I'm gonna call to order our Tuesday, January 20th, 2025, Columbia City Council meeting to order.

Appreciate the patience as we deal with the technical difficulties with the timer.

Just so you know, I will be using my phone so I can see what the timer says.

We'll see if it works.

All right.

Would all those who are able to please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

All right.

She Louis, please call roll.

Um, yes, uh, Miss Buffalo.

Here.

Miss Carroll?

Here.

Miss Elwood?

Here.

Miss Sample?

Here.

Mr.

Foster.

Here.

Mr.

Waterman.

Here.

Miss Peters.

Here.

All right.

So welcome to our second meeting of 2026.

I'm going to give a quick overview of our council agenda, especially for those of this is your first time coming.

So items and our rules for public speaking.

So items for I so first for items currently listed under the consent agenda.

Those will be kind of like page four.

Look onto that.

I will say we will have one adjustment to the consent agenda here shortly when we we change the agenda.

For items that are listed under introduction and first reading with an asterisk, they will be placed on the consent agenda at our next item unless a request to put them on to old business is requested.

Items under intro and first read that do not have an asterisk, those would automatically be under old business at the next council meeting.

And that means they would typically have a presentation and an opportunity for public comment.

Now the public have multiple opportunities to speak at city council meetings and on items on tonight's agenda.

So there's opportunities during the public hearing that we have, old business items, new business item portions of the agenda.

I do remind people to combine their remarks to the specific item that's being discussed, and I'll remind you if the comments start to veer into other conversations.

General comments on other topics are allowed at the end of the council meeting, and then you can talk about whatever you want to talk about.

Individuals are allotted three minutes with representatives of organizations requesting five minutes.

We do limit one speaker per group, but multiple speakers can talk for the three minutes.

I mean for the five-minute rule.

Respect time limits for fairness.

We do these rules so that many people, as many people as want to speak, can speak at a city council meeting.

And that I'm not keeping you here until Tuesday or Wednesday.

Sorry, today is Tuesday, until Wednesday.

And that includes on city staff.

So disruptions will be addressed with a warning and if necessary, removal and recess.

So moving on for our agenda, the first item we have is I'll make a motion to approve our January 5th, 2026 regular meeting minutes.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Nick Foster.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

And then for our adjustments to the agenda, um, Jackie, you had a request.

Yes, to pull B 1626.

All right, so the request is to pull B 1626 from consent agenda to old business.

Um then I'll also just make note all I mean do you want to make or I can make the motion?

There's been a motion um for reports five and six that are on this agenda to be tabled to the February 16th council meeting.

Um so that we would have time to discuss them in more length at that time.

Are there any other proposed changes to the agenda?

Can you do that tabling?

If you're gonna are you gonna do that.

I'm gonna do it all together as a motion.

Um I'm gonna ask for a motion to approve the agenda with B1626 be moved to old business and for reports five and six to be tabled to the February 16th council meeting.

Second.

Seconded by Betsy Peters.

All those in favor um of the agenda as amended, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

All right, moving on.

Um we have appointments to boards and commissions.

Uh the city has over 50 boards and commissions.

These are um members of the public that serve and advise the city council on multiple issues uh that the city government touches.

And so uh usually the Wednesday following the meeting there will be a vacancies for the next round.

So I encourage you if you're interested to consider looking at those vacancies.

But tonight we do have some vacancies and applicants to it, so I'll ask she let us start with our roll call vote for board of adjustment.

Miss Buffalo, William Sims, Miss Carroll, Charlie Lisa Gaines.

Charissa Gaines.

Ms.

Elwood.

Charlisa Gaines.

Ms.

Sample?

Char Lisa Gaines?

Mr.

Foster.

William Sims.

Mr.

Waterman.

Charlisa Gaines.

And Ms.

Peters.

Carl Scala.

Charlisa Gaines received four votes.

Okay.

Up next, we have one applicant, Matt Fetterly can be appointed by voice vote for the Historic Preservation Commission as meeting in background and expertise in historic preservation if there's no objection.

No objection.

All right.

Similarly, we have one applicant for one of the vacancies for the parking advisory commission.

So if there's no objection, Shane Lowe can be appointed to that.

No objection.

For personnel advisory commission, we have uh three applicants, but only one vacancy.

Uh and so I'll ask uh Sheila to uh do roll call vote for the regular member vacancy.

Ms.

Buffalo.

Uh Marcus Glover, Miss Carroll.

Joseph Jeffries.

Ms.

Selwood.

Joseph Jeffries.

Ms.

Sample.

Joseph Jeffries.

Mr.

Foster?

Marcus Glover.

Mr.

Waterman.

Marcus Glover.

Ms.

Peters.

Marcus Glover.

Marcus Glover received four votes.

And now we have two applicants, right?

For the for the um blanking on the words, the alternate position for this one.

So Sheila, will you please call roll?

Well, there's two vacancies.

Two for two applicants.

Oh, because your right appointed Glover for the first one.

So the Okay, so both Joe Jeffries and the other can be on for the alternates for this one.

Okay.

Never mind.

Is there any objection to that?

All right.

Thank you for that clarification.

And then for Tree Board, our last one that we had applicants for, we have four applicants for two vacancies.

So can we please call roll on the first vacancy?

Ms.

Buffalo.

Jacob McMaines.

Ms.

Carroll.

Jacob McMaines.

Ms.

Elwood.

Jacob McMaines.

Jacob McMaines.

Mr.

Foster?

Jacob McMaines.

Mr.

Waterman.

Jacob McMaines.

Ms.

Peters.

Max Miller.

Jacob McMaines received six votes.

All right.

And will you please call roll on the second vacancy?

Miss Buffalo?

Danielle Fox.

Ms.

Carroll.

Max Miller.

Ms.

Elwood.

Max Miller.

Ms.

Sample.

Max Miller.

Mr.

Foster.

Danielle Fox.

Mr.

Waterman.

Danielle Fox.

And Ms.

Peters.

Max Miller.

Max Miller received four votes.

All right.

So again, there were some that did not have any applicants, so I encourage those who are interested in serving their community to look at those vacancies when the list is posted.

All right, moving on to schedule public comment.

Members of the public can contact the city manager's office by noon on the Wednesday prior to the city council meeting to schedule a public comment.

Scheduled public comments cannot be on items that are on that same night's agenda.

And of note, it's been a tip typical practice of City Council to ask for additional follow-up of questions asked tonight of staff at the end of the meeting if warranted.

Tonight we have three scheduled public comments.

I will note that our second one had a family emergency, and so we'll be coming rescheduled to the February 2nd City Council meeting.

So I'll now like to ask Jim Windsor to please come forward to speak.

Good evening.

I haven't been here for uh 13 months to talk about this issue.

I wanted to come this month because it's the 10-year anniversary of the pausing of the needed transmission line across South Columbia, uh which at the time was on budget and on time.

Um so uh the route was originally uh established by approved by council in uh July of 2013.

Uh the Boone Electric Utility supported uh the project.

Uh voters were presented with the information on it uh in uh 2015 with a bond issue.

They passed it with over 68 percent of the vote.

But 10 years ago, um the people that didn't want it in their what they said was their backyard.

It's actually not in backyards, it's along a uh street right-away, uh, pressured council to pause the project.

Uh the prior mayor opposed it and did a lot of things to uh hold up any moving forward.

Uh and we've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on studies and consultants.

Uh some of them not presented uh publicly because it showed that it needed to be done and other options cost too much and didn't solve the problem.

Um there are now two routes.

Uh one of them is Chapel Hill.

Uh and uh the former director of utilities said that this was would be a very difficult uh route.

It would uh MISO would control when the construction would actually occur because our transmission system is part of that, and this would involve tearing down our part of our existing transmission system and rebuilding with two lines.

Uh and uh so it it uh it doesn't to me it doesn't make any sense.

Uh and this is we currently have a 69 line uh or loop, and and what would have to happen is we would actually create a situation because we'd have to tear out part of that in order to construct it along Chapel Hill.

And it is truly in the backyards.

Two di two different homes in the backyards, and what hasn't been discussed very much at all is there is a distribution line on it, uh, and that would have to be dealt with before you could even tear the the transmission line down because they wouldn't have any power.

Um the voter school route, uh Naiphong route, would be easy to construct, it's a long major road.

Uh it's best, and this is from a former director, the best fits the needs of the system now in the future, and even Simon Siemens said it was the least cost solution.

And it is on uh either four-lane or what probably will someday be four-lane uh route.

And as a customer, uh I do not accept uh what's called load shedding when it's reality uh rolling blackouts as an option for how do we deal with emergencies in our system, and I think most customers don't.

Um also the climate action and adaptation plan, the very first purpose was to harden built environments to the impacts of climate change.

So it fits right into the idea that we need to get this built.

Um a survey of customers showed uh, and I incorrectly put 98.2 percent of residential, it's only 96.2 percent, feel like reliable electric service is very important, not just important, very important, and a hundred percent of commercial customers uh view it that way.

At the November Water and Light Board meeting, uh they got preliminary cost estimates.

Voder School would cost almost 30 million, Chapel Hill would cost over 43 million, so 13 million more.

And that did not address the distribution line that I mentioned.

So it's stopped, uh it's time to stop delaying this, uh, expedite the process.

We went through a, you know, a couple of years, uh 15 years ago, we went through a couple of years of uh public input.

Don't listen to the same arguments that are going to come to you uh and thus get this done as quick as possible.

The original proposals called for five million dollars to underground distribution lines.

I'm sorry, I don't think that should be done because we've wasted over 15 million dollars delaying it and what was lost when we when it was paused.

So please just do what's necessary and that's all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jim.

Up next we have uh Habimana Mugushia.

I apologize if I didn't say that right.

Good evening.

My name is Javi Mana Mugisha.

I'm 21 years old and I live in the city of Columbia.

And I own a photography business here in town.

I w want to share my story on the behalf of the West with you guys on the impact that I've had on my life, not just for me, but to this community.

I was born in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and my family had to leave because of war.

We didn't leave because we wanted to.

We left because Thane was dangerous.

When I was about six years old, we came to the United States looking for safety and a chance of a better life.

We first lived in Baltimore, Maryland.

Even though we were grateful to be here, my mom knew that that environment wasn't the right place to raise their kids.

She then made another hard decision and moved us in Columbia, Missouri in 2015.

Growing up here had its ups and downs.

We didn't have money and we didn't have connections.

Go to school and get a good job.

She pushed that on us because she never had the chance to go to school herself.

After that, I went to Mobley Area Community College and studied health science.

I went because I thought that was what I was supposed to do, and because my mom wanted that for us.

But if I'm being honest, I didn't love it.

Why in school, I never really felt connected to what I was studying.

A lot of my free time was spent going downtown, partying and going down.

I wasn't doing anything bad, but I also wasn't building anything.

I didn't really have a direction and I didn't see a clear future for myself.

That's when photography started to mean more to me.

On June 1st, 2024, I officially started my photography business.

At the beginning, I had passion, but very little support.

I didn't have much gear.

I didn't have a studio, and I was learning everything on my own.

From June to October, I worked with about 15 clients, majority of them being friends and family.

I was trying, but growth was slow.

Everything changed when I found Fed West.

Vest gave me access to cameras, lighting, studio space, and classes.

Things I couldn't afford on my own.

But Vid West isn't just media.

At Vid West, I've met actors, content creators, music artists, and creative artists of all kinds.

It's a place where different talents come together, share ideas, and push each other to grow.

Being around that kind of energy changes how you think about yourself and what you believe is possible.

Vest gave me more than equipment.

It gave me structure.

It gave me somewhere to go that wasn't downtown and wasn't a party.

It put me around people who are supportive, creative, and trying to build something real.

Because of VWS, my work got better and more people started noticing me.

From September 2024 through 2025, I worked with over 289 clients.

And that didn't happen by luck.

It happened because I finally had access, support, and people who believed in me.

Without V West, I honestly don't know where I'll be today.

I could have stayed stuck, going down, wasting time and not thinking about my future.

Instead, I found a passion that I love, built a real business, and became a part of a community that supported me and believed in me.

Big West helps the community and young people like me find direction.

It keeps us busy in a positive way, and it brings people together from different backgrounds and different paths.

When the community such as V West is supported, the whole city benefits.

If funding for Vid West is taken away, people like me loses access to opportunity.

Not everyone starts from the same place, and Vid West helps level that playing field.

I'm not standing here asking for a handout.

I'm standing here showing you the results of your investment.

Please continue funding Vid West so for more people, especially young people like me in Columbia can find their purpose, stay focused, and build something that they're proud of, like I did.

Thank you for letting me share my story here with you guys here tonight.

Thank you.

All right.

Moving on, we have one public hearing this evening.

So Sheila, we please read public hearing 126.

Public hearing 126 is the proposed construction of renovations to portions of the utility customer service and treasury office areas located on the first floor of the City Hall building.

I don't see my slides.

Anyway, I'll do it without.

This project would remodel approximately 2,350 square feet of the first floor of City Hall to both better serve customers and better protect city employees.

The project will keep the existing character of the historic Daniel Boone lobby space with changes only in the areas shown.

Well, you can't see them to maximize visibility and public access.

Each of the new stations will include ballistics separate between the citizens' employees, which matches what is currently used in the cashiers area and the information desk today.

The project will also include a new standing safe anchored to the floor within the Treasury suite.

I think the lack of detailed finishes on those renderings may have concerned some citizens based on the be heard comments.

An interested parties meeting was held on November 19th, 2025.

Seven citizens signed in and no written comments were received.

Staff is recommending this project be completed using a design build contract to expedite construction and minimize disruption to both the public and city staff.

The estimated cost of the project is $800,000 with funding coming from previously allocated general fund revenue.

Matthew and I are happy to answer any questions you might have.

Questions from counsel for Bureau.

I know you mentioned that the lack of details in the renderings uh cause some concern.

I was wondering if you could tell us a little more what it will visually look like.

For for example, is it going to look similar to how the historic building currently looks?

It will look very, very similar to what you see today.

Um there's just opening up a couple of those areas for the public.

Um so everything above the chandeliers, the the natural light, all that will remain the same.

Um it's just simply um better public access more than anything else.

Additional questions.

Yes, Nick.

Well, I think in the last in the last picture that I see in the what's attached to the agenda, it answers some of the questions that I've had.

It looks like it just basically opens up the lobby more so that people will not have to go through a door to get to uh to get to someone to help them.

They'll just be able to go directly to uh to a window and receive the assistance they need, correct?

That's correct.

Yeah.

And then I I did notice some comments in the uh be heard comments about drop ceilings, but I know there are some drop ceilings already that exist there.

Will there be any change in drop ceilings, either removal or additions of any of them?

Not within the open lobby space itself.

I think the drop ceilings that are being referred to are in the windows themselves, yeah.

But there will be no changes there, I assume.

Not not that I'm not that I can think of.

So basically it's going to remain the same except for opening up these areas pretty much.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Yeah, Jackie.

Of the eleven customer service windows, is there only going to be one physically accessible window, or will there be more than just one?

There is one that exists currently in the cashier's area, and I believe there is one proposed on one side of the hall and one on the other.

So I think there's a total of three.

Matthew, is that correct?

I wish I had that in front of us.

Correct.

In the timeline for completion, is uh I read six months from when it starts?

Is that you?

Can I ask a question if in the scoping of the project did we look into um you know part of you mentioned um part of it is for kind of safety of c of our employees as we were talking about this?

Did any conversation happen around eventually the the safety of the rest of the lobby with um thinking of sort of like weapons detection systems when coming into a public space or any of that conversation?

Did that come up?

That was not discussed as part of this project.

Right.

Any other questions for council?

All right, I'll go ahead and open up the public hearing.

Would anybody from the public wish to speak on the first public hearing of 2026, which is um proposed proposed renovations and improvements to the lobby of City Hall?

See none, I'll close the public hearing.

Did any council comments or questions come to you all since then?

All right.

Um then I will make a motion to approve the proposed remodel of approximately 2350 square feet in the City Hall Daniel Boone building lobby located at 7 to 1 East Broadway, and authorize the city manager to proceed with the selection of a design build contractor to design and construct such improvements.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Nick Foster.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Moving on to old business.

Sheila, will you please read um public sorry policy resolution 626?

Policy resolution 626.

Is PR 626 is a policy resolution repealing resolution number 10114A that was that established revised procedures and guidelines for scheduled public comment at City Council meetings and adopting a new policy resolution on that same subject.

Do you want a staff report?

Um basically this is follow-up to a discussion that we had at a pre-council meeting on October 20th, and then a report that had come to you guys on December 15th.

There is one significant uh difference between what you saw in this December versus this version, and that is uh the deadline for um requesting to s to be allowed to do a scheduled public comment with us moving to a Wednesday publication date and due to when holidays sometimes hit, uh Wednesday would not work.

So we're suggesting um something simple like a week before, and I understand this says noon, and I understand there might be some that want to amend it to say 5 p.m.

and I think staff's okay with that.

All right.

Any questions from council on that?

All right, would anyone from the public wish to speak on PR 626?

Sorry, I was not fasting.

I did have a quick question.

Um I know I know I sent this in advance.

Um, but in the uh resolution, it mentions the speaker's telephone number being posted.

Um and so to ask again, are we able to redact that before we post it online so that that phone number is not able to be scrolled for robocalls?

Um yes, and um the city manager staff that handles uploading it will make sure that that's not shown on the PDF that they upload.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Any other council questions on this?

All right, would anyone from the public wish to speak on PR 626?

Seeing none, I'll go back to us.

Um I would like to um propose an amendment to change the deadline that's posted on this from noon to 5 p.m.

on the Monday prior.

Um so um I'll make a motion to change the proposed new deadline from noon to five p.m.

on Monday.

Can I have a second?

Second, second by Betsy.

Uh all those in favor of the amendment say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Any additional council comments on this one?

All right.

Uh Sheila, will you please call roll on PR 626 as amended?

Council Bill uh 626 as amended, Miss Buffalo.

Yes.

Ms.

Carroll?

Yes.

Ms.

Elwood?

Yes.

Ms.

Sample?

Yes.

Mr.

Foster?

Yes.

Mr.

Waterman?

Yes.

Ms.

Peters?

Yes.

All right.

Moving on.

And I should applaudize everyone.

Like some of this is just like housekeeping.

It's things we're finally getting to like years after talking about them.

So thank you for your patience.

All right.

So Sheila, will you please read uh PR 726?

PR 726 is a policy resolution repealing resolution number 1881, reaffirming rules for public hearings and comments before the city council and adopting a new policy resolution on the same subject.

We have a staff report.

Similar to the prior one.

This was originally discussed at the October 20th pre-council meeting.

Report came to you all at the December 15th council meeting.

And I believe this one doesn't have too much difference between that December 15 version and this version.

There was some cleanup in terms of consistency with mayor, chair, he, she, things of that nature, but other than that, it should be very similar.

All right.

Do we have any questions from council?

Um if we could just review if if the person who is speaking does not know their ward number.

Are we going to require another piece of information?

I think that's a decision you all need to make.

Yeah, so that's how would you want to have them?

Because part of it, I know the intention originally was like, are you do you live in the city?

Are you know you member here?

Yeah.

I've got um Valerie and then Vera.

Is this a relation to the question?

Yes, it is.

So the staff response to that seemed to indicate that ward number or address is something that we could revise the language to read.

I would support that amendment.

Um it allows them to give their address if they would like to, and signals what the intent is.

Yeah, fear.

I was just going to say it currently says that people offering public comment are required to list their address.

And we have plenty of speakers who either tell us their ward, tell us they live in Columbia, tell us they live somewhere else.

We so we I feel like we are regularly making exception to that rule, and I would expect that to remain the same if we changed it to ward number or address where we would continue to as long as we can identify the person, let them speak.

Any other council questions on the so am I understanding correctly?

Um the proposal is in section two, item three in the last sentence to say persons addressing the presiding officer should first state their name and address or ward for the record would be fine.

Could we do ward or address so we can show the ideal is to not give too much identifying?

Okay.

Sheila's got that.

All right, so we've got a proposed amendment to that.

Um do we have a second on the amendment?

Second.

Second by Betsy.

All those in favor of the proposed amendment to section uh two-three, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Any other questions by council?

I have an amendments now or hold on, I've Jackie had a follow-up question.

I didn't realize she was not done with her questions.

Sorry.

Um just wanted to talk through if we need to have anything in additional um if the person is not from Columbia, but they want to do a public um comment.

For instance, we had a uh parent of an MU student drive in from St.

Louis.

So do we need to have something um within this that does that?

Could that be covered by address?

Because it's them telling us their address, which would be St.

Louis.

Is that codes?

I'm in.

Okay.

Well, I think to this question.

Yeah, the yeah, the the issue is just really knowing who we're hearing from.

And it is helpful for me to know what ward someone lives in.

I mean, that has a direct impact on the matter at which the to which they're speaking and so forth.

So that's that's the primary thing.

And if we're talking if we're hearing from someone who doesn't live within the city limits, then I uh then that's helpful to know as well.

Other questions?

Done.

Um item number bullet point or item number four.

On that, um I would like to propose an amendment where it says talk talking about individuals representing groups can request five minutes.

And I believe it's part of your pre-council, early council speech.

Um but just to codify it in the amendment that only one individual per organization will get the five minutes on any given topic.

Okay.

Um Sheila, did you follow kind of or had proposed potential amending words for that?

Mayor, I do.

Ready?

Okay.

Yes, all right, there we go.

At the end of the that sentence at the end of the first sentence, add the words provided.

However, only one speaker per organization will be allowed five minutes.

Okay.

And that's really the after the second sentence, right?

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

So we have a motion to amend.

Do we have a second on that one?

I would second because it it it's what I read at the beginning of the council meeting and we're just codifying that.

Yeah.

Any discussion on that?

And it is a reminder, doesn't mean only one organization total can request five minutes.

It means one person for that organization can request five.

And others from it can talk, there's three.

All right.

Uh we have a motion and a second.

All those in favor of the second amendment say aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Any other questions by counsel on this?

All right, would anyone from the public wish to speak on PR 726?

All right, coming back to us.

An additional council comments on it.

All right.

Uh Sheila, we please call roll on PR 726 as amended.

Council Bill 726 as amended, Ms.

Buffalo.

Yes.

Ms.

Carroll?

Yes.

Ms.

Elwood?

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Foster?

Yes.

Mr.

Waterman?

Yes.

Ms.

Peters?

Yes.

All right.

Uh Sheila, will you please read um PR 826?

PER 826 is a policy resolution establishing a policy for city council member virtual participation at City Council meetings, second reading.

And uh this is again discussed originally at the October 20th pre-council.

A report came forward at the December 15th council meeting, at which time we had some suggestions proposals, and based on that, this was developed.

Um I know that you noticed one difference between that that you're going to make an amendment on, and there might be other questions or amendments as we move on.

All right.

Do we have uh council questions for this one?

I will note that I do plan to remove item 12 C under the mayoral responsibilities, which says muting a member who is determined by the mayor to be out of order.

I don't intend to monitor the Zoom things, and I don't mute these people right now, so I don't intend to do it going forward.

So I'll just put that out there.

That was my one question that I had from the report we had from December.

Um any other questions?

Yeah, Vera.

Um so I'm wondering, looking at um section eight.

Um it talks about requests being made 24 hours in advance and what to do if you have less than 24 hours in advance or a late request.

I'm wondering when we have a request to attend virtually, who is the fine who is this who is the person who says yes or no to that request?

Who are we requesting it of?

I ICAL, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I would say ultimately it's DeCarlin's staff because they're the ones that have to ensure that we can set it up in time and everything's working correctly.

So based on their staffing level, that is how um it would likely be decided.

And I don't see it being a yes or no.

I just think just give them the staff the time to be able to set up for the for the meeting is what's important.

Yeah, so it's not necessarily a no, correct.

It's more of a like, ah, I can't get it going.

But that your is that your intent going on.

Yes.

Okay.

So if we are able to give the full 24 hours notice that is in the resolution, is there a situation in which it would be a no?

Because it is still phrased as a request, even if it's not a late request.

I think the only way it would be is if it if it was for one of the reasons earlier where it's like this doesn't qualify, right?

Um because I mean those are examples of qualifications.

They're not a complete list, so I'm not even sure that's the case.

I think the only way it wouldn't be is if let's say you had a meeting Monday morning at eight and we just didn't have the staff here to set it up before that time, which is going to be unlikely, but it could happen.

It's just I think the only no would be is if we didn't have time to set up.

So if we know 24 hours in advance, I don't think that's going to be a problem.

Or I guess a technology issue could arise the thing is that there's issue too.

Yes, but there's a technology issue, then there could be an issue, but most likely within 24 hours notice our staff will be ready to set up for the meeting.

So I guess so I would um my question would be can we change it so that if it is at least 24 hours in advance, it is a notice rather than a request.

Um if the only thing that would potentially cause a no would be a technology problem, which wouldn't come up until the meeting itself.

Um, real quick, the only other factor I think that's written in here is in-person.

Um that could be another factor if someone there is talk about trying to do an in-person quorum for all meetings.

Right.

So if a lot of people are missing, we'd have to have that discussion and see how we wanted to handle that, see if somebody could come in or just do it without, but that would be something that needed to be discussed the way this is written.

Can I clarify, Vera?

Was your request that in that third sentence it would say all notices rather than request for virtual attendance?

Yes.

I'm trying to remember, would that be then would Sheila's concern then be clarified when we talk about the in-person requirement?

Because that's a that's a valid concern.

What if we all say we're noticing you that we are not going to be here?

Where remind me where I would find where that is then protected under our in-person quorum number three?

Number three, the last sentence.

If there are multiple requests for virtual participation, which might prevent an in-person quorum at a meeting, the lack of in-person quorum will be discussed by the mayor or presiding officer with those council members requesting virtual participation to determine if an in-person quorum may be achieved.

Right.

Then that comes, then it's making me have to play the role of like who asked first.

So I can think of my question like um, are we concerned over the notice versus the request on the four?

Or you know what I mean?

Like how how how specific do we need to get into on this one?

I so part of my part of my reasoning behind it, part of my concern behind it is that um kind of reflected in section two where we say virtual participation is the exception, not the rule, and it has to be extraordinary circumstances.

If it is a request, people can feel that they have to justify or explain why their absence is worth virtual participation, and that's where you can lead into someone feeling compelled to provide the private medical reason that they are needing virtual access, which we then have to send in an email to a list of four different bucket emails, which is then sunshineable.

And so if we can I think if we can phrase it as it is a notice, and so I can say personal reasons, notifying you I will be virtual.

Then I won't people won't necessarily feel the need to disclose that information.

Maybe it could be notifying that virtual participation is needed.

Noticing Nancy, like making notes, I'm seeing if there's suggestions.

Yeah.

Yeah, just for clarification with legal.

Um when we send an email explaining a private medical condition, can we flag those as personal information?

We don't want you to send your private medical condition to anybody at City Hall to any any group email address whatsoever.

That is not something that that city staff will ever request.

Now that may be something that a member may wish to discuss with the mayor or presiding officer if there is some sort of special accommodation or request being made, and the mayor can discuss that with the city manager, but never ever send your personal medical information.

Is that clear in the And I will say I view these as hierarchy of order?

The listing in it, right?

So I view it as everyone is assuming it's the exception, not the rule, unless you have a reason to.

You know, and you have a reason and you've notified us that that's your reason.

I don't think it's anyone's intent.

I don't think it's staff's intent.

It's not my intent to be like, no.

You know, like I'm like, I want you here in whatever way I can have you.

I can I just say this is to be clear, the the city manager does not police the city council, the city council polices the city council.

So your fellow council members, um, if a question were ever to arise, are they individuals who make that uh determination?

The city manager doesn't make that determination.

The only reason the city manager's office would not uh honor a request would be as if it was physically impossible to be able to honor that request for whatever staffing concern or technology reason.

So the rest of that is all monitored by your peers.

So and I I am in full belief and agreement that the intent here is not to be policing or to be sharing medical information or to be deciding what reason is more important than another.

I am concerned that it reads like a college attendance policy in which there are situations that are and are not allowed for virtual participation, and there is someone who gets to decide whether you get to attend or not.

You sounded good, and I'm fine with changing the third sentence from all requests to all notifications for virtual attendance shall be made at least 24 hours.

Is that good for you?

That's good for the right.

Um do I have a second?

I mean, I guess maybe I'm the second, you're the first.

There you go.

Uh all those in favor of that amendment say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, good.

Any other questions on this one?

All right, see none does anyone from the public wish to speak on policy resolution 826.

Wait, is that your own?

Do you want to make your amendment to your not make it?

No, no.

Thank you.

All right, I'll make a motion to remove uh item 12 C under the mail responsibilities.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Nick Foster.

All those in favor say aye.

Uh aye.

Anyone opposed?

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

All right.

So does anyone from the public wish to speak, wish to speak on policy resolution 826?

All right.

See, none will come back to our council comments.

Appreciate it.

Just took us six years after a pandemic to find a way for council members to participate virtually in a council meeting.

Uh well, hold on, we haven't voted on it yet.

So Sheila, we please call roll on PR 826 as amended.

Council Bill 826 as amended, Ms.

Buffalo.

Yes.

Ms.

Carroll?

Yes.

Ms.

Elwood?

Yes.

Ms.

Sample?

Yes.

Mr.

Foster.

Yes.

Mr.

Waterman.

Yes.

Ms.

Peters.

Yes.

All right.

Moving on.

Sheila, will you please read Bill 226?

Council Bill 226 is an ordinance granting the issuance of a conditional use permit to Janet Rogers to allow the construction of a detached accessory dwelling unit on property located at 105 South Glenwood Avenue in an R1 one family dwelling zoning district, providing a severability clause and fixing the time when this ordinance shall become effective.

Second reading.

Do we have a staff report?

Uh yes.

Thank you, Mayor.

Council.

The request in front of you tonight is as uh stated it is a conditional use permit uh approval request.

Uh specific conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit, uh, which is uh an additional dwelling unit typically on a on a single family uh lot.

This one's located at 105 South Glenwood Avenue.

Okay.

Uh on the screen, you have an aerial there with the subject property highlighted.

Uh a uh.69 acre lot there on the west side of Glenwood, South Broadway, uh just a few lots in uh it is a public hearing uh type case, so notifications were sent out, postcards, letters, uh, and an ad was posted in the newspaper.

So here's an area with north to the right.

So the main road running uh north or up and down on your screen there, that's Broadway.

So this gives you a little bit more of a straight-on view of that property uh and the surrounding neighborhood, a little bit of the context for uh for that site uh and some of the buildings and structures in that immediate vicinity.

Um a little bit of uh background on this site.

It is zoned R1.

Um the ADU proposed is 800 square feet, and I'll kind of go through those a little bit more because there are some specific standards that have to be met.

Uh so it comes in a little bit under 800 square feet.

Um the uh conditional use approval is required for an ADU in the R1 district.

Uh in the R2 and RMF districts, it's just permitted as of right.

So you could put an ADU in your backyard if you're in other districts.

But R1 has a little bit uh higher hurdle there.

So you do have to come to council and receive that conditional use permit approval prior to be able to construct an accessory dwelling unit in your uh property.

Um so there's a couple things that we'll go through real quick.

One's the use specific standards, and those are uh minimums that have to be met.

Uh the other is general conditional use standards, and those are standards uh that are evaluated uh to can to uh uh when you're looking at a certain conditional use permit to establish whether or not there's any reason why there need to be conditions uh uh attached to a certain conditional use approval.

And so that is kind of the basis for conditional uses.

Conditions can be attached to the approval.

Uh but generally we look at them as uses that could be allowed in this area, but for some certain circumstances, we may need to attach something to that to make sure that any uh impacts on the neighborhood are mitigated.

Uh so a quick layout and a quick explanation of the request.

So for ADUs, in in particular in this case, there's two size uh conditions that are applying.

So I just want to clarify those before we go any further.

One is ADUs uh in this case anyway, there's a percentage max, but in this case it can't be more than 800 square feet, and that's kind of the purple on the lower left.

Uh in this case, it's also going to be connected to a uh a separate garage.

Uh so they've met the the maximum size or less than the maximum size for 800 for an ADU, but there's also a provision with the UDC that says all the accessory structures together.

The footprint of that can't exceed the footprint of your house.

Uh and so in this circumstance, the footprint of the proposed improvements are roughly 840 square feet, and the house is less than that.

So a part of this, the the applicant uh would be required to add on to their structure, which they they do have plans, and that's the extra pink area attached to the existing main floor.

So you can see the current is a little over 1600, and they're gonna add about 200 to get them above that threshold.

And I'll mention that because there is a condition at the end, and we'll touch on that as well.

Um again, uh staff does review uh the criteria and provides analysis.

It's in the planned zoning uh report.

I'll go through them uh fairly quickly.

Um there's uh a couple things uh when it comes to the use specific standards.

Uh we don't have specific building plans for this site, and that's not it's not atypical for more residential structures, usually maybe commercial you'd have those plans ahead of time, residential uh we do not, but the applicant is aware that they cannot build it taller than 24 feet, and it will be evaluated if approved tonight to make sure it's compliant when they come in for a permit.

Uh and that's the same with the with the parking.

We don't know how many exactly uh bedrooms will be there, but they know uh that as per the current layout, they can't exceed three or else I have to provide an additional parking space.

Um aside from the uh use specific standards again, which was staff has verified, again that's the you know less than 800 square feet.

Uh there's some setback uh requirements, and I won't go through all those individually.

Uh we also review the um general conditional use permit standards, uh, and we'll go through those real quickly as well.

So there's uh A through F as you can see on your screen on the left there.

Um they are compliant with U specific standards uh in that district.

Uh we think the conditional use for ADUs would be compliant with uh the city's comprehensive plan goals.

There's actually a language in there that talks about ADUs as way to integrate density into neighborhoods.

There's mention of accessory dwelling units in the housing plan as ways to also kind of add that kind of general density into areas.

It does talk about making sure they integrate well with the neighborhood.

The additional conditional use criteria is it consistent with neighborhood character.

This area does have some standalone accessory structures, garages, some that may have units with them as well.

There doesn't seem to be an evidence that it would be out of character with this neighborhood.

It is a substantial sized lot and so it is going to be placed behind the house.

So the view of that would be obscured a bit from the right of way anyway.

There's adequate access to that and infrastructure is compliant.

And we didn't find that there would be any you know significantly adverse impacts of the surrounding property owners a little uh information kind of on the the public or public correspondence that we've received there was two letters of opposition uh one in support for the public hearing and we've received uh three speakers at the public hearing uh that spoke in opposition and four that went support and and generally I think the the opposition there was uh how this integrates into the neighborhood and the impact I think on the surrounding property owners I think the what those in support were some of the surrounding property owners and they felt that it was a adequate solution I think to to what the applicant in this case is is suggesting that they are looking for someone for a relative to live on site and continue to live in this area with them but be in a separate space you can ignore the top part there.

Sorry I should have uh deleted that but the bottom part that essentially the uh the recommendation coming from planning and zoning so they did uh approve a motion um to or they passed the motion anyway to approve the ADU conditional use permit uh with uh two conditions um one they were concerned a little bit about the timing of the improvements since the house has to be expanded um staff generally would approach that in a certain way they added maybe one additional step uh they asked that the construction on the house begin before we would issue the permit for the um two accessory structures uh so we would make sure that it's compliant with with that requirement uh the other is a bit of a standard approach to ADUs and that is conditioned that only one of the two units be used as a rental at any given time uh with that I'd be happy to answer any questions.

All right any questions from counsel yeah Nick Foster that last item Clint on uh only one of the two dwellings may used be used as a real unit um is that just simply true about R1 and other areas or is this something that would be specific to this particular situation that is that no that is not a requirement across the board.

So that is a requirement that we have I don't know I don't want to say standardized but it is something we feel is an appropriate condition to place on ADUs in certain circumstances to I think mitigate some of those concerns that the ADU and the house would be rented out and I think the intent with an ADU is to is for the owners to live there and then you know maybe rent out the other space but generally to uh have that for family members or other circumstances.

So how would that be enforced?

So we would work with our housing and neighborhood services team uh to make sure we're identifying any of those properties that have that condition on them.

So you know I don't know the specific kind of tact we would take on that but we are we are able to put some notes on types of parcels that they would review whenever they are looking through applications for rental to make sure that gets identified I think in the process.

So it would be really up to neighborhood services at that point to identify it as in that way.

Yeah in our team as well because they would require um a permit.

So we're evaluating the permit when it comes to but when they come in to get a rental license yes our housing neighborhood services uh team would probably evaluate it with our assistance of course thanks.

Betsy you had your hand up I did I thought that ADUs had to be placed if they're placed you know behind the house that one of those two had to be owner occupied.

But that's not true.

So this is a separate requirement.

I mean so I mean maybe something changed you know how I thought initially when we had discussed AD use that somebody had to live there that owned it.

Well let me verify if that is a standard uh requirement or if it's a condition because for my understanding the reason we're putting it as a condition is it isn't standard but I might have that um backwards doesn't mean that it doesn't also exist as a requirement but I I will clarify that.

Okay.

I can weigh in when you when the council adopted the rules for ADUs um it was determined not to require them to be owner occupied.

So that's one of the reasons why you're seeing in circumstances such as the the single family neighborhoods that it is an owner-occupied requirement.

Okay.

Now you might end up with a long-term tenant or something on a piece of property where you want to modify that condition based on the request of the applicant, but I think you're seeing that as a fairly standard condition.

Okay.

All right.

Well then she answered it.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Other questions from council.

Yeah, Valerie and then Beer?

Yeah, I I wonder if I could provide some insight.

Um I believe that was discussed at planning and zoning for the next round of um edits to the ADU ordinance.

Um, but that legislation hasn't been completed yet, and we haven't voted on it.

Questions, yeah.

Vera.

Yeah, I had a question about the other um condition mentioned there.

If you can just kind of explain the timeline of what that would look like, so we would vote to approve or not approve tonight.

And then if it is approved, you would essentially not hand over the permit until they start construction on the primary home.

Yes.

And they have a, they currently have a permit for the principal structure, the home.

Uh so we just need to see that work commenced and then we would issue the permit for the ADU.

There's still some fail-safe there.

We would not issue a certificate of occupancy for that ADU until they have a certificate occupancy for the House.

So there's a couple things they're going to have to meet in addition to this additional condition.

You answered my next two questions.

So thank you.

All right.

Any other council questions on this one?

Um would anyone from the public wish to speak on Bill 226.

Come on up to the podium.

As we just changed our updated rules, please state your name and your address or ward or ward or address.

I will do so.

Okay.

My name is Scott Holand.

I live in 11 South Glenwood Avenue.

So first I want to thank several members of the City Council for taking time to meet with my wife and I and listen to our concerns, especially our Councilmember Nick Foster as well as Mayor Buffalo.

We appreciate the engagement.

So that was great.

Well, I understand the city must balance competing priorities.

It was concerning to learn historic preservation is not currently a primary focus, and that future studies may be needed to better balance these interests.

Our area has been identified for future historic survey, which could be an important step towards uh designation.

However, by the time that occurs, significant and irreversible changes may have already taken place.

I recognize that our comments tonight may not affect the outcome of this specific case.

Nonetheless, uh I feel it is important to provide some constructive feedback on our experience with the goal of improving the process going forward.

First, portions of the staff report and the uh applicant responses to our concerns include statements that are factually incomplete or broadly interpreted.

Several cited reports contain extensive data that can reasonably support multiple conclusion conclusions, and I believe greater care is warranted in how those materials are applied to site-specific decisions.

Secondly, uh communications with nearby neighbors could have been improved.

We initially received blank postcards, which were later corrected, but the timing combined with the holiday period resulted in a compressed uh review window with limited information.

Additionally, the applicant's rebuttal letter states that the neighbors were notified on October 2nd, 2025.

However, that was actually dated October 22nd and delivered to us on November 9th as confirmed by our home security footage.

Finally, regarding the scale of the accessory structure, the proposal is contingent on an addition to the main dwelling and is maximal under the code.

Well, there are existing legal non-conforming ADUs in the area.

We are not aware of any with the footprint of this size.

In addition, based on the submitted permit materials, the project appears to rely on approximately two square foot of mar two square feet of margin to meet the code requirements, leaving little room for error during during the construction period.

We share these observations in the spirit of process improvement and long-term planning, particularly as development pressures increase in historic R1 neighborhoods.

And I thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Scott.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak on Bill 226?

Good evening.

I'm Kristen VM, and I live at Morning Levin South Glenwood, one of Columbia's notable historic properties.

Through the course of this experience over the past few months, I have learned a lot about Columbia's government and city priorities.

I understand that Columbia seeks to be agile and responsive to dynamic housing needs and a shifting economic landscape.

I recognize that historic preservation must adapt to the local political and economic context.

I also recognize that simultaneously optimizing the social, economic, environmental, and historic preservation goals of the city is a daunting task with trade-off on all sides.

However, a dynamic approach to city planning and zoning needs to engage the historic preservation commission on the front end before development pressure destroys what is left of the city's finite historical resources.

If Columbia fails to reconcile development plans with historic preservation, development pressure will likely quickly outpace the city's ability to preserve individual historic properties.

And over time, the city's historic character will be eroded and lost.

I understand that Columbia initiated an historic neighborhood survey project in 2005, but that initiative is currently on hiatus.

Historic neighborhoods like North Central Columbia, West Broadway, East Campus, Benton Stevens, the Grasslands, and the Old Southwest, among others, provide a unique character that boosts the economy and helps make Columbia a vibrant and attractive place to live.

So I encourage you to revive this historic survey effort as you advance your development goals so that development pressure does not outpace the city's ability to protect and preserve its irreplaceable historic assets.

In summary, my final appeal to you tonight is to please consider historic preservation and character in your redevelopment plans sooner instead of later, because once we've lost our history, we cannot get it back.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak on Bill 226?

Hello, I'm Adrian Stolwick.

I live at 212 Hearth Avenue, and I'm an architect working with the Rogers family on this project.

So I wanted to speak in support tonight of the Rogers Family's request for a conditional use permit.

And I know we've spoken with many of you and appreciate your time and consideration of this.

I really feel that the Rogers Families project is they are like the poster family for accessory dwelling units.

And it's a beautiful neighborhood, and I totally respect the neighbors' concerns, but I believe the Rogers family also really wants to invest in this neighborhood in a way that's going to meet the needs of a modern family in a society where housing is increasingly expensive.

Architecturally, I believe this really fits in well.

I believe historic neighborhoods are easier to accommodate accessory, detached accessory structures than other newer neighborhoods.

Planning and zoning voted unanimously to approve this conditional use permit with the stipulations, and we have no argument with those stipulations.

And lastly, I believe voting in favor of this conditional use permit is a is a vote for infill and a vote for housing, which are two things that our city really needs.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak on Bill 226?

Good evening.

My name is Pat Fowler.

I live at 606 North 6th Street in the first ward.

And I remember when the accessory dwelling unit ordinance came forward, we had extensive conversation.

At the time I was a neighborhood association president, and we had extensive conversation as to whether or not one unit had to remain owner-occupied and the second unit rental.

And while a decision was made that at the time I didn't agree with, a decision was made that there was no requirement that one had to stay owner-occupied before the other one would be permitted to be a rental.

I disagree with the idea that there is a specific covenant that runs with the land here, that this is an exception to that rule.

I think that's bad policy.

And further, I have something else to say, which was triggered by the last time I was here when we were talking about a short-term rental ordinance, and it has to do with renters in general.

We seem to have a predisposition, whether we realize it or not, that somehow there's something wrong with rental property and being a renter in our community.

And I'm going to write you a pair, I'm going to read you a paragraph that I wrote in the middle of a hearing last time I was here when we were talking about short-term rentals.

My need for a good night's sleep, for a relationship with my neighbors, for the camaraderie of my kids getting to play with my neighbors' kids, for my being able to feel safer because I know my neighbors and they know me on a first name basis on a I have your cell phone name basis and I know your dog's name basis does not change because I pay rent instead of a mortgage.

Please consider the impacts of what you're doing when you carve out special conditions, whether it's in this one or in the way you think about who's entitled to have housing and good repair in whatever neighborhood in town.

We have more than once put into a staff report that the character of the neighborhood is all owner occupied versus the character of the neighborhood is mostly rentals.

And try and think more clearly about what you're saying about our neighbors and who they are and what they're what they should have the same benefits as the rest of us.

Thank you.

When anyone else from the public wish to speak on Bill 226.

Good evening.

My name is Brian Rogers.

Um I live at 2023 Parkeridge Court here in Columbia.

Um tonight I'm just here to represent my family, my mom, uh, my fiance and one of my kids are back here tonight.

And just to reiterate to you all how much we look forward to moving back into the neighborhood and adding value to our property and how this opportunity uh to build an ADU allows us to live as a multi-generational family in a way that we would not otherwise be able to.

And that's really all I wanted to say.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak on Bill 226?

Hello, my name is Shane Lowe from 1660 Higher Age Circle.

Uh, I just want to speak in support of this application.

Um my wife and I, when we were looking for housings, we really we really love this neighborhood.

And one of the things uh really stood out to us was that this is um one of Columbia's premier neighborhoods where you don't have to own a car, you don't have to have that sort of thing.

The trick is is that a lot of these uh historic neighborhoods we have are also really there's not a lot of density there, and so therefore it can be difficult in a lot of cases to um afford a home for someone like us as a young family.

And one of the things I really like about um uh ADUs and what I see in this ADU application is I see a chance to add sustainable density to these neighborhoods in a way that's non-invasive and a way that uh maintains neighborhood character.

I know a historic preservation is a big concern with neighborhoods like this.

And I think this is one of the ways to preserve these neighborhoods.

Uh what happens far too often in a lot of places is that we have beautiful old historic neighborhoods like this.

Um there's no change in the development pattern for 30, 40, 50 years or so, then the pressure builds and builds and builds and then blows, and now we've got, you know, a 20-unit apartment complex on the neighborhood.

Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with the 20-unit apartment complex.

It's just that change is gonna happen one way or another.

And I think incremental change like this that helps maintain the Columbia that we all know and love, and at the same time offers families options for multi-generational living to be able to support one another, to be able to support their neighbors.

Uh I think this is something like really exciting to see.

Uh, and so I would urge your support for this application.

Thank you.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak on Bill 226?

Seeing none, we'll come to council comments.

Any council comments?

Yeah, Baller.

Did you have to do that?

We have that.

Okay.

Um, I want to say that I am a supporter of historic preservation, and I'm also a supporter of NFL density.

Um, as well as our ADU ordinance and multi-generational living.

Um I agree that this is um kind of the poster child situation for um when an ADU is needed and meets the needs of the applicant well.

Um, as well as um the lot that it exists on is um well laid out to facilitate um the addition of an ADU.

I also wanted to note that in planning and zoning when we discussed this and when we assessed the fabric of historic neighborhoods within Central Columbia.

Some of these historic neighborhoods are examples that we used to drive our framing of this ordinance, because in actual fact ADUs pre-existing ADUs that are nonconformities are somewhat common in older neighborhoods.

They were allowed by the code in the 1930s.

And later not allowed by our code.

And so I I feel that when carefully addressed, it can support historic preservation.

Nick?

Well, this is my neighborhood.

And I love it.

And for a lot of the reasons that have been mentioned, I walk it, I bike it.

And it's just it's a great place to live.

And I and I also hear the concern about historic preservation, which I'm very much in alignment with.

And I appreciated that Kristen's recognition that there are tensions between historic preservation and the other demands on a city and all of the kinds of things like that.

And there are.

And then the involvement of the Historic Preservation Commission.

I don't know whether they weighed in on this one specifically.

But one of the things I've come to really understand, I think, and to be convinced of is that while we're growing as a city, one of our uh that management of that growth is our biggest challenge as a city.

And the thing that I think our people want here, and we talked in the pre-council about how people live here for a long time.

We want the city, we recognize the city is going to grow, and at the same time we want to maintain the character of the city.

That's a big challenge.

But I think as long as we keep it in front of us, we can we can address those kinds of challenges and we can be successful in doing so.

Are there council comments?

Yeah, done.

More of a clarifying question.

Um if this ordinance is approved as written where it the one unit has to be owned and the other one can be rented.

That's a condition, correct.

It's not it's not required under our codes or anything.

That is an additional condition through that conditional use.

Yeah, as an additional condition.

Twenty years from now, whatever.

Um if the owner or it changes hands, um, can they re come back to apply to have that condition removed if the situation arises that they want to rent both?

Is that something that could be addressed then or not?

Yeah, I mean it's we don't have a uh It would essentially be like asking for a new conditional use.

They would have to probably go through the same process.

And in this case, they would just be asking for kind of an amended conditional use at that point.

But it would essentially be the same process as they're going through now.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff on this one?

One clarifying one, I think kind of related to some of the questions that were asked.

Um can you give us uh we are currently we're we're getting close to the next step of the Central City overlay review, which looks at some of these things.

Is that correct, Clint?

So yes, so we are in the process of working with a consultant and with some of the surrounding neighborhoods, generally north of downtown, East Campus, uh kind of West Ash neighborhood, uh potentially to look at kind of urban conservation requirements.

Uh the uh this area south of Broadway would not fall within that scope of that of that project.

Um I had a couple things.

If if is there's not any more questions, if now it's appropriate time for me to add some clarification.

Yeah, if you have some additional clarifications, that would be.

There's some some quite uh some comments about historic preservation.

So this property right now uh in none of the area in this vicinity is within a historic um historic district.

It's not designated as a as a landmark or in a district.

That's a formal process that usually property owners initiate.

Uh and once they're within that district, then they're they can have a conversation about putting some maybe some some guidelines for for uh additions construction within that neighborhood.

And that's that's an appropriate step for neighborhood uh neighborhoods to take.

The city does um working with our historic preservation commissioner and our staff does initiate historic surveys.

Uh, and that's essentially working with the consultant to go out and identify areas and the characteristics of areas that might actually contribute to landmarks or historical districts.

So we kind of look at it as that first step in in kind of laying the groundwork for for areas or neighborhoods that want to go through this process.

We've gone through the kind of research necessary, because it is a bit of an intensive process to be designated historic.

You have to show why you're historic.

You can't just be, well, everything's out here is 100 years old.

There usually has to be some tie with an event, with a person, with an architectural style.

That's those are usually the most successful historic districts.

So for those interested in that, uh our staff uh liaisons with the Sword Preservation Commission and can talk to them about what that process would look like.

Uh second thing is notification.

Uh so yeah, in this case, we did have an error with our first notification.

So we usually send out notification like within days of getting an application to 185 feet of of that property.

Uh two of those uh I think they're just got missed on the copy or didn't have it uh copied on the right side.

So as soon as we uh were notified, we resent that out.

Uh but everybody on the and within that uh notification area receiv received the formal public hearing letter that also goes out.

Usually it's a couple weeks after that first postcard goes out.

And the postcards meant to be kind of a just that early courtesy notification that hey, something's happening in your neighborhood, and we're going to let you know more in the future, but just so you know ahead of time this is what's happening.

Uh and then we do the the normal things, the the ad in the paper and then the posting on the property as well.

All right.

Well, thank you for that additional clarification, Clint.

Um any other council comments?

All right.

Sheila, will you please call roll on bill two twenty-six?

Council Bill 226, Ms.

Buffalo?

Yes.

Ms.

Carroll?

Yes.

Ms.

Elwood?

Yes.

Ms.

Sample?

Yes.

Mr.

Foster.

Yes.

Mr.

Waterman.

Yes.

Ms.

Peters.

Yes.

All right.

Thank you.

Um moving on.

Sheila, will you please read Bill 426?

Council Bill 426 is an ordinance approving the PD plan development of Ashford Place, located at the northern terminus of Sagemore Drive and west of Hoy Lake Drive, approving and a revised statement of intent, authorizing a development agreement, directing the city clerk to record the development agreement, and fixing the time when this ordinance shall become effective second reading.

Do we have a staff report?

Yes, we do.

And so I will go through some information on this request.

The request itself is fairly straightforward, but there is a bit of a history here and some additional information.

So if you grant me a little additional time to kind of walk through this so we all kind of have an understanding about what's in front of us and what we're we're going to be voting on.

Uh I'll try to make it as quick as possible, and I have a lot of slides so we can always come back to some of them too if we need to reference those.

Are you requesting five minutes instead of three, Clint?

All right.

So we'll we'll get started.

So really the request itself is uh what I'll I'll call uh maybe a three-part request.

Uh so this property, uh just a quick overview of it, uh, as you can see on our screen.

So it's about 24 acres of property.

It's located um kind of at the northwest top corner of the Brooks Phase 2 subdivision development.

Um currently accessed from the south from Sagemore Drive, as you can see on that um overview, uh kind of north of Broadway slash highway WW east of town.

Um the request in front of us tonight uh is for a plan development plan uh and a preliminary plat.

Those are usually the same thing, right?

So but we we do kind of call them out separately.

But essentially that's the same thing.

PD plan and preliminary plat, uh one document.

Um there's a statement of intent revision, uh, and that's kind of a requirement that comes along with PD zoning, is that we have some of these stipulations of what you're going to be doing on this property.

Uh and then the third part of that is a development agreement which addresses um some of the uh infrastructure on the property.

So we'll kind of walk through each of those three main components here.

Um but first I'll start with a little bit of a background uh so you kind of understand uh uh how we got to this point with this property and the surrounding properties.

Um yeah, I'll just kind of overview.

So it's this property, it's 108 total lots, uh, and we'll come back to that uh again real quick.

But again, here's kind of an aerial view slightly askew, north to the left there.

Uh again, you can see from this little bit older aerial the beginnings of the layouts for the Brooks uh phase one, directly to the right and east is is the Brooks phase uh two, and the the road going kind of up and down on the far right side of that corner is rolling hills, and to the top of the screen you see a little bit of the Richland Road.

So to give you kind of the broad overview of where this development is and um where some of the impacts could be felt um from this and the surrounding developments.

Uh again, a little bit uh different viewpoint, and again, some of these are for reference, we can come back and kind of talk about these if we need to.

Um I'll start here a little bit.

So the the property really uh is uh part of a piece of property that was annexed to the city in 2010.

Um, along with the property, which you can see on your screen with the overlaid of the actual layout, and I'll just jump here to uh nope, we'll jump back here.

Sorry.

Um this is within uh a part of the annexation referred to as track five.

Uh just for reference, there's tracks two, three, and four.

There is no track one, just for clarification.

Track five is everything kind of north, uh, a line drawn on the north side of Brooks phase two, north and east uh from the property that we're talking about, which is Ashford Place, to the east of that is the track five remainder, which is not developed.

Brooks phase one, uh also part of track five.

So those three kind of parts there make up track five essentially from that annexation.

The Brooks phase two, although kind of referring back to Brooks Phase 1 was actually annexed separately, uh different development uh plan and develop different development agreement and developed uh in 2017.

Uh and we'll come back to this in a little bit as well.

So um just to give an idea too, this is very colorful map, but this is our major roadway plan.

Um so the keeper of the major roadway plan is CATSO, it's a Columbia Area Transportation Study Organization.

Um I've overlaid Ashford uh place on here as well to kind of get some context.

So again, you see highway WW on the south side, rolling hills going up and down, and Richland to the north.

Um the the Catsow major roadway plan identifies uh a major road that goes through this property, as you can see, it's the green and yellow dashed line.

So that's the extension of El Chaparel.

And we'll we'll talk a little bit about that, how it applies to this property, and also what it might mean, I think, for surrounding development.

But as you can see, the plan would be to extend from this property development to the west when it develops, uh, would also build a part of that connector.

Um the reason really for the boundary of track five here is that that is the pretty close to the edge of the north fork of the grindstone.

And so there's a there's an impediment there, and there's a bridge structure that would be required.

Uh and the bridge structure is such that it would be the city's responsibility to construct it.

So just kind of lay out some of those uh groundwork there for the conversation here.

But you can see Hoy Lake is designated as a collector.

Uh El Chaparral also designated a collector.

This is not the original layout of these streets uh per CATSO, and just if I could take a minute to kind of explain CATSO a bit.

CATSO is our required federally funded uh long-range transportation group, right?

It's essentially uh an organization that's required by the federal government uh and it includes the city, the county, and MODOT.

So it's the city officials, city staff, and really its purpose for this in this context is to make sure we're all coordinating on long-range transportation.

We're coordinating on where streets should be built going into the future.

So it's it's essentially static city staff and county staff looking at the county and the area saying, where in the future do we need to make sure that we have some major roadways identified so when developers come in, they know what the responsibilities are going to be.

Uh the original uh alignment here actually had those kind of crossings, so instead of one kind of going, they're both kind of going northeast, but essentially they would have crossed.

Uh we'll come back to the traffic study a little bit, but per a traffic study, which kind of further refined the location of the collectors on this property, uh, this alignment was identified as the preferred option.

Um so a little of this background, again, I've gone through this, but this is a little bit of an image to kind of help you better visualize what that 2010 um annexation was.

So track five, as we had identified in the previous slide, but it also goes up to the intersection uh kind of south of Rolling Hills uh and Richland.

So all that was annexed together, all of it was planned development, and then all of it is subject to a development agreement and its own kind of standards for development as well.

Um so a couple things to note for tract five.

So this applies to all track five property, not just the Ashford place.

Um the uh the statement of intent that was adopted when this was annexed and zoned, so it's been zoned already, uh PD with some standards to it applied to it.

That statement of intent uh stated that two types of two types of uses could be put on track five.

And that's essentially single family detached and single family attached.

Uh attached is what's being proposed with this development.

And the distinction between A-tached and say duplexes is really about ownership.

So if it's single family, no matter if it's attached or detached, that unit is on its own lot.

So it can be individually sold or bought.

Uh anything beyond that, duplex, triplex, that usually signifies one building on one lot uh with three to whatever arrangement it is, so it's all one owner of all those, and it can't be sold individually.

So if that makes sense.

Uh so essentially both these are considered to be single family.

One is just kind of townhome style, and one is your typical detached style.

Um it did put a limit on the attached, said no more than three units attached in any one specific building.

Uh and it put a maximum density across all of tracks five at 538 units, which comes out to about four units per acre.

Um, why was single family attached also included in that when this was pretty undeveloped ground?

Uh per the staff report in 2010, the intent there was they identified that there was a lot of sensitive environmental areas.

And they wanted to give the ability for the developer to cluster their development in smaller arrangements instead of doing mass grading and clearing out all the timber and and vegetation on that site.

So the intent was to have some uh more clustered development uh to allow some of those areas to to be preserved.

That was the intent of allowing that as a use at that time.

Um so far in the development of track five, the Brooks phase one is the is the only part of uh track five that's been developed.

Um Brooks phase two again, separate.

I really, even though it shares a name, it really has no specific regulatory connection to Track 5 or anything from that 2010 annexation.

Um there was a development agreement also uh along with the 2010 annexation for track five.

So one of those requirements was for a 10-acre park.

Um there was a caveat there though, is the city could not require to request it until 300 units are platted.

So right now I think it's 85 units in phase one.

Once this project is all final platted, which will probably take a number of years, we'd be approximately 150 units.

So we're about halfway there.

Um I would point out we did receive recently um a new development, and if you're looking at this map, it's on track two.

Uh and as for a uh multifamily development, that tract is not within the calculations used for the park dedication.

So no units on track two would count towards the 300, just so there's so there's clarity on that.

Um so we are currently reviewing that.

I don't have any information to provide, it's currently in under review, but it's something that might be in front of council in the in the future.

Um actually to get to uh the development plan, uh which is really the I think the the crux of the conversation here.

And so um if you if you remember a little context here, so this project uh it's going to take its connectivity uh from the south.

So from within um the Brooks phase two.

So the street going kind of north-south on the left side of the screen there, that's that's the extension of Sagemore, which goes into the Brooks uh and connects to highway WW.

Um the other connection is on the eastern side, southern part of that property with this Beth Page, I believe.

Um you also note uh a roadway on the north side of the property.

So that that is the developer's accommodation for the extension of El Chaparel.

Now there's there's a couple things going on.

So they are going to uh dedicate and build a portion of El Chaparral that would connect to the west.

However, to the east to fully build out Al Chaparral on this property requires the bridge structure, which is the city's responsibility.

So working with the developer staff have come to uh a recommendation within the development agreement to accept the cost of what they would have to build as a fee and lie to avoid basically having a dead end street constructed here while we wait for a bridge structure in the future.

So uh staff's recommendation uh would be to to accommodate that request so that we uh aren't spending money now uh for a street we would have to kind of maintain and also kind of uh address any types of issues that are occurring on a dead-end street, which we do see.

So and I'll go through the development agreement uh requirements again here too.

So just kind of point that out.

So overall, though, this is essentially arranged uh as a group of three unit buildings.

Um there's a couple things within the plea the PD plan that the applicant is requesting that is that is atypical.

So it wouldn't be allowed if it was coming uh in as straight zoning, which is straight zoning is just anything that's not PD, right?

So they're asking for a couple what we call design exceptions.

The first uh, and I'll point your attention to the right side is this kind of arrangement.

So you can see each each building has kind of three lots.

So if you look in the northwest corner there, lot six, it has A, B, and C.

A, B and C really are going to be subdivided more of an a condo structure.

So the individual is only going to own the building.

Uh the D lot will surround the building, and that will be designated for a homeowner's association, so it's allowed for maintenance.

So this is really targeted at those that don't want to have to maintain a lot of grounds.

That's that arrangement isn't really accommodated within the UDC, so it's it's necessary for here.

Um the overall size of that lot with the three units is consistent with the area you would need if you were doing it regularly, right?

So they're not asking for um smaller area of lots to accommodate this.

Uh single family attached are required 3,500 square feet.

So three of these would require 10,500.

Most of these are closer to 12,000 square feet.

Uh the second part of that is they're asking for 28 foot wide lots, whereas standard single family attached requires 30 foot lots.

So they're asking for a slightly narrower um lot width uh design for this development.

So those are the two design exceptions, which would go with the PD plan.

So if council does approve the PD plan, they're approving those two design exceptions.

Um walk through the statement of intent.

So as you, as I had stated previously, there is a statement of intent with the 2010 annexation for track five, which is this applies here.

And it really stipulated two things a density and a unit type, single family attached and detached.

Now our statement of intent generally requires some more information.

So we have asked them to basically take those two requirements from the 2010 and incorporate it into our current kind of standard on how we do it now.

We're not asking them to rezone it or do anything different, just provide the additional information that our UDC standards now require.

And we'll go through what they require here as we go through the statement of intent requirements.

Um the proposed density overall is 3.2 units per acre for this site.

Uh the original statement of intent again allowed for four units per acre, so this is below uh what the statement of intent originally set out for this whole tract five.

Um as a point of comparison, the entire Brooks phase two, uh, given the acreage and the lots there, it's at a density of about 2.6.

So to give me an idea, a little bit of the density comparison comparison of those two projects.

Um again, the the dwellings, uh, we refer to it as kind of poached stamp stamp lots because they're smaller and they're kind of standalone.

But essentially that's the condo organization.

Uh, with the common lot around it, the the front yard setbacks will be standard, side yard setbacks will be standard, they're just within that common lot.

Um then again we we kind of touched on the extension of Sagemore and Beth Page for the access to the property, which would require all the traffic uh at this time when this is constructed to go through uh the Brooks phase two uh to leave this development and to enter in.

So that would be the access for that property.

Uh there's also a further stub to the east that would be extended uh when that property to the east developed.

Uh so the statement of intent um it lays out the parking required for this.

Uh we uh the applicant requested and we're recommending to go with the standard two units per dwelling unit.

That is the current UDC standard for parking for these.

Um the original statement of intent noted um that 2.2 is in the statement of intent, but that the actual parking would be confirmed with the submission of a development plan.

So at this point um we are recommending what the standard would be.

Uh we didn't see uh a compelling reason to require that 2.2.

Uh we would point out that there's probably approximately 60 on-street parking spaces in the vicinity as well.

Um and the parking is allowed uh typically on local residential streets.

Uh the original statement of intent um had a open space requirement for that whole area of 40 percent.

This, the way they've arranged it, they'll actually have 55% of the sites going to be preserved in open space.

Uh landscaping is 15%, uh that's about the same.

That's our current standard as well.

Um they do accommodate area for stormwater detentions.

There's climax forest on the site, which I won't get into the specifics of that unless uh ask.

Uh, and there's also floodplain and floodway on this property as well to the north.

Um now I kind of want to talk a little bit on I think some of the concerns and um comments that we received during the public hearing.

I know councils received a significant amount of correspondence.

And just to clarify, uh there was a couple correspondence with the agenda.

One was what we received with the plan and zoning packet, one is what we received between planning and zoning and prior to the count or the agenda being prepared, and then I think anything after that was forwarded directly to council.

So every everything that we re-received should have been provided to council.

One of the uh principal concerns was was traffic within Brooks phase two.

Uh and I think some of that um concerns was kind of focused on the need for a traffic study.

Um we'll go through a little bit of what a traffic study can and can't do and what it does provide here in a second.

Um in this instance, though, a traffic study was not considered to be required by staff.

Uh there's some language in the the original development agreement that kind of implied maybe we could require it for every single phase.

Uh but generally our staff does a good job of of looking at what a development is and determining based on past traffic studies if there's been any real significant changes since that time.

Uh and if there hasn't, we don't necessarily want to put developers through uh needless expense when all the data is the same.

That's essentially what the evaluation we would go through.

If this was coming in by itself and not a planned development, it wouldn't actually cross the threshold for a required traffic study.

That's a hundred trips in the peak hour.

Uh this does not actually trip that.

Um so it wouldn't have been required had it been a standalone non-planned development uh project, if that uh makes sense.

So the the parking as well, uh I think I kind of touched on it already.

So that does meet our standards today.

Uh we do allow uh single garages with the driveway in the front to count as kind of tandem parking, so two parking spaces are required.

A lot of detached homes might have two in the garage, uh, but a bare minimum two uh off street parking spaces are required for each unit.

And generally when you get smaller units, single family attached, that parking demand is usually less than you would see with a detached uh single family home.

Um there's also some concerns with infrastructure capacity, uh kind of setting aside maybe the concerns with uh traffic infrastructure and transportation infrastructure.

There's no utility, I think, concerns with this property.

Um the green space and amenities, this particular development by itself isn't isn't providing any specific amenities.

There's no specific requirement from the city to provide amenities.

Um however, if that is uh something that becomes a condition along with the planned development, we do include that on that statement of intent.

Um the green space, again, that's that was a little bit of the rationale for this more clustered approach when it was zoned.

And I think that's also what's being approached here is is to try to preserve some of that.

Uh I won't say that it's also not to reduce cost, and I think that is something uh that is also addressed within our housing study about the need for uh different housing types.

Uh and one of the ways that we can uh make housing more attainable is to allow for kind of smaller footprints, you know, look at something that's not something our typical housing.

Uh and I think some of those developers are looking for those opportunities to provide something that's going to meet um what the market's asking for uh and specifically what our housing study is asking for.

Um as far as neighborhood character, so this is uh single family again, as I had stated.

It is not a different type of housing, it's just attached versus detached.

Um in the spectrum, I think, of housing and how we would look at impacts next to them.

Uh single family detached is probably the least impactful.

Single family A-tached is probably the next less impactful.

It is it's kind of as you step up, and then you would look at something that's more like you more units on one lot, duplex, triplex uh apartments.

And so when staff looks at you know the appropriateness of location for something next to single family detached.

Um we look at uh, yeah, we look at you know the possibility of integrating some housing types within a neighborhood and not not necessarily focusing on making sure any any one area is homogeneous with its housing type.

I would also point out that uh L Chaparral, although not built, is along a collector street, and when we do look for opportunities for maybe higher density, we are looking not necessarily right in the middle, you know, the intersection of two local residential streets.

We're looking at more on the edges of those to kind of integrate it in, but also put it in an area that might be more apt to have transit related or have services related.

Um L.

Shraparel is not being built at this time, but I think that kind of lends itself a little bit to that location for single family attached in this location.

Uh so just a little bit on on the track concerns and how it uh transportation impact uh assessment or study could play into it.

So there was there's actually two different traffic impact studies for this area.

So in 2014, that's when Brooks phase one developed.

So they did a traffic study at that point.

And they looked at uh impacts, and what they do is project um what future development will be, and they project how much how many trips, how many vehicle trips will be generated by that development, where it might go, what intersections might be impacted by that increased growth.

Um the second part of that is it required construction of part of what is now Hoy Lake.

There was a provision in that 2010 development agreement that required the construction of some collector that connected between Rolling Hills and W before they could build more than 100 units.

So this Hoy Lake was actually required by that original uh development agreement.

2017, fast forward a few years, we have phase two, uh, which is kind of what's shown on the screen there.

Um, and that looked at the potential impacts of 390 dwelling units, although I think it actually wound up being a little bit more than that, but not significantly more.

Uh and it looked at two scenarios.

And so what a traffic study really is good at identifying is is looking at intersections and where there might be significant impacts, safety issues uh or or uh uh kind of delays that are not consistent with what the city wants.

Um it's generally not looking at specific speeds on a particular roadway, it's not looking at uh width per se.

Um it uh the 2017, when it was proposing what you see on the screen there, that's that's Brooks phase two.

Uh it knew that this part, Ashford Place, could develop in the future.

And so they wanted to accommodate the traffic coming from that through Sagemore to WW.

And so what you have in the screen on the top uh is the numbers that they used to look at what they assumed might develop, which was 85 units.

Uh, and what they came up with was a uh a number of uh average daily trips.

And so our streets are kind of classified based on how many average daily trips it can accommodate.

And so there's local residential, but then when you start collector, there's kind of a threshold and a range for what we're targeting.

So Sagemore was built with really a target ADT, average daily traffic of between 1,500 and 3,500 trips.

So I won't talk about the the top one.

What they did was take the worst case scenario, and that's the bottom one, and they looked at what would happen if if track five developed to the very maximum density with 2780 units.

Um in that case, which is the worst case scenario with no other connections, the ADT for Sagemore would be about 1900 trips.

And so that falls within the 1500 to 3500 uh range for that street classification, which is a neighborhood collector.

So that's one thing a traffic study can look at is the design of the street and where your collectors need to go, depending on what the expected traffic on it is going to be.

Uh the other thing they look at is really major intersections.

Is there a safety concern with people leaving the developments at these intersections getting on to WW?

Um and I don't know, I forget if I have that.

So this is essentially what what we're looking at, right?

This is the number of trips that we're looking at leaving or exiting.

Uh in this case, it's referred to as Sunnydale.

It's before the plat was submitted with the actual name.

But it's it's looking at how many people are turning out of there.

They they have some very standardized method to look at um based on the traffic along uh WW and along Broadway, what the delay getting out of that intersection will be, and there's a threshold there uh that if the delay is so great then then improvements need to be made.

Uh essentially the the level of service for that intersection didn't fall below a threshold that would require any improvements.

Um and I mentioned that uh for a couple reasons because I think there has been uh some comments related to possible infrastructure requirements for this project, as we've seen in other ones.

Um I think typically we would look at this as a fairly small project.

I know it could have general impacts on the neighboring property owners, not trying to minimize that, but from a from a from a larger standpoint, 75 or 77 units is not adding a significant amount of traffic to I think that traffic flow.

Again, that's why it didn't trigger or wouldn't have triggered a traffic study by itself.

Um what we rely on though to evaluate that is the traffic study.

And so if the traffic study has told us one, the roadway is sufficient to handle the traffic on it, and the intersection uh will provide an acceptable level of service.

Uh those are usually what we would rely on if we were going to require any type of infrastructure improvements.

And since we didn't have anything that indicated objectively that there was going to be an issue, there's no recommendation for any type of infrastructure improvements related to this project.

And I think I kind of touched on this as well.

Uh this is Sagemore and Hoy Lake.

So Hoy Lake was actually constructed, that's the blue line that was uh constructed to a major collector uh and it is uh can accommodate 3,500 to 8,500 um daily trips.

Their projection was probably in the neighborhood of low 3,000.

So it may have been built a little higher than necessary, although I think with some of the feedback on the traffic there, that traffic may be more than they projected at the time.

Although the projections in the traffic study uh looked at the full build out of Brooks uh and all the other developments known at that time, plus kind of a one one and a half percent increase in development traffic every year.

So they try to accommodate for unknown growth as well.

Uh so the last part of that three-prong um request here is a development agreement.

So this is this is fairly straightforward.

Um it is essentially to allow them to pay a fee and lie for the extension of L Chaparral instead of building it to where the bridge would start, which would kind of provide this orphan piece of road that won't be used at the time.

So we'd prefer not to have to build it and let it sit there and maintain for years until the bridge is built.

So we have the fee and lieu that that is the cost of that extension.

We would put that in a future project when the builds uh would be built, and and and that would go along with that.

Um the payment is phased, so they don't they don't pay that whole fee and loo up front.

There's a portion with phase one and a portion with phase two.

Uh there's also phasing of the right-of-way dedication for L Chaparral as they go along as well, although we can also require that at any point, depending on if the public works director determines that there's a need for that right-of-way.

So there's a bit of a fail-safe there in case we are ready to build L Chaparral.

Um another thing came up is that uh a trail easement was required in the 2010 um development agreement along uh the North Fork of Grindstone.

That development agreement still applies to this property.

That requirement is still there.

We went ahead and duplicated it in the new development agreement just for this property, just to you know sage any concerns that we wouldn't get a trail easement along that creek for future parkway extension or our uh excuse me, trail extension.

Uh and so those are really um the key three things that are in the development agreement.

Uh you know, I kind of touched on this a little bit.

You know, we we have a housing study right now, and so we try to um all of our are kind of comprehensive plans or big plans, we we as long as they're land use related, we try to look at those and see how developments are accommodated in those.

Uh the housing studies is a little bit of a new one for us, so I think we're still digesting what the recommendations are there.

Um there's there's reference in there, you know, that the community thinks we do need some gentle density and gentle density is essentially anything that isn't single family detached and it's not multifamily, so it's all that middle housing, the duplex, the triplex, the single family attached that we don't have right now.

Um there is a a uh a preference, I think, for for that type of housing for sale.

It actually kind of makes a maybe a counterintuitive suggestion that we don't need that much more for rent right now because we do have a lot of that housing topology that is rented.

Although I would point out that I think anyone who knows the kind of context of the city is here, is we do have a lot of duplexes and triplexes, but it may not be the type of housing that all segments of our our community are looking for.

I think we have students looking for one thing and we have families looking for different things too.

So I think it's it's fair to point that that kind of dynamic out as well.

Um so this one uh is platted in a way that each unit could be sold.

Um we do have a need for rental units in the range of 1,000 to 2,500 per month.

With kind of a target in the in the housing study, which would be the optimal target range.

Uh not something necessarily we control, but if if we're looking at um size of housing, that does come in to play with with cost of housing.

Um things I just point out uh as well is I think one survey in the housing study indicated that after single family detached, single family ATASH is the next next most likely housing that someone in the community would pursue.

So there is there is kind of that need for this type of housing.

Uh so in conclusion, um staff really looked at uh those three things that are under consideration of council today.

Um our approach was that the how the zoning that was in place now allowed for single family attached.

It allowed for up to four units an acre.

Um so the development plan really was the layout on how that would actually be built on that site.

Um without any evidence from the traffic study that there would be any traffic conditions.

There's no conditions associated with that development plan.

Uh the development agreement does uh address a couple of the improvements that we had talked about with the trail easement and the extension of L Chaparral.

Uh and the statement of intent outlines some of the additional requirements for this that are generally in line with what our current standards are.

So namely two two parking spaces per umit setbacks being in line with what our setbacks generally are.

Um but those two design exceptions do go along with the PD plan, and that's that kind of condo lot arrangement, and then also the 28 foot to 30, excuse me, 30 foot reduced to 28 foot wide lots for the single family attached housing.

Subject to some technical corrections with the which has been completed and subject to an agreed upon development agreement, which we do have and the developer has signed the development agreement and is uh amenable to the standards within it.

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

Thirty minutes, Clint.

Does it not sorry?

Does that council have any questions for staff?

Jackie.

You mentioned um, I believe if I you don't have slide numbers, so I don't have a slide number to give you.

Um you mentioned 60 on-street parking spots were allowed in the new division.

Um I correct in that would not include the units on Sage Moore, or does that include one side parking on the new addition to SAGEMORE that's being suggested?

I I think that figure was what our staff had had uh calculated that would be provided within this development.

So there's enough spaces to park 60 cars along the streets that you see within this development.

Including Sage Moore.

Uh including SageMore that is within this development, correct.

Okay, but only on one side of Sage Moore.

Correct.

Okay.

Um then I just have another question.

So I know I asked this question earlier regarding the expansion of El Chaparral, and one of the responses I got was that our plans for El Chaparral aren't even on the books until like 2035.

Might be a shame question, but I think that's what that said.

But you had mentioned what I'm not seeing on this map, what I would like to see is how far west is the developer building that road.

Like is it cut off there, or is he actually he or she actually going to connect to El Chaparral to the West that's next to, I think that's a church.

It's a fire station.

Or fire station.

Okay.

There's a church.

Our fire station used to be a church.

No, that's south.

What do you point it at?

This is the this I'm talking this one right here.

Casey's is here.

This is the fire station.

This is a church.

But it's now our fire station.

That's fire station 10.

This is our church.

This is this is um if I could clarify.

Yeah, please.

So I believe this is the church which is being purchased for a fire station.

Oh, I thought that's the same.

This is an existing boon county.

That's not right.

I'm sorry.

Hold on, Nancy.

Uh so just as a clarification, at the corner of El Chaparral in WW, at that south, the one he's struggling right now, that is fire district.

So Boone County Fire District, that is their fire station.

We purchased the church.

Across the street.

Yeah.

Across the street.

Yeah.

To be fire station 10.

Yeah.

South.

So but no.

No.

But clarifying, I I don't think that's I thought we purchased the one that is tucked back.

That's a church.

Okay.

So that one still is a church.

Olivet, I think.

Right.

That's not all of it.

Correct.

It is a church.

Okay.

So the one that is on El Chaparral currently.

Yes.

So my question being how much of that road to the west is the develop is it is he stopping at the edge of that map, or are we going to connect all the way back down till El Chaparral next to that church?

Sure.

So I'll feel like that's a couple couple questions I'll cover.

So the developers are responsible for building El Chaparral on their property.

Except for the part that we're going to do a fee and lure as proposed for Fian Lu.

So on this image, what you see kind of at the top part, the gray part, that is all they'll be constructing of El Chaparral.

El Chaparral is shown as extending out of this and south to the to its intersection here to make that connection.

So the city would be responsible for that?

The city would be the city, if it's identified on a future capital improvement, would construct it.

However, the most likely scenario is that future development will come along before that.

And in that case, they would typically be required, just as this development is to plat and build uh at least a portion of that uh collector street on their property as part of their development.

That's typically what we see.

So kind of like quilting.

I'm like envisioning like a quilt being made.

But we're okay.

So as much as we like it to be orderly, sometimes development is a bit of fits and starts.

And so we try to navigate that.

That and that's why we have the major roadway plan so that all parties involved in this kind of had an understanding of where that extension needs to go.

So just so I'm clear, there will be no actual connection built to L Chaparral in either direction with this development.

And the potential earliest we could see the city being responsible for that extension will be 2035.

If it's included on the plan at that time, I think I think Direct Public Works was indicating that that's the earliest we could because it wasn't included on the current CIP.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions, Jackie?

Not right now.

Okay.

Additional questions from council.

Yeah, Betsy.

So the last traffic study, it sounds like the included WW was 10 nine years ago.

Right?

2017.

Correct.

So do we I mean anybody who drives out on WW, including me, unfortunately.

I mean, there's a lot of traffic out there.

So have we thought about just doing a traffic study, or has MODOT addressed that?

Because it's a MODOT road, is my understanding, and it's not improved at all, and we're not really addressing I mean they might say Sagemore doesn't have that much traffic, but it's right over a hill.

It's just to the west of a hill, and certainly being out there looks to me like it's pretty dangerous if you think you're going to turn left.

So is there any plan?

I mean, I realize you're not the MODOT spokesman, but uh I know I sent you a question about what's Modot doing.

Right.

Do we know what Modot is doing?

Uh yeah, I mean I think uh well I'll take that uh a bit of a different angle there.

So we again through our CATSO organization.

Um one of the things we do is with that organization, we identified uh what we consider to be unfunded needs.

Um those those are needs within usually the state highway transportation network that we have identified as needs some attention, need some updates, need some construction.

So safety improvements along Highway WW have been identified through CATSO and put on our unfunded needs list.

So that's communicated to MODOT uh and it indicates what our priorities are for the MODOT network.

And so they should be reviewing that, and I know they do because usually what the process is, they they review all the communities unfunded needs list, and then as funding comes available each year, they use that to elevate projects to their actually transportation improvement program.

Uh and so that that is the really the most straightforward way we have of making sure we're communicating to MODOT that highway WW right now is a is a concern.

Um that kind of encompasses any improvements.

So we I think we were intentionally vague, so they would come in.

Generally, there one of their first steps would be to do some sort of traffic study along that corridor to come up with some potential uh construction improvement.

So I don't think they have done that step yet.

Uh so it's something that uh will continue to be on unfunded needless until that gets accomplished.

And then I realize this isn't WW, but what about Richland Road?

I know we've talked to the county about that, and I I know the city and the I know there's development money that's been donated to do roundabouts or improvements on corners.

Do we have a plan for that?

I mean, we're d we seem to be developing all of this.

Yeah, and we do.

So I think uh speaking of the capital improvement uh plan, so a couple segments of that Richland Road corridor were identified for improvements uh within that kind of 10-year time frame.

So we have had a kind of a program along Richland Road with developments along that, significant developments, where we we understood and there was a specific infrastructure uh uh known issue, and that's the intersection of rolling hills in Richland and how it needed to be improved to uh a roundabout.

So we were able to uh negotiate through development agreements some contributions uh as they were contributing to that need.

Uh so we do have some funding, I think, available from those development agreements uh that we could use for that roundabout uh roundabout construction.

So that's one avenue we've taken to plan for the future in improvements.

Um the general road winding, I think would fall generally within the capital improvement plan.

So I see we have our capital improvement plan man who has joined you.

So can you give us any insight as to what we're doing?

Sure.

Just in that area in general since there's other development happening.

While while El Chaparel is not in the 2025 capital improvement sales tax, there are three road segments that are in this general area, um two segments along St.

Charles Road, um Keene to Richland, and then Richland to Grace.

So basically Keene all the way to Grace is in the capital improvement sales tax.

And then Richland Road from St.

Charles to Grace is also in there.

So those three projects will be pursued as part of the capital improvement sales tax and brought, we'll go through the public improvement process and we'll bring it to council, and we need to have to have a public hearing and the ability to move forward.

But those are three projects that were on the ballot list that went to voters.

Okay.

But uh and just to clarify, although I think maybe Jackie and Clint already did El Chaparel is not on that list, it would have to come back as a capital improvement project on the 2030 ballot if we decide that's something that we think is important enough.

And until then it's not getting built.

Correct.

I mean, there are there is some cost share money in the capital improvement sales tax.

There's always the opportunity.

Part of the reason we put that money in there is the idea of a cost share or something like that.

So I wouldn't say there's there's no opportunity, but it would take some discussion amongst staff and council that that's something that we wanted to pursue.

And how how would we move that forward?

Will we move that forward with a partner, whether that's at Modot for something along WW, um portions of Grace Lane, for instance, are still in the county, would the county want to come with us on that?

So that's why we put that money there.

But there's not El Chaparral is not a listed project on the 2025 capital improvement sales tax.

And the bridge that we're talking about having to build on El Chaparral is north of where this development would come into El Shapro.

Correct.

Yeah, can you show them calling it?

Clock's play in this location.

Okay.

All right.

Thanks.

Well, let me come right.

Um so Shane, to that point.

Um obviously there's um uh one landowner that owns both of those tracks, the one immediately to the west of what's highlighted here, as well as they own the same one that is just to the south that connects El Chaparral with WW.

Is there any opportunity?

Because I have to be honest, my assumption is that most people's concerns is not about trying to get north over the bridge.

It is actually people cutting to go south to WW.

Is it any possibility to have conversations with the with the um the property owner to the West to just finish from this property to WW for that part of El Chaparral so that at least there was an additional outlet from this neighborhood on what is eventually going to be uh a more major collector?

Are are you thinking about public works building something on their property prior to their development or just when that adjacent property owner would be interested in developing?

I think it's more of I'm more thinking of the immediate phasing of this project that's happening.

And and I know it's not I know that normally public works would like to finish a complete project and that it would be for all the development that is happening, but I'm trying to think of this sort of as we're um doing this.

I know you call it greenfield development, it still feels somewhat infill because of the fill around.

Um just trying to think of if there is any sort of opportunities to even just engage in conversation with the property owner.

I have not heard of any conversation about any of that being developed.

I've heard of it from the other tracks in this area, and closer to Richland is road.

So I understand the potential for the going north, but that seems to be most people are wanting to go down to WW because it's an easier way to get into town rather than going up to Richland and St.

Charles, especially since you're about to do a lot of construction.

Sure.

I mean we can always have a conversation.

I think it's worth it.

Okay.

Just wondering.

All right.

Any other anyone in questions before we come back to repeating people?

Yeah.

Sure.

Sorry.

Um, so what I gather from the council report, um, just thinking about traffic um and the future of this area.

Um and even the built environments within this development.

Um Brooks phase one and two, Hoy Lake was constructed according to major collector standards, despite being a neighborhood collector.

Um then shortly following that construction, the residents on the area in the area applied for traffic calming.

Um we've even heard reports from some of the residents of traffic clocked at 60 miles an hour or roundabout.

Um so I can see from I can see from the um neighborhood traffic calming plan that this is on their end ranked at 34.

My concern is that Sage Moore also is constructed according to neighborhood collector standards, despite being a regular surface road.

And in some ways, I think that's good because it's overbuilt and that allows it to handle more volume.

Um my concern here is that we have a design that sets us up for encouraging speeding.

And I think it's somewhat likely that the residents of Sagemore in the future may also seek traffic calming through our city's traffic calming program.

I'm glad we have that for them.

But when we evaluate this, are we predicting looking ahead to traffic calming needs?

And whose responsibility is it to provide that infrastructure?

Do we predict for that infrastructure cost?

Yeah, I think I would just tell you that when it comes to the neighborhood traffic management program, that is we have money dedicated to that.

We use that score sheet to prioritize projects and move forward on those, you know, top down.

Um so that's cost that's covered by the city.

Um that money comes from the capital improvement sales tax as far as what we would do as part of a development that you know that that's not part of our current program.

Evaluate that.

Do we evaluate that?

That's possibly with another stage.

So the cost of constructing the street is on the developer, and then that is conveyed to the city, correct?

Uh yes.

Um city ordinance requires that they pay for the residential portion of that collector street, and they are specifically not responsible for major drainage structures.

So that's how we calculated the number that they would pay in lieu.

Um and then when El Chaparel is a project that we would move forward with, we would then use that money plus in theory capital improvement sales tax money to construct the roadway.

Yeah.

So my concern here is that we're not capturing these costs because after it's conveyed to the city, if they have a need for traffic calming, that cost is on the city.

Um and I'm concerned that we're setting ourselves up for future costs and delays in being able to correct for that because it takes a long time for us to move up the traffic calming program.

Um I think what I want to say is that I would view it very positively if the applicant would be willing to address traffic calming within their PD plan.

Um Mayor.

Yes.

So if I could, I think you need to get to public comment before we get to council comments or weigh in on the proposal.

That's fine.

Yeah, I can just as a kind of a point out.

And ask the questions now.

Thank you.

Exactly.

Thank you.

You had one follow-up question.

Yeah.

It may have been answered already.

The developer, so he's responsible for the residential road.

Does that include traffic calming uh infrastructure like speed humps during the development?

Or that is that a city expense that comes later?

No.

For the ash replace development, there were there were no traffic calming measures required for that development.

Thank you.

All right.

Um seeing other council questions.

I'm gonna go ahead and open this up from the public.

If anyone public would like to speak, please come forward.

If you are representing an organization affected by let me know.

I'm keeping time on my phone, so I have no idea what you see over there.

So I will just tell you, and you will hear Queen's bicycle race when your time is up.

Good evening, Andy Green with Crockett Engineering.

I'm here asking for just three minutes tonight and leaving the six-minute uh portion of the presentation to Mr.

Tim Crockett here to discuss the Ashford place.

I'm just gonna hit on a few key items.

Clint did a great job on the staff report, so I will just clarify a few points of discussion tonight.

Again, Andy Green with Crockett Engineering.

Tim Crockett here, Caleb Colbert with Hayden and Colbert, and also Troy Miller Senior and Troy Miller Jr.

as the applicant are here as well.

Um, so the current property is 24 acres and is currently uh annexed in zone PD, which Clint covered the history pretty well.

Uh that original annexation and zoning took place in 2010, so we're not doing a rezoning tonight.

We're simply updating an existing zoning with uh with a PD plan.

Um as Clint mentioned, the existing zoning from 2010 allowed for the proposed three unit buildings that were proposing.

Um this development will also conform to the existing statement of intent as well as meet all uh current city development regulations.

Um here we go.

So in green, you've seen it.

Here's the location of Ashford Place just north of the Brooks, uh Platte two and three.

Here's a zoomed in view, which we have seen a couple times by now.

So just again going over the history here in blue is uh track five or part of track five, which is from the original 2010 zoning and annexation of property in this area.

Tract five is identified in green, and then in 2013, our client Troy Miller purchased uh the west portion of part of Tract 5, a shaded in blue here.

And in 2014, the Brooks Platte number one PD plan was approved on the east side of Tract 5.

Following that in 2017, the Brooks Platte number one was then developed.

In 2017, the Brooks phase two was annexed in zoned, which is south of all of this.

And then finally, in 2018, the Brooks Plat II was approved, followed that by Platte 3 in 2022.

Um just want to paint the picture.

This property has been annexed and zoned long before the Brooks has been uh part of basically the discussion here in this area.

Uh touching base on utilities, San Diego Sewer, water, electric, and stormwater are all on site and available to serve the property.

Couple schematic unit plans here.

This is a proposed view of the three-unit building.

A couple of quick elevation views.

Uh here's a approximate floor plan.

It's a mixture of two bed and three bedroom units.

Phasing was discussed briefly a little bit, but here's just a quick graphic of our proposed three phases.

Phase one is generally a third of it in the southwest corner, followed by phase two as shown in yellow.

And finally, in green would be phase number three.

That I'll leave it to Tim Crockett to finish the presentation.

You've got someone else right behind you.

So you can come up, Petty.

We've got five that are going to be just weave together.

My name is Peggy Kirkpatrick, and I live at 713 Sagemore Drive.

And I am the first of five speakers representing the residents of Sagemore, the sole point of ingress and egress to the proposed Ashford Place development.

We first of all want to thank the members of council who took the time to meet with us and visit the Brooks neighborhood.

We so appreciate your willingness to listen and to hear our concerns.

We also want to thank Troy and Renee Miller for accepting our invitation to meet.

We had a very productive discussion, and honestly, we wish we had met earlier in this process.

Troy mentioned how attractive the Brooks subdivision is and how he hopes to make the development blend well with ours.

However, it was made clear to me by a public works employee.

Any changes to safeguard our street needs to be done before the development plan is approved.

And that is why we are here tonight.

Ashford Place is a landlocked development with a single point of access through an existing neighborhood street, with no foreseeable construction of El Chaparral Avenue as it has been discussed.

If the extension of El Chaparel Avenue already existed, we would simply not be here tonight.

We would not have an issue because construction vehicles, all of that traffic would have another way of moving south, except for for Sagemore.

Our concerns are not about who lives in these homes, whether they are rented or owned, or about issues such as property values or crime.

Our concerns are about the design of the plan and the implications it creates for traffic, safety, parking, and long-term precedence.

You may hear references this evening to conditions on Hoy Lake Drive.

Emotions around that street run high and understandably so.

We acknowledge those frustrations, but tonight's testimony is focused on Sage Moore and on ensuring that decisions made here do not replicate or worsen problems that already exist elsewhere in our neighborhood.

In summary, we are not here to reject development.

We are asking council to pause and require meaningful changes so that we can be good neighbors with Mr.

Miller.

The speakers who follow will address three specific areas of concern.

Traffic and related infrastructure, street safety, and precedence.

Thank you so much for your time.

Can we have the previous slides taken down while people are speaking?

Yep, I think.

Thank you.

My name is Austin Bryan and I live at 901 Sagemore Drive.

I'm here tonight to discuss traffic on the east side of town and what happens when growth continues without the infrastructure to support it.

Ashford Place does not exist in the vacuum.

It is one project within a broader pattern of development on the east side that relies on a limited roadway network.

The traffic impact study relied upon for this proposal was completed in 2017, nine years ago, before construction of the first phase of the Brooks.

It relies on outdated assumptions, including an annual growth rate of just 1.5 percent in the surrounding area.

Since 2017, Old Hawthorne and the Vineyards, which were not considered in this TIS, have grown by nearly 90 percent.

That level of growth has fundamentally changed traffic conditions along eastern corridors beyond what 1.5 percent can model.

Another major concern for Brooks residents is that the study doesn't account for cut-through traffic, something we deal with every day, especially on Hoyle Lake Drive.

Hoy Lick was designed by the city to serve as a collector between Rolling Hills and Broadway, but it was built without adequate traffic calming measures.

This may remains a sore spot for our neighborhood as we believe the city understood the risks when designing Hoy Lake yet failed to take steps to mitigate them.

These risks are now compounded by land use changes never contemplated in the study.

Rosetta Learning Center now operates along this corridor, yet there are no school zones, no reduced speed limits, no crosswalks, no traffic calming measures in place.

Traffic might otherwise be inconvenient, becomes a safety issue when vulnerable children are involved.

Even under the study's own 2036 projections, two critical intersections are expected to fail based on traffic level of service scores.

Chaparral and East Broadway, near Casey's is projected to reach level F, which is the worst rating given during peak hours.

While the Rosetta Sagemore at East Broadway, which is also where Rosetta Learning Center is located, is projected at levels E and F in the morning and evening, respectively in 2036.

Naturally, I wanted to test my own suspicions, so I counted traffic for four hours on October 29th and 30th, both school days, and inconsistent with the traffic information study.

Once in the morning and once in the evening, my traffic count confirmed what I suspected.

These intersections are failing today, 10 years in advance of the projected conditions.

Meanwhile, the Brooks, Old Hawthorne, and the Vineyards are still developing, not to mention a project is being addressed in Tract 2 at Richland and Rolling Hills for an additional 180 apartment units.

This growth is not slowing down any time soon.

If anything, I sympathize most with El Chaparel residents who are here first, have poor sight lines and long wait times to risk getting onto East Broadway safely.

Because residents of El Chaparral neighborhood are unincorporated and feed into Broadway, a state road, they shoulder the impacts of city approved growth without the representation or infrastructure commitments typically afforded to city residents.

So, Council, tonight I ask you to acknowledge that Ashford Place is not an isolated proposal.

It is part of a pattern, growth pushing east while the necessary infrastructure lags behind.

When bad data and failure to build and failure is built into the plan, who answers for it?

I'd like to now invite my neighbor Holly McCoy to discuss SageMo residents' concerns regarding safety in our street.

Good evening.

I'm Holly McCoy.

I live at 809 Sagemore Drive, and I'm speaking about safety concerns with Ashford Place, particular on Sagemore.

It's a neighborhood street.

It's used daily by neighbors, pedestrians, and children.

Sagemore cannot be retrofitted.

It's designed as fixed.

What we can do is insist on enforceable safety measures, speed calming, parking limitations, and clear guidance to protect residents and keep traffic manageable.

If this development moves forward, I respectfully request these issues must be addressed before any additional traffic is added.

Sagemore is straight and it slopes downward on both ends, which naturally encourages speeding.

The street was built to neighborhood collector standards designed to carry high volumes at faster speeds, but is expected to function like a residential street.

There are 19 driveways along Sagemore, turning every additional car into a potential conflict.

The result is a mismatch, a road built to move cars efficiently, but it is a residential street.

Columbia Code prohibits subdivisions for single or two-family homes from taking driveway access onto collector streets unless formally approved.

And we have seen no evidence that such approval was granted for this section of Sagemore.

And even if it was, the driveways defeat the intent of collector standards, which are meant to prioritize safe traffic flow and reduce conflicts.

Why was this design allowed and who takes responsibility for it?

We already have a clear example of what happens when these conditions are ignored.

Hoyle Lake Drive serves as a neighborhood collector, connecting Rolling Hills to East Broadway.

And like Sagemore, it was built to a higher standard but classified as a low standard street without meaningful traffic calming.

And speeding has created unsafe conditions.

The city has recognized this and scheduled advanced traffic combing, but not for another five years.

We cannot afford to repeat that mistake on Sagemor.

Heavy construction and residential traffic have required major repairs, not minor patches, highlighting the stress this street already endures.

I know firsthand because it collapsed right in front of my house in 2024 in the fall and had to be replaced.

Any approval that ignores these conditions is asking for accidents before they happen.

If Ashford Place moves forward, we firmly request the installation of three 15 mile per hour rated speed bumps on Sagemore at the developer's expense.

Mr.

Miller wants to bring more traffic onto our street with Ashra Place, and he should have some skin in the game and help fund the safety measures that protect all of us.

Maybe temporary mitigation during construction is acceptable, but the speed bumps must be fully installed prior to occupancy.

Thank you.

And now I'd like to ask Pat, my neighbor, to discuss concerns with parking and precedent.

My name's Pat Weber.

I live at 801 SAGEMore Drive.

And I'm urging that this proposal not be approved without strong and forcible conditions, particularly related to parking, buffering, and precedent for this project that it sets.

Parking.

The plan does rely on a single bay garage plus a single parking spot in a driveway per unit.

While this meets minimum code, our concerns are that it doesn't reflect how people actually live.

Garages can be used for storage, households own multiple vehicles, three bedroom unit, three vehicles, two spots, and guests need somewhere to park.

Overflow parking has only one place to go beyond the bounds of Ashford Place on the Sagemor.

Sagemore is parking on only one side of the street, and Ashford Place on street parking is limited by the curves.

Brooks residents are subject to an enforceable HOA.

Ashford Place is not.

Till then Sagemore will carry the full burden of construction and daily traffic.

The two parcels, as mentioned, will bring up these same issues.

So we're respectfully asking the construction of two additional parking pads as mentioned in Crockett's engineering report on September 4th and any other enforceable parking controls necessary to prevent spillover into the brooks and buffering.

We need buffering commensurate with level one requirements between RMF and R1 zoning along the entire shared property to help maintain the integrity of these two different neighborhoods.

And thank you very much for your time.

Now we've got more.

Straight zoning sets clear expectations.

Residents know the standards and what development is allowed.

The legacy PUD standards before us tonight are different.

They allowed zoning to be put in place without a defined development plan, leaving details to be decided later.

That is exactly what happened here nearly 15 years ago.

Ideas were discussed, but no plan was approved.

One councilwoman said PUD zoning, the city hates PUD zoning when showing this plan.

Naturally, the city has moved away from this approach because it often creates uncertainty and conflict when plans come forward years later.

Today, PD designation requires a development plan up front, not a decade and a half later.

This matters because we are now asked to reconcile ambiguous past zoning with present-day housing goals, developers' rights, and existing homeowners' expectations.

That balance is difficult, and it is crucial we start from the right framework.

Brooks residents are zoned R1 today and reasonably relied on those standards.

Sagemore Drive tells the same story.

Its 19 residential driveways, to our dismay, were permitted based on expectations of single family traffic volumes and future roadway relief.

Those expectations matter and they should not be overridden by a proposal that introduces increased intensity without safeguards.

As Peggy mentioned, we reached out to the developer and met with Troy and Renee last week.

The conversation was long overdue, and we appreciated the desire to build their desire to build quality housing and be good neighbors.

But intentions alone do not determine outcomes.

Trust is built through clear standards and enforceable safeguards.

Sagemore has engaged in good faith.

We have also learned that once a development is approved and built, it is very difficult to correct missing protections.

Hoylake being the prime example shared tonight.

So our requests tonight are focused and practical.

First, we ask Council to acknowledge this proposal for what it is.

The first development plan ever submitted for this parcel.

It is not a continuation of an approved plan, nor does it feel like minor clarifications to a 15-year-old statement of intent.

Council, what is the prevailing code?

Why is the developer not held to today's planned development standards?

Once this question is answered, we respectfully ask that conditions be required prior to any eventual approval of Ashford Place.

Council, you are responsible for approving this development.

We ask that it be done thoughtfully, safely, and with respect for the neighborhood that already exists.

Neighbors, if you believe our streets and community deserve balanced and responsible development, I invite you to stand in support with me.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council members.

My name is Gail Halsworth, and I live at 5338 Harbor Town Drive.

I'm here tonight to oppose the proposed Ashford Place development and to explain why it would worsen long-standing problems related to Hoy Lake Drive.

Hoylake Drive is the primary street in our subdivision.

Under the Catso Major Roadway Plan, it is classified as a neighborhood collector.

However, a 2017 traffic study assumed that Hoy Lake Drive would functionally replace a major collector that had originally been planned.

Despite that assumption, Hoy Lake Drive was never formally reclassified.

Sagemore is Catso classified as a city street, but built and treated as a neighborhood collector to facilitate the development of Ashford Place.

That matters.

Street classification affects safety, livability, parking, access, and cost responsibility.

Because of those impacts, the Unified Development Code and the Catso Road Plan require formal amendment process, including public notice and public hearing before a street can be treated as a higher classification.

That process never occurred to my knowledge.

This mismatch between classification and function has real consequences and sacrifices transparency.

Appendix A1E1 of the UDC generally states that a neighborhood collector should connect to only one arterial or one major collector.

Hoy Lake Drive connects to one minor arterial and one major arterial and functions as a cut-through route between them.

It is the only street of its kind in all of Columbia.

The UDC further states that streets connected to arterials or collectors must be designed to avoid cut-through traffic.

Hoy Lake Drive has no such design features.

Instead, it experiences daily cut through traffic and speeding.

Residents have been referred to the city's traffic calming program, but that system heavily weights fixed features like schools, parks, or hospitals, none of which exist in our subdivision.

As a result, despite documented speeding and traffic volumes, we have little realistic access to traffic calming.

The 2017 traffic study projected 310 daily trips, but it did not account for cut through traffic, which is our primary problem.

When cut through traffic is considered, it is reasonable to conclude that Hoy Lake Drive may exceed volumes typically appropriate for a neighborhood collector.

When residents raised this concern, staff stated that that was acceptable because Hoy Lake was built to major collector standards.

That is precisely the issue.

A street should not be functionally upgraded without being formally reclassified and then treated as a neighborhood collector when that becomes convenient.

Safety concerns are real.

Residents have documented vehicles traveling up to 57 miles per hour.

Ashford Place would add more homes and more traffic to a system that is already operating outside its intended design and classification.

I respectfully urge City Council to deny or defer Ashford Place.

I'm sorry.

Both stage four drive and Hoy Lakes design can be thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry, my phone timer failed me.

I apologize.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak?

Not working.

There's a timer there.

Good evening, folks.

My name is Loretta Forcey.

I live at 2954 South Olivet Road in Columbia, Missouri.

I am a resident of the county.

I have driven WW since the early 1970s.

I have watched it grown.

And to this day, I live it every day from an accident at the junkyard at the bridge in 1998.

My son suffered a severe brain injury.

My grandson suffered a mild injury, brain injury.

I know to I know for a fact that WW cannot take any more traffic than what we have today.

I can leave home at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and thinking, you know, people should be off their lunch hours and back at work and no.

All the time, bumper to bumper.

Like I said, I've been traveling.

I I moved over there in 82.

But I have traveled it since 1971.

And I can tell you WW needs definitely some attention.

And you can talk to Mo Dot all you want to.

I can't even get them to mow down by South Olivet Church.

You can't even get no one down in there to mow.

So I can pull out safely off of South AW off of South Olivet onto WW.

And tonight I'm just asking the City Council to consider the traffic that WW has and until something is done.

And I love all the new homes out there and I wouldn't, you know, it's it's beautiful, but it's very, very dangerous.

And I have seen a lot of fatalities on the bridge, and where these folks have to pull out down there.

I can't imagine coming from that stop light at Hoy Lake and going west, coming into town and having any kind of black ice or any kind of moisture on that road and being able like ice and trying to get stopped.

And I know that Modot can't be and the county can't be spreading treatments in all areas, you know, and get them there fast as to some of these people get out on these roads to go to work.

And I know myself, if I was cruising down through there at 45, I I could probably get stopped.

So I'm just asking you folks to reconsider this and give it a lot of time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak on Bill 426?

Good evening.

My name is Jack Mayor.

I live at 809 Brockton in the Brooks.

I'm a commercial real estate broker here in town for over 13 years.

I respectfully ask that you reject this proposal as currently configured and request modifications that better serve both the development and the surrounding neighborhood.

I would like to address several critical concerns.

The one that uh is primary, hasn't really been addressed yet as the density calculation.

Staff reports density at 3.2 units per acre using the entire 24-acre site.

However, Columbia's Columbia's zoning code in section 29.2 explicitly defines net developable acreage as the area used for determining allowable densities after subtracting land not suitable for development.

The code already applies to standard in section 29-8 for residential developments and requires planned developments to deduct unusable land from density calculations.

The staff report acknowledges that the northern portion of this site is largely encumbered by floodway, 500 year floodplain, and climax forests that must remain post-development.

So a lot of that unusable land that's being spoken of cannot be used to begin with.

It is in floodplain.

And the current city code says that we need to go buy usable land.

And if we're doing that, when we apply the code's own definition and calculate density on the approximately 11 acres that can actually accommodate development, the functional density is approximately seven units per acre.

It's a lot more significant than what's being conveyed here tonight.

This matters because Section 2910 of the code states that PUD density shall be determined by conditions specifically applicable to the site, including the character of surrounding property.

The Brooks is entirely single family residential, as we've already determined, and a density of seven units per acre is incompatible with that character.

Second, traffic access and infrastructure timing.

Obviously, we've already talked about that long enough.

Probably not for a decade.

It's a major issue for this development.

Third, inadequate buffering and transition.

The proposed setbacks between Ashford Place and the Brooks are insufficient for the density differential between our single family homes and what is essentially 77 triplexes.

Fourth, the developer's unwillingness to engage.

Despite 91 written comments, 27 residents testifying, and multiple requests for modifications, the developer is not meaningfully revised this proposal to address community concerns.

Given how unprecedented this density and fit configuration is for our area, the lack of good faith negotiation is unacceptable.

I urge you to send this project back for modifications that better balance the need for housing with the legitimate concerns of established neighborhoods and compliance with our zoning code standards.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

You can hand it over to Sheila and she'll pass them out to us.

I'm Stephanie Bell with Ellinger Law.

I represent uh residents on Kingston Heath.

And I'm here to address the serious and substantial legal and safety concerns about the proposed development.

First, the traffic data is dangerously outdated.

The developer claims a 2017 traffic study covers this project.

The study is nearly nine years old and relies on data that's as old as 12 years.

Industry standards require data within 18 months.

Modot requires data no older than two years.

This isn't even close.

Second, the 2017 study contains a fatal error that dramatically underestimates traffic impacts.

The study assumed only 85 homes for the entire North Tract.

Ashford Place and the two remaining undeveloped lots.

But Ashford Place alone proposes 77 units on just one tract.

A reasonable projection for all three tracks is 231 units, not 85.

That's nearly three times what was analyzed.

This error invalidates the entire safety analysis and the conclusion that intersections will operate at acceptable levels.

I'd encourage you to take a really close look at the 2017 TIS, specifically page 27 uh table five.

And if you look at that, it does not include the worst-case scenario.

The October 23rd 2025 letter does not address these issues.

It just simply repeats information from the 2017 TIS.

In that uh study, MODOT specifically requested the study of specific intersections.

That's on page three of 36.

That capacity analysis presented on page 20 has not been updated.

And my analysis, which are being handed now is on exhibit three of potentially the impact of that error on the study.

And the developer also claims they're grandfathered under old rules, because this is an is an existing PUD district.

That is incorrect.

Their own attorney admits in writing there is no approved development plan for Ashford Place.

Without an approved plan, there's no grandfathering.

That means the current code applies.

And this proposal, as previously discussed, violates things like net developable acreage, minimum landscaping requirements, a lot with standards, and maximum density limits, and requires a new TIS here.

Finally, the 2010 development agreement isn't being meaningfully honored.

The binding agreement explicitly requires an updated traffic study when development plans are submitted for track five.

The city's traffic engineer said it wasn't necessary, but the agreement doesn't give the traffic engineer the discretion to waive that requirement.

The agreement also requires trail easements and it requires the developer to set aside two acres for emergency services, 10 acres for a public park, with only two tracks left to develop.

How will the public receive these promised benefits?

The bottom line is that this proposal moves forward based on decades old data, decade-old data with a calculation error that's more than 250%.

We urge the council to press pause and table this issue.

Thank you.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak on the proposed bill 426?

I believe the Asher Place is not about building affordable housing.

I believe it's only about helping, it's not about helping the younger generation get started in a meaningful uh way to own real estate.

Unfortunately, uh this was a understanding of our city council person when we first met with her.

Um I believe that this development is really just about developer greed.

Uh squeezing as many units in a small area as possible.

You've already heard about the developable land versus non-developable, and it's just there's there's problems all along.

Um we've already heard from a young gentleman about the uh actual number of units per acre.

You know, it's not this um three-point whatever.

Uh it's it's by my calculations, it was eight and a half.

I think it was earlier stated it was seven and a half or eight.

You know, it's just way too many units per acre uh in developable land.

Uh Ashford Place will never uh be easily accessible for the public.

It's a quarter mile away from WW.

And unless L Shaft Rail is developed, I'll say beforehand.

This is never going to get um uh developed for at least 10 years.

Uh it's major problems with traffic there.

Um I just don't feel that there's uh enough foreshought being put into this uh 10-acre potential park that was developed that was negotiated numerous, numerous years ago.

I know that Columbia needs additional housing, uh, but squeezing this little spot is not proper planning.

I talked to you all a couple weeks ago, and I likened this development to a colosmi bag.

If you if you approve this, this is going to be a claspy bag hanging on the City of Columbia as well as the Brooks.

Yeah, I truly believe that.

Um I I don't believe that we are anti-development.

You know, and I I would suggest, you know, hey, a couple of solutions to this.

You've been hearing all kinds of solutions all night.

You know, I just wanted to say, hey, reduce the number of reduce the density here.

You know, from 77, reduce it down to something reasonable, you know, 40 or 50 with additional parking pads.

Yeah, uh again, I think that the the reason that the that that it was so highly packed was just because of money.

It's all because, unfortunately, greed, not because of a good development.

Um build this access road, build up L Shop Rail.

Uh I would encourage leaving more mature trees.

They're counting all these matrices down by the creek uh and and in the pristune pristine forest as leaving mature trees.

Leave some along between the Brooks and this.

Um I urge City Council to vote no and remand it back to city count to the planning commission for uh the the above changes that I made.

Thank you.

We'll be watching your vote and look at the question.

Thank you.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak on bill 426?

You can come up to the podium, please.

I'm asking if anyone wants to come talk.

I will say if you come on up, please come on up.

Otherwise, I'll close the public comments.

Come up to the podium if you would like to speak, please.

Please come up to the podium to speak.

People at home can't hear you, and so thank you.

I'm not policing who goes with.

So you guys are policing yourselves for who comes up next, so whoever is coming up next.

I can't give all my proper uh questions.

I'm Chris Beckett, 1130 Shore Acres Loop.

And I've just got some questions on the um the statement of intent from 2010 and uh 2014.

The council and planning and zoning have basically nullified all that planning work from back in the past, adding not doing anything with the uh L Shep Rail, no uh adding Rolling Woods Road and all that stuff.

So uh and there's been no more residential development along Richland Road as they had all planned.

That is nothing wrong with uh their plan, but it kind of nullifies what the statement of intent from uh 2014 had planned to do.

And the council has allowed all the uh residential growing of uh along WW.

So that uh just kind of nullifies all that amount.

I know the city had a um study trying to get people to build communities.

Single family homes build communities, not residentials.

And that's kind of basically what I wanted to say.

So um without being having to hear the other ones, but thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak on Bill 426?

My name is Michael Bryant.

I live at 704 Brockton.

I had not planned to speak.

Um I'm a boom baby.

I was born.

I've lived my whole life here.

My wife and I uh designed and built our home to retire in the Brooks.

I'm incredibly fortunate.

We have children that play on the street that we get to watch, ride bikes.

I walk my dog twice a day.

I love the neighborhood.

We walk.

I fear that what we are trying to build as a neighborhood is going to be spoiled over the need to profit from rentals.

I make the effort to be a good neighbor.

I worry that there's no buy-in for the people who are going to be joining by neighborhood.

One because they're not really joining the neighborhood, they're attached to it, and they just move through it.

I spent 15 years as a paramedic.

And every time I drive home, I currently work at the VA on Saturday, Sunday, Monday mornings.

I have to turn left onto Sagemore.

Every morning that I drive home, I have to figure out how I'm going to block the sun from my eyes to make that turn.

There's absolutely nothing safe about that.

I've seen many, many accidents.

I've seen many fatal accidents.

And we're not protecting the people who live in that neighborhood from the hill and the conditions every day.

I do appreciate your time.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak on Bill 426?

Madam Mayor, if I may uh have the additional time if you don't mind, please.

Tim Crockett, Crockett Engineering, Office of 1000 West Nyphong, and I've got quite a bit to go through, so I'm gonna go pretty quickly and uh be happy to answer any questions.

Uh with regards to the density, uh, Mr.

Mayor is incorrect in his statement.

The city staff has repeatedly indicated, repeatedly indicated that a piece of property that's zoned prior to the UDC will be uh reviewed to and adhered to the regulations at the time that it was approved, not the new UDC calculations.

You need yes, he is correct.

The new UDC calculations look at it differently.

But what he also fails to tell you is that there's also density uh calculated uh density uh bonuses that you can get when you have to take out those areas.

So uh it's not just a takeaway from the density.

Um so indeed it is 3.2 units per acre based on how it is calculated.

Staff has looked at that, staff has determined that's how it is done uh for this particular instance.

Uh what that equates to is single family densities usually range in the range of 1.5 to 40 units per acre.

We're right in there.

Uh high, moderate and high density, uh obviously quite a bit higher than that.

Um you've heard mem uh uh multiple uh speakers talk about buffering up against RMF, more uh multi multifamily, residential uh multifamily residential zoning district.

That's not what we're looking for here.

It's single family attached.

In comparison, you can kind of see how we fit in with regards to the Brooks, uh, Eastport, Concord, New Haven, and then also similar uh developments.

When I say similar, uh similar developments to what we're proposing in different parts of the town.

Umbertons at 7.5, the residents at Old Hawthorne at 5.0.

Uh and so we're right in that range uh on the low side of that.

Uh yes, the traffic uh traffic study was done.

The traffic uh city traffic engineer doesn't say that the traffic study isn't needed.

What the tra with city traffic engineer was saying is that all the conditions and the assumptions and uh the projections of the traffic study in 2017 are still accurate, and that since it included all of this piece of property at its maximum development potential, that it was still valid.

So they're not they're not saying it wasn't needed or we're getting away from doing it.

They said it's not it's not needed because it's already been done.

It's no different than if the Brooks did a traffic study ten years ago, and then they are just finally building out their final phase of that development.

No different.

They wouldn't need a new new traffic study.

No different in this case.

Um traffic from mass replaced was accounted for.

Those streets out there were designed to handle the traffic from this development from the very beginning.

Before any home is constructed, before any house was built, all of that traffic from this entire development was accounted for.

Not just in the streets itself, but the in the at the intersections.

I believe Ms.

Bell indicated that that uh uh that the um intersections only used 85.

I'm not sure I don't think that's the case.

I think they used the in one scenario they used the maximum.

But if any case, if it was only 85, we have 77, so we're still below that.

Does that mean that might not need to update it in the future?

Possibly if that is the case.

Either way, either way, we're fine.

The traffic study said, thus the proposed roadways within the Brooks 2 phase two development would adequately serve the proposed subdivision in the in the addition, in the addition to the future development to the north.

That was from the original traffic study.

And then of course they said the same thing here.

Hey, uh, this was in 20, uh, excuse me, the one in 2025, uh, that discusses that we have adequate capacity in the in the roadways uh for the 77 homes, uh, even though they were allowed 276.

Um so we fully believe uh you know that the traffic is uh the traffic study is adequate.

The city traffic engineer has said that.

MODAT reviewed that original work, and they agreed to it.

And uh as staff has indicated, uh, you know, they do take projections and they do take uh growth rates into account.

So it's not just what's out there today, but they look at it into a 20-year future uh scenario, and that's in that traffic study.

Um major roadways go through subdivisions.

Yes, um that that is unfortunate.

There it is a situation.

But here's in five minutes of research, here's major roadways that go through subdivisions all over Columbia.

Providence Road, Chapel Hill, Louisville, Crab Apple, Rolling Rollins, uh, Blue Ridge Road, Derby through Derby Ridge.

Major roadways go through subdivisions.

It's all over Columbia.

This is not uh an isolated situation.

Parking, yes, we are hitting the requirements for parking.

Uh we are providing two spaces per unit uh as indicated.

We are going to achieve uh you know the city standard with that.

Uh we do have adequate on-street parking if needed.

Uh Ms.

Sample, you asked about that early on.

Here's six uh spaces for 68 additional parking spaces on street uh with only parking on one side of Sagemore, which is our city requirement.

And yes, we do have two locations that we can add additional off-street parking if needed.

Now the reason why we're not proposing it is because we don't need it.

If we do need it, we can come back and add it.

But the situation is we don't want to provide off-street parking and have it sit as vacant parking of additional impervious surface uh that's simply not uh not used.

Let's talk about the green space real quickly.

Yes, uh, the whole point of the PD is to cluster the development in usable area.

So if I go through here quickly, I know I'm running out of time.

Roughly 70 percent of the site is open space.

Thank you, Tim.

Thank you.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak on Bill 426?

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the council, Caleb Colbert, uh attorney at 827 East Broadway.

Um here tonight on behalf of the applicant, and I just want to start by saying a lot of this sounds like deja vu.

We just had the hearing at the Planning and Zoning Commission last fall, and at that hearing, we talked about traffic, we talked about density, we talked about open space, we talked about whether a new traffic study would be needed, and after several hours of hearing, the planning and zoning commission voted seven to one to recommend approval on this project.

The planning and zoning commission are the folks that this council appoints to evaluate these types of requests, decide if they are appropriate, and move them forward.

And in this case, we have city staff support, and we have a recommendation of approval from planning and zoning with a seven-to-one support.

We think that should count for something here at the council.

We also think it's important to sort of evaluate this request in the housing needs of the community.

Uh Clint touched on this in his staff presentation.

But obviously in 2024, the city participated in the housing study.

Um of the key findings from that study is that there is an overall shortage of homes, overall shortage of homes is contributing to the affordability deficit.

There's a shortage of starter homes, single-family homes, and affordable rental units.

The summary of that housing report goes on to identify challenges to say why is the City of Columbia failing in these areas?

Why don't we have enough housing?

One of the top factors is community resistance, NIMBYism.

Not in my backyard.

We don't want this type of development next to us.

If you went back and reviewed the planning and zoning minutes, there was a lot of that commentary that came through from the opposition.

If these end up being rentals, they're opposed to that.

They're concerned about the density.

Again, that is sort of NIMBYism, opposing development that we're proposing that would actually meet the housing needs of the community.

Regulations.

Again, that's sort of a barrier to providing additional housing.

This process that we're going through, I know it's probably not a lot of fun for the city council.

It's probably not a lot of fun for the neighbors, not a lot of fun for the developer.

This is uncertain.

There's high cost.

This is just an example of why we're falling short as a community in delivering different types of housing.

Again, um key takeaway from the report is that we need 37,000 additional housing units by the year 2050.

We're proposing 77.

And think of the resistance and the opposition that we're getting just for 77 units.

How do we propose that we're going to deliver 37,000 units if we can't even generate support for 77?

Uh Columbia Imagined.

I think you have to evaluate this request in the context of Columbia Imagined.

We want a variety of housing types, diverse, inclusive housing options.

This tract is identified as a neighborhood district, which provides for a broad mix of residential uses.

Thank you, Kayla.

Thank you.

Appreciate your time.

Would anybody else from the public wish to speak on Bill 426?

Good evening.

My name is Dale Halley.

I live at 5250 Harbortown Drive, which is on the corner of Hoy Lake.

I really didn't want to talk to you folks tonight as much as I like you.

I'm a retired mining engineer.

I I started my career in this state.

I'm registered in Missouri and Colorado.

I've developed mines that are basically the equivalent of small cities in this state, other states, and third world countries.

One thing that's in common with my planning is I design the infrastructure first.

I'm going to build a coal mine on a mountain, Colorado.

I build power lines, water lines, fiber optic communications, roads, not roads just for the workers to get there to get the heavy equipment there.

Columbia does things a little bit different.

You build the subdivisions and then you build the roads.

I'm sorry, that sounds a little bit ass backwards.

Now, one of my neighbors who I love dearly spoke earlier about the traffic in our neighborhood.

But all of our mailboxes are on the other side of this collector road.

I have 80-year-old neighbors that have to cross a busy street to get to their mail.

These are people that have trouble walking.

I'm 68.

I have to walk fast, but I won't be able to walk fast enough one of these days.

I see eight-year-old people going to school that have to cross that street to get to the buses.

I'm not opposed to this subdivision addition.

I need new streets to walk on while I'm still able to.

I just ask that you think about the decisions you make and make sure that you take into account the safety requirements that my neighbors are asking for.

It's nothing big.

Because if you don't approve them now, the transport we will be fighting the transportation division of this city government for the next 20 years.

So please do what's right.

Do I'm not asking you to, I'm not opposed to this subdivision at all.

I want more housing.

Someday I might have grandchildren that need a place in close to me.

And that might be a good place for them.

But just listen to my neighbors and contemplate what they've asked for tonight.

It's not much.

We're asking for safety of the people who live in our neighborhood, and I can guarantee you there are people that stop and harass elderly people for walking close slowly across the street that don't live in our neighborhood because they want to drive through there fast because it's a wide open road and it's fun to drive.

Thank you.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Would anybody else from the public wish to speak on Bill 426?

My name's John Shin.

I live at 4408 Kingston Heath.

Nothing similar in town to this development.

You're putting and it is high density into the middle of a low density area.

Sinclair Road, where the three houses are built or the three schools are being built.

This kind of thing is proposed there, but it was the high density was on Sinclair Road, not in the interior of the development.

If you're going to build this, build it right.

I'm not against housing in town.

I'm trying to be quick on this, I guess.

I will clarify this once again, as I said two weeks ago.

The original statement of intent and agreements to date are invalid.

Okay.

The minute you subdivided and sold off tracks five, pieces of track five, you're trying to now apply a statement of intent and development theology to what was 120 to 130 acres to 24-acre tracks.

I want to know where the park is.

If you can make adjustments and give design variances through quote unquote design exceptions arbitrarily, there is no technical infeasibility to allow a design exception in this case.

It's just not there.

They can require that the developer develop it to the code that you're going to apply.

I'm still trying to figure out which code that is.

Is it pre pre-2017, 2014, 2010?

Which one you guys, when is it which one are they using?

They're pieces, they're cherry picking from this.

That city park is 10 acres.

I don't know if you've read my correspondence on this, but there's nothing.

If you're neg if you're revising the statement of intent to allow all this other stuff, it provides the statement of intent to require the city park now.

Negate the 300 units.

Require it now, because you only have two tracks left.

And I just found out from what I was not told today, direct opposite, that the 240 units that are on track two are not going to count to the 300, correct?

You can ask that of us, and we will call we will call it five for the Okay.

Yes, clarify that, please.

Because I was told today that that does that does count toward the 300 units.

But evidently on track two, it does not.

I only have 30 seconds left.

Where's the park?

Where's the park?

Why have we procrastinated and keep kicking the can down the road?

Where are the trails?

Show me where the park's going to go on this acreage that's left.

We need a community park.

That is the equivalent of a soccer field, two basketball courts, associated pavilion, and parking for the community.

You have no park around.

The park down south on the on the vineyards is not accessible.

Not within walking distance.

Thank you.

I'm sorry I came across a little heavy, but thank you.

Appreciate it.

I hope please reconsider table it.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak on Bill 426?

Uh good evening.

My name is Eric Thairu, and I live in the sixth ward.

I currently rent a duplex.

Uh in a good and azul, I've quickly fallen in love with the city.

And I believe that being a renter doesn't inherently make you less civically engaged as given by my preference here this evening.

And um I agree with many of the people who have spoken before me in regards to the safety concerns of this project.

I am studying civil engineering and I'm interested in traffic safety and things like that.

And it is a major concern as spoken by the paramedics earlier.

Um I believe that those things should be addressed either uh before this project is approved or in lockstep with the with the approval of this project.

So it's not something that can just be infantly kicked down the road and it what doesn't stay a concern for the current residents and the future residents who may live there.

Um I believe every traffic death is preventable and should be treated as such, and that's otherwise I have no other concerns with this project, and that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else from the public wish to speak on Bill 426?

Okay.

I'll get there.

Yes, I'm Jim Walls on State and Ferry Loop, and I have a question for you.

It's relatively short.

I'm 83 years old.

And as we look at this map and we see what the slice of the pie is now and what we're going questions through now.

Look at the other two tracks as a part of this pie that's not being developed.

And then and they're going to come in and they're going to come back into the brooks again because they still got the grindstone creek fork.

And it can't go across to the original.

That's more responsibility on you all for more bridges and more roads on that.

Look at that map.

This is only the first slice of the pie.

Look at the other two.

Please, in the future, because now you do with this other until 2035.

Thank you.

And I appreciate it.

And take care of the deer, whatever you do.

I appreciate it.

God bless you.

Thank you.

Anyone else from the public wish to speak on Bill 426.

Shane Logan from 1660 Hyridage Circle.

Uh, that'd be word four, but I recently was in word six.

Um, I think we would need to be consistent with our zoning.

Um, and we need to avoid throwing curveballs here.

Um we got an under honor understandings made to this point.

I am I want to say I'm fully sympathetic with the terror that is car tripping through your neighborhood, uh, that is worrying about your children.

I think it's a cultural tragedy how many people we lose uh to the auto each year.

But I do want to say that the problems on Hoy Lake Drive are not the don't seem to be the fault of this developer.

And given that um this property or this development isn't, I don't necessarily foresee Hoylake Drive as being a major part of the entrances and exits to it.

And so while I fully sympathize with the people on Hoy Lake, and I agree that our city needs to do a better job of moving traffic calming in a more dynamic way, activating citizens to be able to do more about their own streets.

Um I don't think it's necessarily germane in the fullest sense to this particular development.

Uh WW as well.

I used to drive for FedEx, and I can tell you that is a spooky road to go down every day in a big truck like that.

Um we absolutely do need to be looking at like, hey, how can we negotiate with Modai and do what we can to make sure that we're protecting our citizens on that road?

Again, I hesitate to throw the responsibility of that on the developer here.

I will say that the road design within their portion of the development seems to be fairly responsible.

Uh I was glad to see that roads were curved.

Um that there was not didn't seem to be a ton of opportunity for people to blow through.

I also want to speak out and say that I think mixed density development, this kind of development where we have different kinds of housing together is incredibly important.

I think it's incredibly important because it fights the standard of economic segregationism that so much of our uh nation is built on.

There are far too many people who have rented and never met hardly anyone who have zoned their own home.

There are far too many people who've lived in places where everyone just owns their home and they've never met anyone who's rented, and that's a critical failure of our society.

I really like to see something like this where we have the opportunity for people to interact with someone on the other side of that divide.

I'll also say that parking requirements oftentimes looking at the literature from Shoop and so forth, they're oftentimes just best guesses.

Um they're not really a scientifically developed thing.

Uh and so I encourage you to go with the uh recommendation on this one of hey, let's build this out, and if there's a need for more parking, we can address the more parking down the road.

Um because if you look at the engineering data, if you look at the research on this, parking requirements are not based on scientific data.

And please keep comments to yourself.

We don't want to impose people from intimidate them from speaking.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak?

Hi, Diane Buffington, 4824 State and Ferry Loop.

Hadn't planned on getting up, but I wanted to make one point.

They brought up the P and Z committee meeting last fall, and that they thought you should consider that that was seven to one vote.

And here's what I want you to know from that meeting that I attended.

Is that there were a few came in here from a previous meeting, and they seemed already predetermined on how they were going to vote.

But there was one lady, the one that voted she stood over, she sat over here, and after everybody else voted yes, she said no.

And I had so much respect for her because she didn't bow down to any kind of peer pressure or pressure from anybody.

And it's not because she said no, because she voted like how I had hoped.

It was because I felt like I was seeing not me.

We were seeing, heard, and understood.

And that's rich to me.

So no matter how you all end up voting, which what I want you to vote for, is her stance on how she did that.

And I had so much respect for her.

Um for that.

That's all I wanted to say.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak on bill 426?

All right.

Coming to council comments.

Our council, we have some clarifying questions I know that came up from this.

Um I'll capture some of them, just some of the questions I wrote.

I don't know if anyone else had these in front of our staff to respond to before we get into our council commons, if that works for you all.

So one of the first was um can you speak to um the the question about the I think we have heard back from staff about the park development and the potential to can you talk about the up to 10 as well as the discussion around the 300 count and how this track falls into play with the next two tracks.

Yeah.

Uh so just to kind of recap, uh, yeah, that's the the development agreement is very specific.

It says we cannot require that park um land until 300 uh lots have been platted uh or 300 lots that accommodate 300 units have been platted.

And so at this point, we're we're at 85.

We're not anticipating getting to that number um with the plating of this property, but it is something I know we've talked with our our parks department, they're aware of this.

They're, I think, reviewing this area to see if there's being appropriate location.

I had mentioned uh development, I think it came up again tonight at the intersection of Rolling Hills and Richland.

So the development agreement says there are three tracks within the 2345 that the 300 units um are part of, and the tract uh at the intersection is not one of those.

And so we can't count any of the development in there.

Um I think there's been some inference that we could just uh require them to renegotiate it.

We have a signed, you know, executed development agreement.

Typically, we're going to utilize that and administer that as we go forward.

So that's the current status of the park.

Uh the the language in there says up to 10, and it's really, I think up to our parks parks department to determine what is appropriate in this location for parks going forward.

Uh there may be a need for um you know less than that acreage here.

There may be a uh need for acreage somewhere else in the in the vicinity.

So it's something that's on the radar and they're evaluating.

Uh but there is no requirement for us to to uh to have to take 10 acres.

It's something that was up to 10, and so we'll do an initial evaluation or overall evaluation of what the park's needs and the and the community's needs are for that site in the future.

Okay.

And then I think the other just quick um question that came up from some was about um the discussion around street durability and and whether or not that is taken into consideration um with construction, or if it was just the I think the question was, is it just the traffic count for the new development, or is it also the construction the traffic with the construction of the new development?

Uh I don't think I remember the context of that question.

So there's there is there would be construction traffic and it would have to come through the two access points to the south.

Um whether or not the streets built to accommodate construction traffic, essentially all the streets built in the brooks in every subdivision accommodates construction traffic at some point because they have to also construct the homes within that subdivision.

Uh in terms of any type of uh traffic generation, that wouldn't really come into play, I don't think with with construction traffic, presuming we're talking about construction of the streets, the infrastructure, and then the houses uh in the future as well.

Okay.

Those were the questions like asked of me to ask of staff, but now we'll go to kind of council comments and I'll start.

This is this borders six and three.

So I'm going to go from Betsy to then Jackie, since this is your awards.

I just had another question about the park.

Because I think one of the emails we got said, well, we keep we can keep kicking the can down the road to the next developed parcel.

And then who who finally ends up being responsible for five acres, ten acres, whatever this park is, it's just the last people that develop, so sort of like the hot potato or the person left standing at the end of the day.

Yeah, I mean I think that that's generally how we would approach it.

And I don't mean to be callous to the owners of that property out there, but each one who who bought a portion of that property bought that, uh and if they do have done their due diligence, they should know that there are development requirements for that property.

Uh, it's something that they needed to accommodate with the sale and the purchase of that property.

So we have an obligation that's signed and executed by the original developer, and we're going to to hold to an administer that development agreement.

Okay.

Thanks.

All right.

Jackie.

Uh my first comment I want to make is to encourage um the SAGEMOR residents to go ahead and apply for that traffic calming if you haven't done that already.

I'll just go ahead and get that process started since that needs to be a neighborhood-led initiative, correct?

Yep.

So reach out if you have questions.

Um this is difficult because Columbia does need housing.

However, um my concerns lie um with the what I feel is a lack of infrastructure.

Um I do feel like we're doing this backwards.

Um we we've had conversations before about neighborhoods that are clear out in the northeast corner of um Ward 3 that we're meant to be lower um socioeconomic housing and there's zero connection to public transit.

And so I just kind of see this as being a repeat of us putting infrastructure last instead of first.

And so I'm concerned, I'm concerned about that.

I'm concerned that we're being asked to approve growth that we desperately need without ensuring that our infrastructure can actually safely support it.

So I I have concerns on that.

Um additionally, I feel pretty strongly that our neighborhood streets and the people who live on them should not be used as a pressure release valve for development-driven traffic.

Um I don't think that's fair, and I know that's not a legal term, but I think that we need to consider that the construction alone would be very it would interrupt this neighborhood quite greatly.

Um that's where I'm at.

Those are my comments.

Yeah.

And questions or comments are welcome on this one.

Yeah.

Yeah, Valerie.

I did have a question that I wanted that came up from the public input that um I think we need clarifying.

Um the question that came up was about the density calculations with regard to net developable acreage versus total acreage.

Um and I want to make sure that we're comparing apples to apples.

I I think we're there, but maybe you can clarify a bit about uh how that's done and why we look at one figure versus the other.

Uh yeah.

And so I think uh it's it's worth clarifying that um when we refer to the four units per acre, that's what was approved already.

And so I think our approach here is they are not asking for new PD zoning, they're not asking for new density.

There is they're essentially asking to develop with the density they have.

So we didn't require them to supply a new density uh calculation based on the developable acre, right?

Because they already have kind of that the density baked into what they're doing.

Future, though, and this it plays in a little bit of when we adopted the UDC, some of the requirements that we have now is that you can't you can't request a zoning, a PD zoning without also without a development plan.

And that's that's a little bit to address uh the idea it's a little hard to conceptualize sometimes, you know.

Gross development uh density.

Um, if you have a hundred acres, but you're only able to develop on 80.

Um we think it's an important metric for going forward for new PD and new zoning to understand this is what the maybe the gross development is, but this is kind of what the the net of what you can actually use, what the density is on there.

Uh and it's kind of a metric that tells us, well, how much area perhaps are you preserving on the site as well?

So there's a couple different reasons for it.

Yeah.

So just to further clarify, um, in 2010, presumably the undevelopable acreage that was present in 2010 is equal to the undevelopable acreage that was present now.

And so, regardless of which calculation we made them do, the density calculations, is it accurate to say that they would come out similarly?

Yes.

If we ask them to do the same density as as what someone coming in now, you would wind up with two different densities, but it wouldn't change what the zoning they have right now is.

It would just be an accurate reflection of the net developable density.

So we could we could have provided, they could have provided that, but it it's not changing really the request or what they're they're allowed to build or what they have prior approval for.

Questions or comments?

I have comments.

Um get into your comments if you want.

I am happy to get into my comments.

Thank you.

Um there's so much about this application that I love.

Um it is unique in some ways.

Um the parcels, the lots, and having the lot around the building.

Um I regret that we can't do that by straight zoning.

Um I think this is something that we need to address in our zoning code.

This is something that was pointed out in our um housing study as well.

Um makes it hard to do things like condos.

It makes it hard to do this development.

It makes it hard to do essentially what the land trust is attempting to do.

They also have their building footprint as an individual lot and a common lot around it.

Um those are unique housing styles that honestly really aren't that unique.

Condos are everywhere, right?

Um I also identify with what the residents are saying.

Um we wish we had the certainty of straight zoning, so we could look at the code and say what can they do as opposed to plan revisions and a more subjective process.

I think less subjective is better for everyone.

Um I wish we had a route to do this in a way that's less subjective.

Um what else did I want to say?

The roads.

Um Caleb Colbert mentioned.

Um how are we going to get to 3,700 houses if we can't?

37,000.

37,000.

I said that wrong.

Sorry.

Sometimes figures get so big you can't conceptualize them well.

Um if we can't easily approve 77.

Um, and that's true.

And I think the route that we get to easily approving 77, or larger numbers at a time, even having built out infrastructure and also better predicting the projected costs and the projected impacts of an improvement.

Um it bothers me that SageMore Drive is going to be extended, that the existing part of Sage Moore Drive is certain to request traffic calming, and that the future portion of SageMore Drive will likely request traffic calming just as Hoy Lake did.

Now we can't make them do traffic calming on a portion of a street that doesn't belong to their development.

But we need to accurately capture the cost of the portion of the street that is on their development.

And I hate the idea that we could approve something.

Then they build a road, convey it to the city, and then immediately we have to pay for traffic calming.

We need to find better routes for projecting these costs.

And now I'm in a pickle where I need to decide if that is a deal breaker for something that I love, or if that is something that I hope we do later.

And those hopes take a very long time to change.

So I'm not sure that they change without sufficient pressure.

And that's all I have.

But thank you.

Yeah, Vera.

I echo many of the thoughts already shared by my colleagues up here that this is a very tricky situation in which we we constantly talk about the need and desire and hope for housing projects exactly like this.

And also can recognize a failure of infrastructure to serve this area.

I think it was I think maybe Jen said it earlier that you all have learned more about P and Z in the last few months than you ever expected to know in your lives.

And I know we heard comments about the tendency towards NIMBYism or not in my backyard conversations in these areas.

And I was deeply impressed by the conversation around this being rooted in the desire for housing and the realities of living in this area and wanting to see and accept and have more neighbors, renter neighbors of all kinds, and acknowledging the infrastructure issues.

This is exactly what we want the conversations about P and Z to look like.

And I mean, I most of y'all were talking about P and Z in terms I think the majority of residents in Columbia have never even had to look up the definitions of.

So I was as very impressed by the level of knowledge.

So thank you all for bringing all of this to our attention for us to consider.

Yeah, done.

But I certainly understand the concerns of the residents along Sagemor with the traffic, and given that that's going to be the low ingress-egress point for this development, at least for the next few years.

Regarding the structure of infrastructure or the statement infrastructure first and then development.

Yeah, that would be the ideal.

But if you think about back to when Columbia first started, it was a few houses along a probably a dirt trail.

And then as those built up, they said, oh, we need to build a street.

It's kind of been the way cities have grown all along, development infrastructure tends to follow along, follow development rather than preceded.

It just kind of the way it is, maybe unfortunate in some cases.

I know there's been part of the statement of SOI.

Um that statement of intent that there was supposed to be a park somewhere in this development.

Now I know because it's floodplain, you can't build a pavilion or a basketball court or something like that on it.

But could not part of that floodplain be designated and set off with like a walking trail because memory serves, we have trails in floodplains.

You know, L right now.

Um maybe that might be something at least that small part of it could be addressed.

Um, this is a tough one because like I said, I certainly understand the residents of Sagemore and that issue.

I also understand the you know the property owners that want to develop their property.

Um yeah, this one is it's tough.

Yeah.

Uh here.

You you still have your ending comments.

You just had your questions.

You want to do your comments?

But no, even though you haven't gone yet, yeah.

My turn.

Yes, it's your turn here.

Um was the intent to use Sage Moore all along for access to development of this tract and others that are north of there.

I mean, is as the planning was being done, was was the expectation that that was going to be what would happen.

I would say that our subdivision regs do require you to extend streets to undeveloped property along the edge of your subdivision, right?

That is to open up future development, so we are not landlocking property and uh to facilitate interconnectivity, right?

That's that's efficient use.

Um whether and actually reading through the 2017 traffic study.

I think that is is essentially why Sagemore was recommended to be built as a neighborhood collector, because it was anticipated to take probably a little bit more volume from the density in track five down Sagemore.

So I would have to say yes.

I think accommodating the additional traffic from Track 5, including Ashford, uh was anticipated in the uh kind of how Sagemore was constructed and how it was designed.

Do we have an idea about how long it's going to take to build this out?

Not just this particular project, but I mean the expectation that I have is that it's all going to be get developed at some point.

So do uh do we have some expectation about that in anticipation of a time frame for that?

Uh no.

Uh we typically you know don't necessarily have good time frames for this.

I mean it's all developed dependent on on develop each individual developer.

This one they've the Ashford specifically divided into three phases, or anticipating them kind of going, you know, a phase at a time, and you know, probably taking a year or two for each one.

The remaining part of track five, no indication right now on when that would develop.

Because there are no particular plans that are right in front of us.

Um the issue of buffering and transition has been raised, and what what does the code require and what do we anticipate normally for that kind of thing between these two types of development?

Uh yes.

So there is no buffering or screening requirement between two single family uses.

And so one's detached and attached, but they're both single family use.

Okay.

Well, just uh in way of a comment or two.

I I would that L Chaparel were built.

This would make this a very an easier decision to be sure.

Um so I understand I did read in one of the comments that Patrick Zinner made that our our road building is reactive, which I think is probably a technical term, but it's the idea that we we follow the development as Don as Don said.

And I and I recognize the frustration.

I share the frustration about that.

I don't have a solution for it.

Um I do want to just speak to one other thing, and and uh the concern was raised by one of the last people that um that people may have their minds made up before coming in.

I will I will tell you that I'm confident that all of us on the dais have read through all the materials, the especially the comments that have been made and sent to us and the concerns that have been raised.

And it's not uncommon for each one of us to come to a decision like this and not know until the moment that we vote what what we're going to say.

Uh this is one of those occasions.

Um I I just want to assure the city, uh, our residents that we give full consideration uh to these concerns.

And if the it if a vote doesn't go your way by any individual or this group of individuals, it it's not indicative of a lack of consideration.

And uh I just want to be sure that you understand that.

Yes, Betsy.

So um I do want to thank everybody who's come and spoken.

It's been, I guess, about an hour and a half of public hearings.

So um I I appreciate that.

Um I do think we need to look at putting infrastructure in.

I I agree with you, Don.

In the past, the infrastructure has followed after we develop it, and we can't and we have traffic problems, but I think we need to maybe reevaluate that and in the future sort of try and get some roads in before we put this development.

I have no trouble with this development.

I think putting these development next to single families, fine.

I I think it's a nice development.

I don't think I want to have a development that's essentially landlocked except for going through another residential area, and I don't think that we do a lot of that in spite of your list of uh things that that um you think we're doing.

But I really cannot support this when it goes through a neighborhood I also think um as someone who's watching old Hawthorne's um roads deteriorate and needing to be replaced we're going to have the same problem with Sagmore and with Beth Page if that's used a lot along with maybe Hoyt I don't know but Hoyt Lake but you know we the city is going to be on is going to have to replace those roads so that's going to be an extra cost also and we all know how much money we have available for those kinds of things.

So I sort of feel like building this without adequate infrastructure is just setting us up for a lot more expense than than we really need.

So whenever we get El Chaparral built if I'm still on council I'd be happy to support this but at this point I would be voting against it.

I have one question before my kind of comments in this um Clint this is for you potentially Nancy what if this fails options for you know you some of the improvement suggestions the discussions around road calming additional develop you know additional infrastructure being developed partnering with the Western property owner to see about El Chaparel just for that little leg of it like what options does the developer have if if this fails can they come back with this same you know like what options are there yeah I would say they have um all the options available to to revise this and bring it back as is a different project.

It doesn't uh we do have some restrictions on coming back with the rezoning request within a certain amount of time but this is uh for PD planning yeah they would be able to come back um uh they could come back with substantially the same request if they'd like but I I would suggest that's probably not what's on the table.

Uh so I think yes they could make some revisions they could partner with uh surrounding property owner they could look at some other options to mitigate some of the concerns and they could they could essentially you know try again but they would have to go through this whole process again if this proposal on the table is is not approved tonight.

Okay.

And then um yeah I think I'll just I mean echo so much it it's the same so much of this is the same same I I love this development the mixed the it's to me it's single family homes.

It's just a little bit closer together I let I think I want to explore our resonant code having this opportunities within it.

I would love for staff and the developer to approach the property owner to the west about building out even the small segment of El Chaparel I think because we're going to continue to see development in this area you mentioned we have two capital improvement sales tax projects that are to the north of this well the two that are immediately to the north and then and then slightly to the east and I think we're gonna see a lot more development in that.

And so I think actually El Chaparral we're gonna see more increase happening to this and then I believe this property owner also owns to the north of this property as well so that would also benefit if we get into those conversations sooner than later for what will happen with that project.

We've talked a lot about this and I also want to thank everyone I especially want to thank the beginning speakers because I think you focused on the things that were council's most interest.

Most of us appreciate the actual density of this but we had the concerns over the traffic so I want to thank you for starting off on that.

And the efficiency.

And the efficiency of whatever we're gonna say even after an hour whatever yes so all right Sheila will you please call roll on bill 426?

Council Bill 426 Buffalo?

No.

Ms.

Carroll Yes Ms Elwood No Mr Waterman?

Yes.

Ms.

Peters No.

It fails four to three.

All right thank you.

All right Sheila will you please read Bill 1126 Council Bill 1126 is an ordinance authorizing a sponsor sponsorship agreement with the Missouri Department of Economic Development Division of Tourism in support of 2026 Juneteenth events authorizing the city manager or the managers designee to enter into agreements for sponsorship of Juneteenth community events amending the FY2026 annual budget by appropriating funds in the amount of 26,982 dollars and fixing the time when this ordinance shall become effective second reading.

Do we have a staff report?

Yes I don't know how to take this off the screen I'm sorry.

Do I just go just go advance and it will probably just go to a blank screen?

There you go.

Thank you.

Amy Schneider, Convention and Visitors Bureau, not IT.

Very clear.

So for the third year, the city has been awarded funding from the state of Missouri to support community Juneteenth events.

The first year's funding in FY24 came from the Missouri Division of Tourism at a funding level of $38,820.

Last year, the Missouri Arts Council oversaw the program.

That was FY25, and we were awarded $29,800.

And this year, it's back with the Missouri Division of Tourism, and we have been awarded $26,982.

Each year.

As with last year, we will be reviewing applications internally.

This approach maintains transparency while allowing more community members to participate as applicants.

Additionally, we plan I hold on, I'm sorry.

Additionally, we plan to use the standard weighted scoring system as used by the Office of Cultural Affairs to ensure that funds are distributed equitably based on the funds available and the quality of applications.

If tonight's legislation is approved, the application process for 2026 funding will open soon alongside a workshop for interested organ organizers.

Next steps in the timeline include in late January, we will have an applicant workshop where we'll review the criteria and scoring and answer any questions from any um interested applicants.

And then after that in late January, applications will open to the community.

At the end of February, we're giving them a month.

Applications are due back to the department.

At the beginning of March, we'll do an application review and announce awards after that.

So about the beginning or middle of March, everybody who applied will know what funding they received.

In mid-March, we're going to do an event organizer workshop, talk about the special events process, marketing, answering any more questions they have, try and make sure that they are aware of everything they need to be aware of to have a successful event.

And then the funds will be distributed late March to mid-April.

As with the past two years, we will have a landing page that highlights all Juneteenth events and a marketing plan that incorporates print social media and broadcasts to promote Juneteenth in Columbia.

This year, part of the workshop will include a segment to give feedback on the city's marketing plan for Juneteenth and funds for the marketing will not come from grant funds.

Applicants do have the option to apply for funds for their own marketing as well.

After the events, grantees will submit post-event reports to the CVB in which we will compile those for a final report for submission to the Division of Tourism.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the council, uh DeAndre Thompson, Diversity Equity Inclusion Administrator.

Um with me is Shauna.

Yeah.

They introduced me, so and you all know me.

Um as Amy has alluded to, uh, we've been um a part of community kind of convenings over the last several months.

Um at the initial meeting, um, we had that incorporated those who were previous organizers, kind of giving us a rundown of how the application process um went down prior to us actually starting to meet with the community to get their feedback on um you know how we can move forward with Juneteenth process.

Um that initial meeting gave us insight that we needed to maybe take a step back and maybe reevaluate um how we uh look at our processes, ensure that it works for everyone.

Um, but also there was an idea of uh looking at a way for us to envision what Juneteenth uh planning could look like moving forward, whether it is some type of citywide celebration, um something that could really incorporate uh multiple voices in those who were helping to organize.

So over the last several months, like I said, we've been really trying to uh step in and help facilitate and support um those organizers and thinking about what a citywide celebration could look like or what um they could do to really work together as organizers to ensure there is uh a lack of duplic to ensure there isn't duplication and that they are working kind of simultaneously together.

Um we know that the community has voiced um that they want to see uh opportunities uh be more streamlined and kind of come together to avoid um kind of that overlap.

So um these community convenings have been an opportunity for us to hear some of that feedback and kind of identify ways we can move forward.

So I'll let Shauna kind of give a little bit of her insight as well.

Um yeah, so just to echo uh what DeAndre said, uh our role as we saw it was really just to hear from the community and say how can the city come alongside you and support your efforts?

Um we have listened a lot.

And uh I would say the biggest thing I have taken away from these conversations is just that there is a longtime history of celebrations and events uh across the gamut of, you know, from education to uh celebrating history to feeding people to just hanging out and um you know, having a good time with your family.

I mean, and the community wants all of these things.

And so I've personally been really encouraged by the amount of people who've been coming to our meetings, and some of them are people who are applying for funding and want to organize events, and some of them are people who just want to show up and support those who are.

And so I think it's a really great big first step to do it this way, and I look forward to how these organizations can collaborate.

Are there any questions from staff?

Or I mean, sorry, for council for staff.

Yeah, Don Waterman.

Real quick, Amy, you mentioned that the funding that's come from the state has gone down every year.

How much of a decrease or what did we get last year?

I forget.

Last year we got, we're only about $3,000 less than last year.

This year we got 20.

My phone froze.

This year we got about a little over 26,000.

Last year we got a little over 29,000.

The first year it was like 38.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions from counsel for yeah, Valerie?

You may have already shared this and I missed it.

Um be able to provide, I guess, the same number of funding um grants.

Or are we are are they getting smaller over time?

Um it really it all depends on how many people apply.

Um if we only have a couple of people apply, they'll get more money.

Last year we had 12, I believe, apply.

Um so that's why we use the same um formula that Office of Cultural Affairs does.

Um we do a uh kind of a grading on what their application is.

Um when we do the workshop, they'll know exactly what we're um putting points to on so that when they fill out their application, they'll know kind of what to talk to.

Uh I can't fully answer your question until I know how many people apply.

Thanks.

I just want to say that I appreciate the um effort put into marketing and listening to the public on that.

Nick, you had a question.

Do we know how much the Department of Tourism had to uh I'm sure this is a competitive grant process.

Do we know how much they had in total over the past three years, each of those years to distribute across the state?

Not off of the top of my head.

I I can tell you I think they had like a million dollars the first year, and it just got smaller each year.

I can find that out.

Okay.

I would appreciate seeing that actually.

Would anyone any other questions from council?

Would anyone from the public wish to speak on Bill 1126?

See none?

Any outstanding council comments?

Oh, yeah, here.

I just wanted to say how impressed I am by the changes that you are making this year to meet the needs of the organizations applying for these grants and the organizations that are stepping up to offer these programs in the community.

And particularly the workshops that you'll be offering after they receive the grant to support.

I mean, looking at the previous years, many of these organizations might not have a history of putting on large citywide events.

And so offering that support to help them grow and succeed is uh a really impactful use of your services.

So thank you so much.

That's that's why we do it, because these aren't professional event organizers.

Um and I'm sure that we'll probably make some mistakes this year.

Um what I hope what I hope that everyone sees is that each year we grow and we try and get to make it better.

So thank you.

All right.

Sheila, we please call roll on bill 1126.

Council Bill 1126, Ms.

Buffalo?

Yes.

Ms.

Carroll?

Yes.

Ms.

Elwood?

Yes.

Ms.

Sample?

Yes.

Mr.

Foster?

Yes.

Mr.

Waterman?

Yes.

Ms.

Peters.

Yes.

All right.

Sheila, we please read Bill 1326.

Council Bill 1326 is an ordinance amending the FY 2026 annual budget by appropriating funds in the amount of 291,280, authorizing an agreement with the National Institute of Criminal Justice Reform for Research, Strategic Planning, and Technical Assance, professional services, and fixing the time of this ordinance shall become effective.

Second reading.

Do we have a staff report?

We do.

Good evening, Council.

Good evening, Mayor.

Thank you for your persistence and perseverance.

So this is just an appropriation for the fiscal year 2026 budget for the 291,000 for the uh what we have in the memos research, but what they will do, what the National Institute of Criminal Justice Reform will do is a gun violence landscape analysis and a gun violence problem analysis.

And they will also uh assist the Office of Violence Prevention with a violence reduction strategic plan creation.

And they are also obviously assist us with ongoing creation implementation of the Office of Violence Prevention for 24 months within that uh contract if uh approved by council.

All right.

Are there any questions from council of staff for this?

Yeah, Nick.

I uh sort of a yeah, I guess the question.

Uh Marcus, this was something that was intended to be done really from the outset of the of the offices.

Uh and and they we've have we not um consulted with this group previously, even to before we set up the office?

Yes.

So we've been talking to them for several years.

In fact, we communicated them with them when we're actually building out the job description to hire DeMarcus.

Right.

Right.

So this is a group with whom we've already had a relationship.

Absolutely.

And we've anticipated this really from the get-go, right?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, done.

Is the funds is this part of what we set aside when we created the office?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Any other questions on this?

Yeah, Jackie.

Can you um briefly describe how the public will be made aware of the outcomes of this?

Yes.

So the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform will actually part of this contract will be that they will do a convening of both community-based organizations and the public to let the public know the findings from the problem analysis and obviously the landscape analysis will be the convening for community-based organizations, who is in the space of intervention and prevention, where there are gaps, what they've seen with uh where we can hopefully fill those gaps, and what they've seen and where we do we've done well with gun violence intervention and prevention.

So it will be a robust um communication with the community as well on what they uh they find and how we can implement and move forward.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Yeah, Betsy.

Do we have a time frame for when they would assuming we pass this when they would get this work done?

I mean, is this a year-long process or uh six-month process or what?

Order six months, depending on Argusto, we're giving them the information.

Uh they are planning, we have a hold for February 9th, depending on if this passes.

We will uh start then, they are raring to go.

So four to six months on both the analysis, they can do those concurrently, and then we will be able to build out the strategic plan to take the 24-month process because then they're with us with technical assistance and uh the KPIs and things of that nature as we're building the strategic plan for the intervention prevention.

Okay.

And then this will be an implementable plan.

Yes.

Thank you.