can't I can't advise someone to replat this because now we have to do stormwater, full stormwater detention, water quality.

And that's gonna that just killed your affordability.

Just gone.

And Cody uh is a great resource for you guys on this.

He's um done designs for things like this.

So he can explain it better than I can on that.

The other thing that um part of uh this affordability issue if we're looking at things is you know, we're taking the the large cost of development and we're trying to divide it by a bigger number by having smaller lots, so we're getting you know less costs, but we're not looking at what's causing those costs, and part of that is street standards.

Um if you have a small lot uh subdivision and you're required to put barrier curves in, and you're taking out 80 to 90 percent of the curves for every driveway because they're small lots, right?

There's a driveway everywhere, um you've just built something that you're just cutting out and throwing away.

And so why not go back to allowing uh curb mount, you know, mountable curbs um for for uh streets, public streets.

So it's just a real small example of how uh the street standards, uh whether we talk about type MMlets and having to, you know, in this the whole stormwater regulations adds a tremendous amount of cost to all this.

And and you it's really complicated, and when you start trying to explain it to people, their eyes roll back in their head and they just want to be somewhere else.

But it's it's something that I think has to be uh thought of with all this.

And it's outside of chapter 29, and I understand it's outside your peer review, but I just want to bring to attention that you know if you really want to try to affect uh the what things cost and affordability of things, you have to look at everything.

And uh the what you guys are doing is great, it's a great step.

But um until you, you know, there's some of the things that we do with stormwater that are just crazy just to get the points that we have to get.

And like again, Cody can explain this better to you than even I can, but it's it's something that um is is needs to be addressed um and it isn't being and so this is my form to be able to say something.

So we appreciate you being here, Jay.

Thank you.

Always appreciate your history and input.

Any other member of the public who wishes to make a comment of a general nature?

Seeing none, we will go to staff comments, Mr.

Zinner.

So your next meeting will be on your next public meeting, uh public hearing meeting and a work session will be on January 8th.

Got a little bit ahead of myself here uh anticipating the Christmas holiday.

Uh you will have, however, a meeting on December 18th.

It is a work session.

Um and uh that will be um not preceded by or not followed by a regular meeting.

So we will have an extended uh work session on December 18th, uh two hours, 5.30 to uh 7.30.

And we will continue our discussion on small lot integration along with the visualization of the standards as they are currently presented, as well as have your annual holiday dinner.

So come hungry.

And ready for an interesting conversation.

So your January 8th meeting only has one case on it.

As I was preparing all of this today, I thought, no, we don't have any cases for January 8th, and I'm going through my list and I'm like, done.

We do have one, but it is a short-term rental, so hopefully it won't be too too painful.

And that is the only item.

It's interesting.

I have what I refer to as the big board in my office.

That big board is almost entirely blank.

I have not seen that probably in a year, if not longer.

It makes me nervous.

So I will tell you that we may not be fortunate enough to have it blank for very long after the beginning of the new year.

And we do have our vendor on staff for short-term rental, so we may start to see our uptick on short-term rental applications again in order to continue to work through those that are not operating with a license.

This is your location for our short-term rental off of Westworly.

Your only item on the January 8th meeting.

Thank you very much for your time and your attention this evening.

Your participation in our work session.

It is extremely helpful for me.

It identifies some areas that we need to be looking at things a little bit differently.

Mr.

Gephardt's comments tonight are also well received.

We will start to work, I think, as we start to wrap up things with the zoning component of this and the subdivision component.

There are other pieces, and that is correct.

So we will continue to make sure that we are making all of the changes necessary.

Long, arduous process, but we're almost near the end.

Thank you.

Are there any commissioner comments of a general nature?

Commissioner Wilson?

I move that we adjourn.

Without objection, we stand adjourned.