Good evening.

I will now call to order the February 5th, 2026 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Commissioner Brodsky, may we please have a roll call?

Hey.

I am here.

Commissioner Dar.

Here.

Commissioner Gowway Jones.

Here.

Commissioner Gray.

Here.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Here.

Commissioner Stanton.

Here.

Commissioner Stockton.

Here.

Commissioner Walters.

Here.

Commissioner Wilson.

Here.

We have a full house of nine tonight.

Thank you.

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

Zinner?

No, there are not, ma'am.

Is there a motion to approve the agenda?

I move to approve.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there a thumbs-up approval on the agenda?

Unanimous.

Thank you.

We all received a copy of the January 22nd, 2026 regular meeting minutes.

Are there any changes or adjustments to the minutes?

Seeing none is there a motion to approve.

I move to approve.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Thumbs up approval of the minutes.

Unanimous with uh Commissioner Wilson abstaining.

Our first case for the evening, case number 49-2026, a request by Crockett Engineering Consultants, LLC agent on behalf of Tory Benz LLC owner for approval to rezone 50.8 acres from PD plan development to PD and approve A PD plan and associated statement of intent.

Approval would permit the development of 240 multifamily units to be known as the vantage.

The subject site contains all of tracks two and four as well as portion of tract five as shown within the 2010 Richland Road annexation and permanent zoning located south of the Richland Road and Rolling Hills Road intersection on both the east and west sides of Rolling Hills Road.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may.

Thank you for that overview there.

Getting to into our public notice, we sent out early notification postcards alerting the mailing list within 185 feet that this uh request was occurring on January 5th, followed by public hearing letters on the 19th of January, and there were 51 of those.

And an ad was run in the Tribune on the 6th of January.

The ad did not need to be readvertised because this request was previously tabled to a date certain within two months of the original hearing.

The parcel is comprised of three tracks, tracks two, four, and five, with the outer boundaries highlighted in yellow.

I will explain the significance of each of these tracks kind of going forward in these following slides.

Richland Road is located to the north and runs east to west, while Rolling Hills runs north to south and divides the development into two halves.

The properties to the east and west are located in the city, and the properties to the north and south are in the county rather, and the properties to the north and south are located within the city.

The site is governed by the 2010 Richland Road Annexation and Zoning Ordinance 20801.

This included a statement of intent as well as a development agreement.

And as you can summarize, uh this includes this request includes tracks 22, 4, and 5, and 2, 4 and a portion of 5 of the tracks included in that ordinance.

As part of the regulatory process, this PD plan will serve as the preliminary plat, and the final plat will be required prior to any building permits being issued.

Here are the original allocations uh within the 2010 uh statement of intent.

Tract two was uh allocated 80,000 square feet, gross floor area of commercially intended uh square footage.

Tract four was allocated one hundred sixteen dwelling units, and tract five was allocated five hundred and thirty-eight dwelling units.

The changes would include the elimination of the uh commercial gross floor area in track two, shifting one hundred and sixteen units from tract four to track two, and then additional one hundred twenty-four units on track two as well for a total of two hundred and forty units.

I would like to say those changes for to track two allocations for the units wise, and all the development will solely occur within track two.

There are some commitments that would need to be addressed as per the 2010 development agreement.

The first being a trail easement through track four being required, and it will be satisfied by 16-foot-wide tree at least memory along the north fork of the Grindstone Creek, as well as the city having the opportunity to pursue a parkland dedication of up to 10 acres once a 300 dwelling unit threshold for tracks 345 is met.

Because the units originally allocated to track four are being shifted to track two and supplemented by an additional one hundred twenty-four units on a tract not previously intended for residential development.

The city considers the 300 unit threshold satisfied when the proposed units in track two are combined with the existing units in tract five.

At this time, the city is requesting the conveyance of 1.5 acres of park use on a lot that we will see here in the highlighted in the green.

And this does not also prohibit the city from pursuing an additional eight and a half acres from tract five once further development is uh pursued on those that tract.

These actions will occur at the stage of the final plotting and will all be documented in a new development agreement that will run concurrently with City Council as a request with this uh PD plan.

Going into the PD plan and site design, lot one is located to the west here, and lot two to the east.

These will have a 25-foot front, 20-foot rear, and 15-foot side yard setbacks.

This will be comprised of four multifamily buildings, each 45 feet in height, with a mixture of one, two, and three bedroom units.

The plan includes the amenities of clubhouse, pool, and pickleball court.

Those three will be located on lot two, the lot to the east, and two dog parks, one for each of the lots one and two.

And as I mentioned, lot three, the park lot will be reserved for a parkslash trailhead.

Access will be derived from rolling hills and Richland Road.

Lot one will have two access points onto rolling hills, whereas lot two will have one.

Lot two second access will be derived off of Richland Road.

A traffic impact study was submitted and was approved by our city traffic engineers.

Furthermore, a future roundabout is planned at the intersection of Richland Road and Rolling Hills, but we the timeline is unknown to that.

With that, a proportional monetary contribution will be secured in a future development agreement.

There is adequate right-of-way shown for any improvements that will be in place there, as well as uh sidewalks being proposed.

There's 448 parking spaces required.

This breaks down to 403 vehicle spaces, 36 garage vehicle spaces, 98A spaces, and 24 bicycle spaces, with a density of a gross density of 5.36 dwelling units an acre, as well as a net density of 9.13 dwelling units an acre.

The distinction between gross and net is net is the area that cannot be developed.

We subtract that from the area.

So we kind of get a grander scope of what the true kind of density is on the area that can actually be developed upon.

Both figures are below the UDC maximum of 12 dwelling units and acres.

This is below or the impervious surface coverage is 16 percent, where in the UDC allows 85 percent.

So this is within compliance there, and the landscaping and tree preservation plan was compliant with the UDC as well.

Receives three general information phone calls and three general information emails, just kind of inquiring what the project was about.

I also received one letter stating concerns, largely they did not want people inadvertently trespassing on their property.

They kind of discussed when potentially wanting a sign to show where the property was ending, so they did not go on to the other owner's property.

In conclusion, the site sat vacant with the site sitting vacant for 16 years and no commercial interests, addressing multifamily housing shortage, being consistent with the liberal and sustainable community community section in the comprehensive plan, and being compliant with the UDC provisions.

Staff's recommendation is to approve the request to rezone the 50 point eight acres from plan development to plan development, as well as the PD plan for the vantage and the associated statement of intent.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

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

Seeing none questions for staff, Commissioner Walters.

Could you go back to the early graphic that showed um the various platforms including plat five?

Or yeah, lot five.

So track yeah, here go forward one now.

Track five.

Going out forward, another one.

I'm I missed something.

How does track five have 538 dwelling units assigned to it?

So this is just a portion of track five.

So the entirety of track five is kind of down to the west more.

It does.

Will I say that again, please?

So this would just be a portion of track five, and this would just the remainder of the tract is kind of where the Brooks is located and the other developments to the west.

Okay.

So this is yeah.

All right, thank you.

And yeah, it would just have that entitlement still.

Thank you.

Yep.

Other questions for staff.

Thank you.

Commissioner Darr.

How is the proportional monetary contribution being calculated?

Do you know for the roundabout in the future?

So it is being calculated based on the traffic impacts that this development will create at the intersection of Richland and Rolling Hills.

It is a process that was devised with all other annexed land to the east of this site in order to offset the approximate million dollar million point two expenses associated with the roundabout.

So for every development that we have brought in to the east, Old Hawthorne North, Silver Creek to the north of Old Hawthorne, and then the property that is at the corner of Olivet and Richland to the east of Old Hawthorne North.

We calculated based upon the trips generated, the reduction in the intersections functionality, and so there's a proportional calculation that's been created and it's applied equally to all of the developments based on the functional loss that the intersection experiences by that development.

We are almost uh to the point of collecting the entire uh cost of the roundabout at this juncture from the development within the area.

Which brings me to my second question.

It seemed like there was no time frame to build that roundabout, but right now, part of the traffic study, that intersection is operating at level service of F, which is, if I recall correctly, worse than the intersection was at Ashford Place on to Route W.

So but we're going to approve this one.

I mean, if staff is recommending approve this one, and traffic isn't an issue for the in the meantime with no time frame.

The money has been collected.

This is a project that is likely to be built within the current bond, the current transportation bond uh that was recently passed, our current 10-year bond.

It'll it it is our understanding that it will be in rolled into that improvement, uh, but it will be towards the tail end of probably the 10 years.

So at this juncture, uh we have identified the issue, we have collected the revenue, we have to schedule the construction.

And there are a variety of other construction projects uh involving Richland Road at this point, which from the cost of mobilization and construction management, we are likely trying to secure getting it all done uh by having to only have the construction crews out there one continuous period of time to but we don't have a date, so that is why it is a date uncertain.

I I find that reasonable.

I just in fresh in my memory is a lot of conversations that people didn't find that reason, or you know, the lack of current infrastructure being available at this time right now, prior to the development going in, was a big concern.

So I just wanted to get that out there.

Other questions for staff.

Commissioner Gray.

Uh similar to Commissioner Darrell, I have similar questions about uh infrastructure.

So looking at the traffic study, um, the engineer recommended or noted concerns about potential obstruction with a view in site distance.

Um I'm curious about whether those things would be attended to in the final plat or in permitting, like where would that be addressed?

So that would be uh as noted within the actual traffic study, those are matters that would be dealt with at the final site plan construction approval phase.

Uh final platting is merely creation of lots.

It does not involve physical building uh construction, therefore when we deal with site grading and site uh citing the actual buildings that are shown on the development plan.

It's at that point that we are going to assure that the proper site triangles are made uh or are retained.

It is important to note, and this graphic does not necessarily depict this really well.

Um there are some diagonal or uh triangular uh pieces that are created on the southern side of the Richland Road rolling hills intersection, both on the east and west.

Those are street easements that were collected as a part of ensuring that the roundabouts radius and its improvements will actually be able to be accommodated at this intersection, meeting those requirements.

That is an area that if we never built the roundabout, that's an easement.

And no building, and that is why this plan is drawn this way will be in that location.

Um this particular plan actually probably meets our site triangle requirements of our code without the roundabout.

And so, but that would all again be verified at a portion at the portion of the project's actual physical site development phase, which comes much later in our overall processes.

But that is part of our site engineers' responsibility, our traffic traffic engineers responsibility.

They will take a look at that in detail prior to issuing the permits.

Great.

Thank you.

My second question, because I am not well versed in reading traffic studies.

To the site itself.

Yes.

So I mean, obviously that this is the city reserves the right to require or to restrict turning movements on its roads.

So you could make right-in, right-out only.

We avoid uh putting in uh typically you would attempt to avoid to the greatest extent possible conflicts with turning lane movements.

Uh we do have distance and spacing standards as it relates to specific intersection distances from a driveway and an intersection class at a particular roadway classification.

So again, uh while this site plan depicts a development in concept, uh it is possible that through a more detailed um examination of all of the uh general regulatory requirements that come at the site planning stage, that there may be modifications.

Those modifications may reduce the amount of proposed density on the property.

They may result in slight modifications to the building placements and other driveway approaches.

All of that would be considered permissible within uh the approval of a plan district uh administratively.

Um in concept, we're looking at a 240-unit development that contains four buildings.

The improvements that are shown here, we may have to massage them a little bit through the process of further detailed review.

So that is, we will look at that.

There are criterion.

Uh given the fact that the turning movements that may need to be accommodated at this point may be eliminated by a roundabout.

We have to also give consideration to how that may play out moving forward.

So while restriction of access or entry and exit points and their movement uh may be more critical if this was just to remain as the intersection improvements that it is, given that the roundabout is being uh will be installed in this location, some of those restrictions may not be necessarily appropriate to apply because the conditions will change.

But we have a period of time, depending on what the construction schedule is, that there may need to be some type of control, short-term controls, because once you come into the roundabout, a write-in, right out only may be effectively what ends up being there.

Um again, where the placement is is the driveway, especially the driveway that accesses Richland Road.

That driveway's placement, depending on how it plays into the roundabout, it may need to be pushed further back on the property in question in order to gain enough opportunity, but we have to also look at then what's the left turning movement and how is it that the how will that potentially create another conflict?

And so all of that becomes part of the more detailed evaluation.

At that point, we may have a better understanding of when the roundabout will be installed, and we may be able to accommodate that as a part of construction plan approval.

So there are there are a number of unknowns, but those unknowns are part of our development review processes, uh, and they require first being able to obtain the approval, and then we move to the next step, which is more detailed design.

So this concept at this point works according to the plan reviewers that have reviewed it inside the city, which include our city's traffic engineer, there may be tweaks.

Great.

Um thank you for that clarification.

I am uh curious about infrastructure and uh the things that uh we can take care of or look at uh on the part of the developer at the cost of the developer down the line in terms of the cost of the city.

Um I would love a little bit of clarification about the um I appreciated the slide about the density and the net developable area.

Um do you have a comparable uh development that uh mirrors this gross density of 5.36.

Is there something similar?

Um not that I could tell you off the top of my head, uh, and I can't tell you in net developable acreage either, or development that may meet that net developable acreage.

What I can tell you anecdotally is the average single family residential subdivision within the City of Columbia, which would otherwise permit roughly seven units per acre, is developed at an average of about uh one and a half to maybe two.

So it is significantly reduced, and that is at a gross level.

We do not we we do make the distinction post-2017 that generally when we're looking at uh development, we do request gross and net calculations because of changes that were made to the code.

Prior to that, that was not, it wasn't defined.

Uh so it did I I mean I I I I don't want to hazard a guess as to what the what the net, what a comparable net is.

What I can tell you is if we go off of Providence Road, and we look at what is um off of uh Carter Lane, uh the development that is uh behind the bank uh that is uh in that particular area, and for the life of me, I'm drawing the blank on the name of the subdivision.

Um Macadoodles, the bank, and then you go to the development that is behind that.

Um that is a plan district, and that is at a development density, not necessarily a gross or a net, but it is at a it is at a density of about 4.4 units per acre, and that is a mixture of single family, uh single family townhouse development, and if I'm not incorrect, duplex development.

And so that would be about the closest thing.

Most multifamily development, I believe, if we looked at a gross versus a net, you're probably looking at on a multifamily development.

It's probably not uncommon to see gross densities in many of our multifamily projects similar, and our net densities not probably exceeding about 12 to 12 and a half.

Unless you are downtown.

Most of our downtown development is probably at about 40 to 60 units per acre.

Great.

And you may have just said this the kind of metrics for high density versus medium density versus low density, where it is this fall.

Uh this would probably, so high density would be at the upper end, and we don't have a clear distinction between low, medium, and high.

Uh high density technically would probably be 15 to 17 units per acre, and then you're probably in the mid-range of anywhere between, I'd say eight to eight to the to the 12, uh, maybe mid, and then our low density is probably you know below that.

Um but typically our our densities in our R1 zoning districts are ultra low.

Uh they are not effective to generate the densities necessary to support public transit and a variety of other things that are essential uh for us to address other issues within the community, and that's part of the reason why when you look at developments of this nature, um, they do offer an opportunity to start to support the population densities that are necessary to support other opportunities.

Now, in this particular location, I'm not suggesting that that is something that we will see, a bus line out here, but this is the type of density if it were in a more urbanized area that would start to allow you an opportunity to be able to justify why you would have a functional, a more functional transit system than we presently have.

Thank you.

And last final question.

Um given the PD zoning R2, R1, this uh density is congruent or consistent with this area.

Uh the PD zoning here, I would suggest on a on a net uh on a net is probably it is higher than what you will see in the other PD portions of the Richland Road uh annexation and permanent zoning tract.

Um it is from a net perspective, it is definitely much higher.

And again, in 2000, prior to 2017, there was not a net developable requirement, nor did we look at densities using that metric.

And so uh you know, to do a comparison of that nature of prior development built prior to 2017 to development that is now is something that uh creates just a conflict.

It's an apple and orange comparison.

Um, and the regulations are nowhere near the same either.

So there are a lot of other things that have occurred uh that provide probably an equivalency, but they don't necessarily maybe present that way because the densities are different, and they are significantly different.

The densities in uh the Brooks, for example, uh phase one, phase two, uh, are significantly less than the five on a net calculation.

And that net again, or I'm sorry, that gross, and that gross calculation is based on all of the acreage, the 50 acres, of which there's almost 24 or 25 that are not developable developable regulatorily.

And so that's why we now calculate based on that.

If this were over 17 units per acre, after the non-developable portions were taken out, we'd basically tell them that they have exceeded what the code would allow.

And that would have required the densities to have been brought down.

So it is within what would be otherwise permitted.

There was no cap in 2010 when the original development acreage was annexed into the city.

We are applying standards because this is an entirely new zoning entitlement to this property.

It is while we have to respect what was done in 2010 because of this parcel's connection to the 2010 agreement, this is a brand new request.

And so we have applied all of the current contemporary UDC standards to this.

It is also why there will be an entirely separate development agreement governing all of the contributions that are being made, but they honor and look back at the 2010 agreement.

This is not a tit for tat as to what was allowed and what is being provided.

This is being evaluated as a brand new proposal.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Commissioner Ortiz.

I just have like one question.

How are the capital improvement projects prioritized right now?

And would new development like bump up priority for these like street improvement projects.

If I'm not incorrect, it is identified as a 2029 project.

Part of the Capitol projects budget, how the budgeting is allocated is not something that our staff is generally privy to.

And how this development would increase or elevate the Richland Road project in priority to anything else that is presently being considered to be built in the in the current ballot.

What I would tell you is is again, this is a project, this project is in the eastern end, if I am not incorrect, of the Richland Road reconstruction, which has to deal with the St.

Charles intersection and Richland Road.

That is the primary focus of that project.

And so doing the project concurrently with the existing primary focus is really what is the objective.

Again, it's a matter of making sure that the resources are available to be able to start the project on the other end.

We have resources specifically allocated to the roundabout here.

If there were no other project on Richland Road, uh it would be very possible that utilizing those resources that we presently have collected, augmenting that by something at the tail end of the budgeting for the ballot is the likely outcome, because we don't want to spend money that we may need to apply to an existing project that may be higher on the priority list.

But again, with all of the with the project as a whole, it is possible that if the if the construction is completed or the construction documents that I am not aware that have been done, if those are done, the money is available, it is possible that the project could be moved forward just because of the need, I think, as has been pointed out by both Mr.

Darr uh and Dr.

Gray, that this is obviously an area that has been identified by the current traffic study as nonfunctional.

Um it's a matter of we knew the project was we knew the roundabout was needed.

We also knew that there was another project at the opposite end of Richland Road that needed to be constructed.

And so we have been waiting to just contract the roundabout independently.

We wanted to try to tie it into to better utilize uh the public dollars that would have to be being put into both projects.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Um I have a couple questions.

Why are we doing this PD?

It seems like it would fit for straight multifamily zoning.

Did I not think you would ask that question?

It wasn't in the staff report.

I know it was not.

And we asked the same question ourselves when the application came in.

Uh there are some modifications as it relates to the exterior setbacks associated to the project, which really are part of what the the aspect of relief is being asked for.

You have, because of the road alignment for rolling hills, you have some restrictions, at least on the western side of this property, which were being sought to be addressed through the reduction of the rear yard.

And so the rear yard setback front to this property is basically rolling hills on both the east and the west.

The west side is more constrained because of its depth.

The east side is equally constrained based upon where the floodway is, but because you can put the setback in the floodway or the floodplain and the floodway, but you can't put structures there, that wasn't as much of an issue.

So that's one of the rational explanations for why we are maintaining a plan on this.

Furthermore, uh plan district is what the designation of these properties were to begin with in 2010.

And not unlike what we experienced down at Copperstone at the corner of Scott Boulevard and Vaughn.

I believe the applicant didn't really consult with us that we wanted to maintain it for the purposes of ensuring that there was a plan that would guide the development and explain to the public this is what we're going to do, and that's it.

This plan district process does just that.

It defines what can and what only can occur on this acreage.

There is nothing else that is going to be allowed.

If we go and change this development plan, want to increase or add dwelling units on a portion of Track 4 that is not being shown for development, because all of this property is being combined under a single statement of intent, that is going to require going back through this same public process.

So this, in essence, is a way of ensuring that the development that is being presented here this evening with its impacts is contained and is contained to what is being presented.

It's not going to have creep.

If this was an open zoning district, creep could occur very easily, and that creep could create additional unintended consequences.

So for those reasons, I would suggest that that is why this is being processed as a plan district, even though it could have been processed as a nonplan.

Furthermore, this has a development agreement associated with it, and we did have to be able to connect the dots a little bit, even though we are going through an entirely new process.

RMF zoning in this community is not something that we apply without significant scrutiny.

And you wouldn't have had a site plan.

We would have had nothing to present to the public if this was just an open RMF request.

And that is a very daunting task on an acreage like this in this location.

So all things being considered equal from a staff perspective, the plan here, while it does seem cumbersome, I think is more appropriate to protect the public's interest.

So they want a PD plan because they wanted smaller setbacks?

To the best that I could tell, that's probably about the only thing because there aren't any other requests for waiver.

And the city felt more comfortable because it allowed them to keep the development agreement in place more easily.

More easily.

It's administratively, it's a it's a more complete connection between what existed and what would move forward.

Do you do development agreements on straight zoning?

No, typically not.

Because it that's we would so I I shouldn't say no.

Old Hawthorne, for example, Old Hawthorne North, development immediately to the east of it, and the one to the north of it for that matter, are all straight zoned.

They're all R1, but they were all annexation properties.

And as a result of the annexation element, we were able to broker a development agreement.

This is property inside the city subject to a prior development agreement.

And so just simply because it would be straight zoned, we don't contract zone and we don't have as significant an opportunity to probably negotiate particular exactions, such as the trailhead.

And so the plan district does afford us a better way of being able to do that along with coupling it with a development agreement.

And so it's not that we can't.

It's just historically we have not, unless you are annexing property.

And that's generally the only time that I have seen that we have used the development agreement tool in order to be able to secure other improvements.

But the development agreement was when it was annexed.

It was just hasn't been built yet.

Yeah, it has been built, and they're proposing as a part of the development agreement because it restricted track two where the multifamily is occurring.

That was restricted entirely to just 80,000 square feet of commercial.

And so that is hence the reason why this is, as I explain, a full re-entitlement.

They have abandoned the commercial.

And so you could have done it as RMF as you are suggesting.

I think, however, we lose then the connectivity to the development agreement and its requirements, which just modifying the zoning within a plan district, uh, keeping it at a plan, having a new plan, and then being able to tack on the other development agreement related elements, was easier, was seen easier to be able to continue to keep it in the planned zone with a modified development agreement.

And the development agreement modification is essential because you cannot use the 2010 agreement to apply some of the things that we're doing now.

The 2010 agreement did not include anything about a proportional contribution.

It didn't include the trailhead.

So we have identified we've added those things.

And that's the development agreement covers all of those new uh elements that have occurred since 2010 that weren't contemplated at that time.

Is this designated a sensitive area?

I know it's got some of the floods.

So it's going to have it'll have some sensitive feature area on it, which would be what we have excluded out of the non-buildable area.

So that would include slopes, floodplains, flood way, uh, those features.

So the development has been respective of respectful of those components.

It is also through the calculation and removal of the of that undeveloped area, as Mr.

Alleghan said, it's maintained being consistent with the RMF esque zoning component.

It's still under that density, other than the 17 units per acre.

So again, we go back to the fact that the plan provides greater clarity of what will occur and restricts the property from anything more than what's on this plan without going back through a much more public process again.

Um that's not to say that it if this is a successful development and the developer wants to use the developable portion of tract four, they may not come back and they may not ask for it a later date.

Uh an expansion of the statement of intent that's been submitted with this, which restricts it to 240 units as depicted, to add in the 116.

At that point, I would tell you, though, the impacts that adding additional density will create will probably be even more highly scrutinized, not that they weren't at this point, uh, because accessing that creates other impacts.

Um so uh, you know, right now again, we view the lack of any commercial interest to the corner as that coupled with all of our other current needs as it relates to housing as a justification for uh getting active development out of this property at this point, irrespective of the roundabout being here or not, again from a land use perspective.

Uh this intersection in and of itself has got densities that, if not to be utilized for commercial purposes, would not be appropriate for single-family detached residential, and therefore you look at this as the uh the RMF that is proposed as an appropriate transition from a high impact, high-intensity intersection to the lesser-intense residential development to both the north and the south.

And so this is something that we we we do believe from a land use transitions and a land use integration perspective is appropriate here land use-wise.

I think in my head, the 80,000 gross uh square footage area of commercial is what made it appropriate for a PD.

And I am I I think what I am hearing is that the concessions that the city is getting out of it is why it is still PD.

Yes.

That and that and the clarity associated with the development for the community in at large.

That's true of every PD plan, but that's not why we have PD zoned planning.

We have very clear ordinances as to why we have PD plan zoning, and it's not just so we get to scrutinize everything.

There are very specific reasons for them.

I'm not sure this meets any of those.

But I understand that without PD plan, it sounds like it would have been very difficult for the city to get its concessions of the trailhead and the money for the roundabout.

I I would tend to agree.

And I know exactly what you are referring to, Ms.

Chairman, uh with the criteria.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Seeing none.

We will go to public comment.

If you are here to comment on this case tonight, please come forward.

We require your name and address for the record.

We allow six minutes for the applicant or the uh representative of a group and three minutes for individuals.

Anyone want to come forward?

I don't have a list, y'all, so you're just gonna have to come up as you feel the spirit lead you.

That will update here in a second.

Okay.

Um good evening.

My name is Kyle Miller.

I'm with Crockett Engineering.

Uh 1000 West Nyphone, Columbia, Missouri.

Uh Madam Chair, members of the commission.

I'm here tonight representing the Vantage Project Plan Development.

Also here tonight representing the owner of the property, Tori Benz Farm, as well as the developer of the vantage apartments.

Well, I think staff did a great job of going over the project, so um we'll just highlight a few things here uh to note.

The property does contain a little over 50 acres that was annexed and zoned back in uh for PUD PD back in 2010.

It does contain two residential lots, one on each side of rolling hills, lot one and lot two.

There is a third lot that is a 1.5 acre uh that is to be dedicated and granted to the city as a trailhead at the time of final platting.

Uh additional land was offered, uh, but at the time this was all that was desired.

There is also a trail easement dedicated on the north side of the Grindstone Creek.

This development will be a mix of one, twos and some three-bedroom uh units spread amongst four uh residential buildings, community building, and other site features.

Here you can see the uh proposed plan uh for residential buildings on the outside as well as then the uh parking in the interior, community building right next to the pool, pickleball, uh dog parks on either side, and some garages space between.

This illustrates the entire 50 acres and where the location of the development would occur.

Uh here you can see in yellow that entire 50 acres.

Uh most of the portion is just there at the intersection of Richland and Roland Hills.

The area in green here uh is what will remain unchanged with this development.

It shows the entire 50 acres and about 30 acres of it is what's shown here in green.

Uh to answer one of Commissioner Jones' uh points here, the area and sensitive area, the floodway, the stream, stream buffer, steep ridges will all be located in this green area that would not be disturbed with the development.

And highlighted in blue here will be the 1.5 acres of the uh the park dedicated space by the plot.

So some benefits to the this development and the 240 multifamily units.

Uh 2024 Boone County and the City of Columbia Housing Study found we need more residential uh developments or more residential units for multifamily at about 900 per year, and this 240 has helped closing that gap.

This project also supports the Columbia Imagine and the need for uh diverse housing options in the community.

We also feel this is a good transition for like uses in the surrounding area.

We have a lot of single family multi or single family units around, and this allows that transition zone.

To highlight on traffic and to get to a couple of questions that were brought up earlier.

Uh there was a traffic study that was done for this project.

Uh we are providing the adequate right-of-way and space for that uh roundabout that was mentioned, as well as positioned the project with space to allow that roundabout construction.

Uh a couple of questions here to answer on that traffic study.

Uh Commissioner, Commissioner Darr.

One of those questions that was brought up is regard to uh the current status of the intersection.

And that is uh as defined by the um traffic impact study as worst case scenario with all of the build-outs of all of the surrounding developments fully developed.

So when looking at Silver Lakes, Five Pines, Richland Vineyards, all of them would be fully developed for it to create that.

Once the then the roundabout is installed, it would be improved to I believe it was a B grade.

But that letter grade that you referenced earlier would be with everything completely fully built out, which it right now it's not.

Some of those projects haven't even started construction.

Um Commissioner Stockton, in regards to the site distance that was brought up.

Uh the traffic report indicated that with its current status.

Right now there's trees on the property, all of this uh of different uh visual impairments that would be there.

During the construction plan phase, we would obviously call for those impairments to be removed so that you could better see the the area and the traffic and the site distance would be improved.

And Commissioner Gray, in regards to the uh location of those drives, that is one thing too that we noted and as found in the traffic study, and we move those drives within that development as far about as far back as we can to keep it away from that roundabout and to uh make sure that we allow for proper spacing for stacking of that said roundabout.

Uh lastly, here in regards to public utilities, we feel this is an in-fill development in regards to utilities.

All of these utilities are at or adjacent to the site.

There would require no large extensions for this development.

Um except for what would be required just internal of the site.

So in conclusion, this proposed development is consistent with the goals and objectives of Columbia Imagine and the housing study.

It conforms to the requirements of all of the UDC of the city and standards.

The plan is consistent with the previously approved zoning for this track of land and comes recommended to you by staff.

Be happy to answer answer any questions you have at this time.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Darr, go ahead.

I would just read the traffic study.

It says 2025 base conditions as the existing condition plus the approved area developments and the 2025 build conditions is the 2025 base plus proposed trips from this development.

And on the last page where it says the summary, it says the 2025 base and the 2025 build conditions both are operating under a level of service of F during AM and PM peak hours.

I have to go back through it and check all that to make sure, but I believe it was located in here where it talked about different different aspects of it in one of those.

I did not read this 100% cover to end.

So there might be other stuff, but that's what I read.

Understand?

Uh and duly noted, and one of those would be the roundabout that would we do know is in the queue and would resolve all of that.

Yeah.

I agree completely.

The roundabout would you know this this portion is the developer would contribute to the monetary of that said roundabout.

So I mean it they would be doing their part to contribute to that uh whenever it gets stacked up and in the Q4 construction.

Yes.

Thanks.

Any other questions for the speaker?

Commissioner Stockman.

Was we received a letter from a neighbor representing two different neighbors about a perimeter boundary, possibly uh preventing residents in this new development from wandering under their property.

Was there any discussion of that?

Um notwithholding the fact that there's a waterway and it looks like dense forest.

Right.

Um there any discussion about a property boundary?

We did not reach out um to to the uh individual who made the comment.

Um but I did take note of that, and uh we are when I looked it up over 700 feet from any property to the south from the nearest doorstep of our any uh either of the buildings.

And like you said, there would be a creek, steep banks, uh vegetated forest, all within that area.

We would obviously be closer to anything on the north, but to the south and to the west, or to the south and to the east, we are we'll be over 700 feet from the nearest doorstep.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Commissioner Brodsky.

Uh I think you heard our chairwoman's concern about the PD plan, and uh one of the issues with those is you know, we there's a lot to do with those if there's changes or modifications.

Um there is a three-year expiration for any PD plan that we see uh before it expires.

Does the uh property owner intend to develop this within that three-year time period?

Yes.

It would be my understanding this would be ready to go uh sooner rather than later.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Seeing none.

Thank you very much for being here tonight.

Next speaker on this case.

Docinato for Aegon Street.

So I'm looking at this.

I think I heard staff say that this was out of the floodway and the floodplain.

But when I'm looking at the map, it looks like um building four is completely in the floodplain, the hundred-year floodplain, and my pictures changed.

And half of building number three is completely in it, and half of building number four.

Um, I just want to point that out, and I think it would be great to point out where the floodplain is in presentations.

Um because it is very hard to discern.

So in this area, the floodway is broad.

That's the big green spot green and the stream buffer, the big floodway uh is a lot of green, but then the floodplain actually goes into the building development.

And I think it would be better if that didn't happen.

In general, very um approve of the density, approve of building in this area, which has been determined by the East Area plan to be a good place for housing.

We need housing, great place if there's green space, um, trail access, all those things are you know positive.

But I think we should respect the um so-called hundred-year floodway, which with climate change, um, that flooding is that has increased in volume and frequency.

Also, this land is part of the ecosystem of the stream.

It has soils, it has plants that soak up water and hold it like a sponge.

And you can't just uh discard it or replace it.

It's special, it's specialized, it's a specialized habitat and should be respected.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions from Ms.

Dalkin tonight?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please come forward.

My name is John Duke, and I live in the Brooks.

Uh part of my property will back up to some of this development.

Sir, can we get a can we get an address for the answer one of my questions already?

Oh, I'm sorry, sir.

We need your address for the record, not just three one seven Harbor Town Drive.

Thank you.

Uh you've answered one of my questions.

Will there be for future building on this site?

And that's been cleared up.

The only thing I have a problem with is it's four stories high, and it is going to take away some of the visibility of the neighborhood with it being built the way it is.

Uh, with the increased number of vehicles in the area, uh my concern is the Hoy Lake Freeway that goes through the middle of the brooks.

It's called a freeway because of the way the traffic drives on that street.

If you live there, you'll know immediately what it is.

Uh I drive 25 to 30 miles an hour on that street.

Cars pass me all the time, crossing the double yellow lines on the hills, on the curves, wherever.

And a lot of the people that are driving give me the international high sign as they go by.

Hoy Lake is only about 37 feet wide.

There are three large black mailboxes located directly on the side of Hoy Lake.

There are 19 roadway entrances coming out of the development of the Brooks onto Hoy Lake, and Hoy Lake is only about three quarters of a mile long.

There are four properties that their driveways actually go on to Hoy Lake.

And where they're located, they are in kind of a blind spot backing out of their properties onto Hoy Lake.

And in the area on the bottom of the hill as you go down Hoy Lake is the community pool for the Brooks.

So during the summer, there's all kinds of children and parents and whatnot walking and running in the area.

My background, uh give you a little word of advice.

Traffic is much like a river.

It will find the shortest and quickest way to get from one location to another.

And if by some chance two vehicles, one parked on each side of Hoy Lake, are there at the same time?

That is not a four-lane highway.

Three-lane highway.

There's not enough room for four vehicles at one time to be on Hoy Lake.

That's my concern.

And unless that is uh improved, at some point you're going to have a major accidental Hoy Lake, and somebody's going to be dead.

People that are getting in and out of the mailboxes do not park within seven inches of the curb.

Just be aware that that's my concern.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for the speaker?

I'm sorry, sir.

We have a question for you, if that's okay.

Hi, thank you so much.

Um I just wanted to make sure I understood uh you were talking about Hoy Lake Drive and some of the traffic concerns there.

Um how is that connected to the Richland Rose or rolling?

All of your traffic from this apartment complex.

Sir, can you speak into the microphone?

All of this traffic from your apartment complex will not go down Richland.

Richland is two road, two-way.

The intersection, as he was talking about, where they're thinking of aroundabout, where Richland joins uh St.

Charles, I think is this name of the street, is a mess.

The other way is to go up to St.

Charles and get on the freeway.

We know what's happening there.

It's under construction.

So if you start south on rolling hills, you'll come into Hoy Lake right at the entrance to the Brooks.

And it's a straight shot right through the development, no stop signs, no nothing, to WW.

So you don't have to drive all the way down rolling hills to WW, get on that roundabout and go on WW over to the freeway.

That's why we call it the freeway with all those of us that live in the development, because the people that live in the area have already found that out.

And now you're going to add another 240 cars.

And of that, probably 200 of them are going to go up and down Hoy Lake.

The average household in the United States has 1.83 vehicles per household.

So I'm giving you credit for only 240.

It'll probably be more like 300.

I would say at least 50 percent of those vehicles are going to go up or south on Rolling Hills, get on Hoy Lake, run over to WW, which has already got a traffic problem now, and that shoots right straight over to the freeway and right downtown Columbia.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Any other questions for the speaker?

Thank you.

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

Again, just a reminder, your name and address for the record, speak directly into the microphone because we are transcribing.

Hi.

You're going to have to pull that one way down, ma'am.

Thank you.

My name is Gail Houseworth, and I live at 5338 Harbortown Drive.

And I'm here to oppose the proposed vantage apartment complex at Rolling Hills and Richland Road.

My objection is not to the housing itself, but to the lack of infrastructure to support the development and the impacts it will have on my subdivision, the Brooks neighborhood, and specifically Hoy Lake Drive.

According to the Columbia Unified Development Code, Appendix A1E1, local residential streets within a subdivision are not intended to connect to more than one collector or one arterial street.

The purpose of the standard is to prevent local streets from becoming cut-through routes and to preserve neighborhood safety and livability.

As you know, Hoy Lake Drive connects to two arterial streets and directly functions as a cut-through.

This condition has created a significant and ongoing problem with traffic volume and speeding, directly contrary to the intent of the UDC.

The UDC further addresses the issue in Section 25, which states that where cut-through traffic is anticipated to become a problem, traffic calming measures should be incorporated in the design of the street.

In our case, not only was cut-through traffic foreseeable, it is now well established, yet traffic calming was never incorporated into the original design, nor has it been meaningfully addressed since.

Now we are considering the vantage apartment complex, which will generate substantial additional traffic on both Richland Road and Rolling Hills Road.

Hoy Lake Drive provides a cut through that saves approximately two and a half miles to drives accessing highway WW, making increased use of this route entirely foreseeable.

However, the 2025 traffic study, complete completed for this project, did not include Hoy Lake Drive in its analysis.

Given Hoy Lake Drive's known cut-through potential, by excluding it, a reasonably foreseeable impact area, the study prevents the Commission from fully evaluating the project's compliance with the code.

In the past, residents have been directed to public works to pursue traffic calming.

While Hoy Lake scores at it near high for volume and for the speeding, we can't move any farther up the list because we don't have any of the fixed characteristics that are measured in the traffic measurement system, such as we're not near a hospital, we don't have schools, et cetera.

And so we're behind a lot of streets that have a lot less of a traffic problem than we have.

Before approving the vantage apartment complex, I respectfully urge you to consider whether the proposal aligns with the intent and requirements, not only of the code, but also with the livable Columbia intent in the Imagine Columbia document.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any questions for the speaker?

Commissioner Gray.

Thank you so much.

Could you finish that last thought about how it potentially doesn't align with the comprehensive plan?

Well, I think you know, in terms of Imagine Columbia, it's clearly states that the intent of all the planning is to provide for the livability and for the citizens to have a happy place to grow old in age in place is specifically mentioned.

And so the more traffic that you put through a neighborhood, such as has been put through our neighborhood.

What impacts livability, I think, almost more than anything is traffic from a standpoint of getting to where you're going or et cetera.

And I think as you studied this document, we're starting out with Fs already, even on this little area, and they didn't even study the impact areas.

If you go up to Grace Lane where it hits St.

Charles Road, if you go there to get out of our neighborhood at rush hour, you're going to wait quite a long time.

And that's not in your study either.

So not only is Hoy Lake not in the study, neither is the St.

Charles Grace Lane connection.

And that all works together to function for that traffic to rotate out through there.

And unfortunately, because we're two and a half miles shorter to go through, it's it's created what is known as a rat run where they've developed, you know, they know where it is.

Google puts people through there.

And uh you know who anticipated that when they bought a home on a 25 mile per hour street.

Not fair to us, I don't think.

Thank you so much.

Um a follow-up question.

You um I really appreciate that you're supportive of housing.

And I'm curious about so this is 240 units.

Uh what would be an acceptable amount of development that would not impact your livability?

I think you know that you you have my opinion is you have to look at the whole system and say, okay, where are we having these problems and address those?

I don't think it's the matter of the development per se.

It's the amount the infrastructure is failing us.

And the way that it was designed, quite honestly, I don't know who thought to put a collector street making a cut through as they did through our neighborhood and thought that would work well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the speaker?

Commissioner No?

Oh no.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker, please come forward.

Going once.

Come on.

Again, I know we have you sign in, but I don't have a list, so you're just gonna have to come up.

Uh you're gonna have to pull that up.

Okay.

There we go.

Hello, my name is Troy Cox, and I'm um I have a couple properties in the neighborhood.

The one I have the address for is 5771 East Richland Road.

Thank you.

So that is in the northeast corner of this development of this property.

Um I look at this property a lot since I work, I work, I have the Grindstone Wildflower Farm right on the northeast corner of this property.

I look at it a lot, and it is definitely an environmentally sensitive area.

It has a horseshoe in it.

Um most of it is in the floodplain.

I really do like how they're trying to minimize the impact on that by creating a tremendous amount of green space that if it stays that way, that would be really ideal.

Um I like that they're they're trying to minimize and put it all in the corner there because that's probably the the gonna have the least environmental impact, and it's already the easiest part of the property to develop.

Um I do agree with one of the previous speakers, though, parts of it are infringing on the the flood, the floodplain.

Um I have a concern about that.

Um I really I really like the idea of keeping most of the tree cover on the hillside there, and then most of the vegetation along the creek.

This is a really beautiful area.

It has a really beautiful hillside bluff, and it has a really beautiful creek that winds through there.

This this will make a great um park for the city.

It would be a great extension to Eastport Park, which attaches on it's in the Eastport Park is in the northeast corner of this property.

Um my concern is with the floodplain, but otherwise I I do like how they're trying to minimize how much they're spreading out, because I know they had previously had plans of much greater impact.

Um this is a largely forested area, and hopefully it will stay that way.

Um to address the issue that some of the folks are from the Brooks that Hoy Hoy Lake Drive that cuts through there.

I I've lived in this neighborhood when that was all fields, and and I agree that it wasn't a good idea to make it cut through there.

And the solution to that would probably be cutting it in half.

And if they if they take out the middle of the road there and don't allow it to go through, it'd be it would it would cut down that problem.

I cut through there.

Also, um, one thing is I I hope that the city is working with a certified FEMA flood plan administrator on this project since so much of it is in the floodplain.

I'm not sure who is currently representing the city of Columbia.

I know that's very important when you go into development and you're looking at insurance.

Um if you could wrap up.

Okay, yeah.

Yeah, and I had a few other questions.

Um I wanted to know like what side of the creek would the trail be on.

Um then also um yeah, well, okay, that's it.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none, thank you very much.

Next speaker, please come forward.

Hi, I'm Barbara Samson, and I own the property at Tubogie Hills, which is in the Bay Hill subdivision, um, which the entrance is onto um Richland Road, which is very close to this intersection.

Um I also agree we need affordable housing, we need a variety of housing.

That's a good place to build it, but I'm really concerned about the safety.

Richland Road is very narrow, there's no shoulders.

Um there would not be if there was if it was backed up if um as expected it's gonna operate at the level of service F for five to ten years before we get a roundabout belt.

Um I think that there's gonna be a lot of increased chance of crashes and limited emergency vehicle access, and these concerns aren't really fully addressed in the traffic study.

Um I just think that we need to address those first.

Like I would be interested to know.

Supposedly we have to wait um longer to have the roundabout belt because it has to be tied to something at the other end of Richland Road, and maybe to ask how much more would it cost to go ahead and do that first, because there's gonna be five to ten years of people having their safety better risk because of the traffic congestion there.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Next speaker on this case, please come forward.

Hey, how y'all doing?

Good.

So I'm the owner.

I'm my name is Yeah, I was gonna say name and address.

My name is DeWan, right?

I'm the uh owner of 5471 East Richard Road, and I apologize for being here a little late.

I wish I was afforded the time to get here at 7 o'clock so I have more context of what's going on.

Uh most of these people may recognize me, or they make if I have my dog with me, they may recognize that I'm the one that picks up the trash around that immediate area.

I've been there for five years, and I've already seen the increase in Columbia's um volume of people, cars, trash, violence, and everything else.

And we recently just had a development on the corner of Brayson Richland, and I believe everyone was for it.

So it's for the community, it's for the families, and it's for the Americans who live in that area.

On this side of the highway, this is for homeowners, and it's predominantly homeowners.

The other side of the highway is the links, the apartment buildings, the college kids.

I would say keep them over there and let us have our um peaceful enjoyment.

Also, I'll do like um I forgot his name, but we met before, and we spoke about the um endangered plants, the animals, the deer that all that always come around, and I believe that if you all really want to aid us in our investments, you all would put a park there because so many people walk walk that trail, I mean walk that uh street, they jog, they ride bikes, they walk their dogs, and if we were afforded the park or dog park and or a dog park, I think that will make the community and the people who live in this community a lot more happier.

So uh also to with the um, like I said, I've heard the word volume.

This is a two-lane road each way.

There's all and with the I'm right on the corner, so I see the traffic all the time.

That's kind of what I do.

I'll sit in my I'll sit in my living room and I'll just watch the traffic.

So I've already seen the pile up.

I've already seen the pile up on trash, the speeding, the noise that cars make, and I cannot get it out of my head that young, younger kids probably well, younger people my age that are not so uh sound minded will be in the area and it will just completely um move us away.

And I love the area.

I love Columbia, it's very peaceful, and removing the vegetation and everything like that will get rid of that spring sweet, crisp smell that we have.

I love it, and I don't want it to go.

And if the um also I heard it was uh four stories high.

I'm not against housing.

I'm a landlord.

I'm not against housing, but I am against you know, blocking views.

I am against, you know, um diminishing the enjoyment of the property that I invested in.

And uh from what I've heard, I can tell that most of the homeowners and people in this neighborhood and the community agrees.

So my last words will be keep the apartments on the other side of the highway, let us enjoy our houses.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Oh, I'm sorry.

You've got to raise your hand higher.

Hi, Dr.

Gray, go ahead.

Thank you.

Thanks for walking back.

Um I just wanted to make sure I'm clear.

Uh in terms of the difference between uh your residence or your neighborhood and this proposed your keep them over there.

Who is the them?

The the volume of the um non-homeowners, the people that are not homeowners, um college kids, I can just see with 280 apartments, it's an additional 500 people, and someone said an additional four uh 300 cars.

That's far too much, and like we've talked about infrastructure, it is overloading and it's uh infringing on us.

So you would be in support if this were uh like a single family owner neighborhood proposed.

Make it make sense.

I'm also a uh military veteran, so dress right dress.

There are houses and there are duplexes, and I had a house I converted into a triplex, but it's um yeah, if if anything, keep it a duplexes, keep it as a neighborhood friendly thing, not a um commercial, commercially profitable thing.

So that that was they'd be my main point.

I want to keep the dress right dress with the houses and the duplexes, not the skyscrapers.

Okay.

And can you just help me understand what the impact is to your safety or your your livelihood in this scenario?

Drinking the the um the the drinking with the other drivers, the traffic.

Um we already hear a lot of cars speeding down Richland, so I can only imagine more cars will be speeding down, more cars will be drinking around that area.

We've we've already heard someone uh talk about accidents and someone may die, and uh with the with the size of the roads and the volume that we are adding, it doesn't make sense.

And that's kind of how my brain works.

If it doesn't make sense, I have to speak on it.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

I sorry.

Real quick question.

Thank you.

Um you said you're a landlord.

Is the property or the properties you own in this area?

Absolutely, it's right on the corner.

Okay, so rentals are okay as long as you own them.

No.

Okay.

See I that's the point I would I made about houses and duplexes.

I'm not I've already said I'm not opposed to uh multifamily, so like multifamily like apartments is where you draw the line.

But single family houses or duplexes are okay because it's lower density.

Lower density, it's um it's it's less volume of people and it's more intentional.

Homeowners treat their immediate area, their environment, their communities different than a renter would.

Right, but you're saying that you have renters, right?

You're a landlord, so you have renters in your in your home.

So wouldn't it be the same?

No, I have uh three people that's living in there, and we're talking about a 280 unit apartment that is over that's let's say two per household.

Right.

It's over 500.

Okay.

So three, five hundred, big difference.

Okay.

What else?

Any other questions?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

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

Going once.

Going twice.

All right.

If no one stands up, we're gonna close the public hearing on this case.

Done.

Commissioner comment.

Any commissioner comments on this case?

Commissioner Ortiz.

Um it's unfortunate because this is not the first time we've heard about Hoy Lake.

Um, and I really, you know, as one of the speakers said, this is on the traffic calming list.

And it's it's actually been bumped down.

There's been more priority um areas that have been identified since this one has been put on the uh traffic calming list.

And you know, clearly this is a problem.

We've seen it before.

We saw it last year, we're seeing it again this year.

So I just would really I don't know what would have to be done to get this bumped up or prioritized, but if we want more housing and more development, um if we want more housing units in Columbia, we're going to have to address this traffic problem.

Um so I would just encourage who whoever, I guess city council when they read this transcript, um to to bump up the Hoy Lake traffic calming.

Thank you.

Any other commissioner comment?

Commissioner Gray.

Um I just again want to make sure I have clarification about the criteria that we're considering in a zoning decision.

Council.

Um we're looking at like detrimental effects.

Does it align with the comprehensive plan, um infrastructure, UDC?

Anything else?

Comp plan.

Yeah.

Yep.

Yep, you got it.

Got it.

Thank you.

Um to uh Commissioner Ortiz's point.

I um the criteria don't ask me to uh weigh the potential traffic considerations alongside housing.

And so I don't know where that testimony fits in this, other than it doesn't seem like there is a clear threshold for additional housing.

We support additional housing in theory, but in practice infrastructure or potential traffic is the priority.

May I if if I may?

Yes, Commissioner Ortiz.

I'll just say I give that comment because at the last city council meeting when people came up about the development at Ashford Place.

The the reason given was inadequate infrastructure.

So I think they're considering traffic, like the traffic impact as an adequate infrastructure.

I don't I don't think it's gonna weigh into my decision or my vote personally.

Commissioner Gray.

Thank you for that clarification.

I think we're saying the same thing in different ways.

Yes.

I am um uh I thought I understood what words meant until that decision.

Uh inadequate infrastructure to me is not evidenced by what we see in the traffic study.

Um I understand Commissioner Degar's concern about the F rating and the B potentially.

Um but again, it does not seem to me that the inconvenience of maybe waiting at an intersection a little bit longer than we'd like when we first bought a house outweighs the need for people to have housing, which we have a plan for.

So I don't think we're disagreeing, and thank you for that clarification.

Any other commissioner comment?

Commissioner Stockton.

I'm echoing what they've said.

We we all know we need more housing.

I know everybody in here doesn't disagree with that.

I looked up just whatever Google said, and they said as of 2024, and maybe we made strides, we were 3,000 units short in the city.

So doing some quick calcs, if this would add 240 units, approximately a twelfth that need, if Ashford Place had passed, that was another 77.

This would get us a mere 8% to that goal.

If Ashford Place had passed, we would have gotten to 10%.

It's still chipping at the iceberg.

Um I I tend to agree with Dr.

Gray.

I I it's not really our purview to handle the traffic situation, but it's a conduit, and I think we can do what we can to help lobby for you to get the traffic calming measure, but we need housing, and I don't know where you think it's gonna go.

I mean, Center City is consumed.

If you're a developer, you have to be able to be able to perform provide affordable housing, you can't buy the most expensive plot of land in the city.

Or then the renters paying top price for a penthouse.

So it has to go an affordable piece of land.

And I'm guessing most of the people that chose to live out here, the nature is there, the nice quiet nature of it, sure.

But I'm sure it met their finances as well, you know, to have a nice new property that fit the budget.

So I mean, people moving out there for different types of things, not just single family homes are also looking for that same sort of amenity.

I I feel lucky, and you should too that we live in a community that's so sought after and that we have this deficit of housing.

You know, it could be the opposite way, and we could be at Ghost Town.

But I think if we keep punting, I think we're going to end up in an even worse situation.

We hear things about homelessness.

We I have students that commute, I may have said this before from St.

Louis in Kansas City on a daily basis, some an hour south of the lake.

There's people that are commuting astronomically long amounts of time just because there's a lack of housing here, okay.

So I want you to consider that and weigh that.

And we we do understand we don't want you to have this wide thoroughfare.

And I think we all know this, the wider the street, the the faster the traffic goes.

And so, you know, I'm willing to start a nonprofit and do traffic calming measures if I have to out there for you.

You know, I don't want to.

But the housing is a real thing.

And I think we need to be listening to that primarily in this situation.

Because it's it's worse to, like you said, Dr.

Gray, to be out there without a roof over your head.

Other commissioner comment.

Commissioner Walter.

I'm sorry, I wrote it down and then I forgot.

Commissioner Darren, then Commissioner Walters.

Uh I do think this is a responsible and appropriate development.

Um there's the plan, there's funding for the improvement of the intersection.

Um I think the Hoy Lake is a problem, definitely, but I almost view it as an enforcement issue on the city's part almost for the speeding and the dangerous type of activity activities are going on, because we have traffic studies in the past year that have shown that road has adequate capacity.

It doesn't exceed the number of trips that the road can handle.

So it's the it's it's it's almost like an enforcement kind of issue to me of people cutting through there and speeding and driving dangerously.

Um I I plan on supporting this development.

Commissioner Walters.

I should have asked this one for an earlier speaker because we can't take comments from the audience.

But um maybe Pat or someone can tell us uh is the process of of getting a stop signs installed, is that a huge problem?

I mean, do you appeal to City Council to public works and say you study this area, we'd like to see stop signs put at three or four locations along Holyoke.

I mean, what's is there a process or criteria or pecking order for doing that?

I mean, typically the the traffic calming process, as has been discussed, it it has a very defined procedure.

Umstallation of traffic control devices, uh parking restrictions and things of that nature, as we've talked about, that is a that is a discretion of the public works department.

Uh roadway classing has a significant amount of impact on that.

I mean, um, and so you know this particular roadway, uh Hoy Lake as it was originally constructed just for context purposes, was originally intended to traverse through track five east and west and connect to highway WW generally uh at the extension of L Chaparral.

So the through movement that we're hearing concerns about potentially would have been at a much higher volume given the length and the design originally considered for that roadway.

So as a portion of the development of the Brooks Phase 2, the relocation and the upgrading as we have discussed with the Ashford place of Hoy Lake to the signal at Elk Park Drive was approved as an alternative.

The development of phase two of the Brooks does not have any direct driveway access along the segment of Hoy Lake as it travels through that project.

That is a realization of the fact that the roadway design that was originally contemplated was changed.

The roadway class was upgraded.

And so where we do not have intersecting streets, which is something that we endeavor to avoid, and that would be where potentially you may have traffic signals or traffic control devices such as stop signs installed, that's driven a lot of that's driven based upon the the the through movement and its class.

And so I I mean our our traffic engineering department have asked to evaluate that could.

And would it be appropriate to install traffic control devices along that segment based upon the roadway class?

Potentially not, because collector arterial roadways are meant to move high volumes of traffic at elevated speeds.

This roadway was not initially when it was constructed in the first phase of the Brooks, intended it well, it was intended, but it wasn't contemplated.

The design of certain lots along Hoy Lake before you got into phase two, there were a number of driveways permitted, because at that time that was the only means.

Today, and the reason why we don't have that on in phase two is because we realized that it was going to connect to a more major roadway, another arterial.

So we could look at that, but it also impacts then the functionality of the road.

And so that is why it has not been done.

Now, traffic traffic management and dealing with traffic calming devices has the same similar effect.

It will slow speeds down, it will cause people to hopefully move at a lower rate of speed given that you may do speed humps or tables.

A traffic sign potentially just becomes another object that you get desensitized to.

And we choose to put traffic control at particular locations where there is a there is a demand.

The MUTC, which is the traffic control manual that we utilize, has particular warrants for that.

And that would be probably where the beginning of the study with the traffic engineers would be.

Does the MUTC require a traffic control device to be placed at that particular location?

And I don't believe that it may warrant that.

And so it is something that is available.

It is not something that I think hasn't maybe been asked of our traffic engineers previously, but why the roadway is on the traffic calming list is to address it in the way that would be most practical based upon that type of roadway.

Nobody likes speed humps generally.

I mean, every time I hear of them going in in a community, there is opposition of even the residents that live along that, even though they would like it to be slowed.

We adjust to that, and people will change possibly their travel habits as a result.

And so what the public is asking for is for a more expeditious rollout of them.

And I think as we continue to hear the same concerns in an area that we do intend to probably see or expect to have more development in, that may have an impact as it relates to the prioritization, because we have to do as you all are wrestling with find locations that will accommodate the housing that we need.

What is the alternative?

The alternative is to maybe give on the prioritization of something that doesn't necessarily qualify in order to get to that end objective.

So my recommendation to this body would be as a part of any recommendation, you again implore in your recommendation for council's consideration that potentially we look at ways of being able to expedite the installation of traffic management either through the traffic control that is needed that's been discussed, and that it is on a list four.

And that I think is the most practical and most efficient way of being able to address the concerns that are being expressed.

I would like to step back, though, and I would like to have one statement, if I may, in regards to how we as a staff evaluate the adequacy of infrastructure.

I think to the point that Mr.

Darr brought up, we have had multiple traffic studies conducted.

Those traffic studies identify that there is volume and capacity available in the street network.

We look at that more so than we are going to look at this creates an inconvenience by going through my neighborhood.

We also look at capacity of the utility infrastructure to get to a question that has been asked about how do we evaluate that.

This area is richly served by utilities.

And so it is not inadequately served from staff's evaluative perspective from infrastructure.

There are deficiencies in maybe the infrastructure, and there are programs and methodologies that we have used in order to try to address those.

But timing is of the essence.

We have not kept up with that development as possibly we should have.

Unfortunately, we have other issues here that we need to address.

And but this scenario is not much different.

We have an area now that is desired for development, is affordable for development, and it is being sought for development.

We have to reprioritize possibly, and we are attempting to do that as we can with the resources we have available.

So that is just want you all to understand that it is not that we from a staff perspective, and I don't think you do, and I haven't heard that.

We evaluate infrastructure and the availability of it, and we would tell you that no, this doesn't have adequate water and adequate sewer.

It does, and if it didn't, it would be major expenses to the developer, and that may be impediments.

And that's when we talk about, well, maybe the development is premature given that we don't have that infrastructure to support it.

The backbone road infrastructure here has capacity.

We are going to be starting to exceed capacity at a point, and we're trying to make the adjustments to that accordingly.

Dr.

Gray.

Thank you for that clarification.

So in terms of looking at the traffic study, it is looking at capacity and impact.

And impact is measured in seconds of delay, right?

So 165 seconds versus 183.

That's what we're talking about per this study.

That would be correct.

The capacity is still there to support the 240 dwelling units.

There is a delay.

And the delay is what the proportional fee is based off of.

Got it.

Thank you so much.

Any other commissioner comments?

Commissioner Brodsky.

In general, I'm I am supportive of this project.

I can't remember the speaker that brought up the East Area Plan from 2010 actually worked on that plan.

So you know, we do we do need housing.

I think that's been acknowledged.

I agree with your assessment, Dr.

Gray, that uh the capacity is there.

It just might not be quite as convenient for folks that are already in the area.

However, uh I do think that Hoy Lake, you know, that cut through.

I mean, it's obvious you just look at the map.

Uh obviously people are going to make that cut through.

Uh so uh just want to deliver that message to City Council that they might want to uh bump up that priority uh on that road, and we've in this area um you know two significant developments that road infrastructure has been a impediment or an issue at least.

Um then I did want to mention, you know, currently uh this tract uh you know they could put 80,000 square feet of commercial uh on this property, uh which would generate many more vehicles per day uh than this current proposal.

So uh with all that being said, I am in favor of this uh thank you.

Anyone else before I make mine?

Okay.

Go ahead, Commissioner Stockton.

Do you know what side of the creek the trail is going to be on for the gentleman in the audience?

If I am not incorrect, it is on the northwest side.

So the trail easement is being dedicated, if I recall correctly, on the north side of the creek, which would be the development sum.

Oh, it's fine.

Okay.

So I may be in the very small minority in my position on this.

It has nothing to do with Hoy Lake.

I agree with my fellow commissioners that Hoy Lake is a separate problem and one that is not before us tonight.

However, I have a problem with this plan.

And it is as follows.

The purpose of a PD plan is to allow innovation, flexibility, mixed uses, and lessened environmental impacts.

Allow mixed housing types and densities, allow mixed residential and commercial uses, create usable open spaces and amenities, benefit the comp plan, and allow for efficient administration of land instead of locking into strict zoning requirements.

This plan doesn't do any of that.

What this plan does is give the builders smaller setbacks and allow them to build in a floodplain.

And it does that while giving the city an easier path to charge them for a roundabout.

If this were just straight uh multifamily housing, I'm not sure.

We wouldn't have this plan in front of us.

They would have to follow all of the hoops and whatever and setbacks and things about building in this floodplain area, about building near the floodway, about being in a tree preservation area, about uh having to comply with the previously passed development plans that I would hope the city tied to the conveyance of the property.

They would have to talk about possibly funding expansion of roads and anything else that comes with regular straight zoning.

They're not having to do any of that.

And instead, we are given a very specific plan that we get to look at and decide whether we're going to approve or not approve.

And I can't find it within me to look at this very specific plan and approve building two or well, one and a half buildings well within the floodplain that are going to be for housing.

In addition to the amount of impervious surface that is being added to the floodplain area and the surrounding area.

And in addition to the fact that we are talking about narrowing setbacks and otherwise getting around a lot of what the UDC requires.

A lot of times that requires them coming to us anyway.

But even if they could, I would rather see mixed-use development, which is the purpose of plan development and PUDs, than to approve one that is sitting before me.

Well, no, they don't have a site development plan, so they couldn't build the commercial until they did that.

So this site development plan does not meet my standard for why we have PDs, and it does not meet my standard for allowing people to build purposefully in a floodplain without a really good reason.

So for those reasons, I am going to be a no tonight.

And I understand that that we need housing.

I do get that.

I was a yes on Ashford Place.

And I probably would have been a yes on this, even despite my dislike of unnecessary PD plans, if they hadn't just flat out put an entire building inside the floodplain right on grindstone.

So I can't approve the map that's in front of me.

I can't approve the site development plan that's in front of me the way that it's drawn.

Commissioner Stant.

Madam Chair, great points.

You know, like I know if this would occur as a straight zoning, the same time we're using to express while we don't like PDs, we will be spending that same time with less information, drilling Crockett or the owner about what you're going to put there, what's it going to look like?

We don't have a vision of what it is.

We have no control of what's going to go there.

Even though we hate PDs, I like that I know what is going to be there.

I've the floodplain issue is I will almost need more clarification.

It says one percent annual chance of floodplain.

I I don't know what that necessarily means.

To me, that means less likely to happen.

That's just me.

But I like the I like the certainty of what I'm seeing.

And on my uh box, let's not use affordable unless they say it, because we all know.

Well, I didn't say I heard affordable.

When I hear that word, I get triggered.

Ain't nobody said no, this is this is not going to be affordable.

It's going to be the saying.

But I support it because it's giving me a lot of certainty.

And traffic, I'm just going to say so it's on the record.

Uh Hoy Lake Drive, Hoor Lake Drive, knees traffic issues addressed, knees traffic issues addressed.

So it's on the public record.

Hoy Lake Drive needs to be addressed.

So it's on the record.

But um I plan to support this because I I I don't have a lot of uncertainties.

And I think, Commissioner Stan, where I am at is because I have the certainty, I know I don't like it.

Next.

Commissioner Gray.

Thank you so much for your comments.

I just want to clarify that in an RMF or another kind of zoning that they would not be permitted to build in that 1 percent annual flood?

They would have to do a separate floodplain development plan.

And they may still have to.

Any development within we so the city's regulations prohibit development within the floodway, period, outright.

We will allow development within the floodplain, provided you are elevated two feet above the base flood elevation, and you obtain a floodplain development certificate.

So they are going to be required to go through an enhanced permitting procedure to answer a question as to who the floodplain administrator is, the City of Columbia.

And that would be evaluated again at a later date.

But the development that is proposed here would be permissible.

It is not in the floodway, it is in the floodplain, and we have many locations throughout the city where we do issue floodplain development permits for other styles of development.

So there are procedures that must be uh addressed and those would be handled.

And I think my issue is that almost half of the housing that they are trying to develop is within that floodplain.

And so I don't know that they would be able to build that many units on here without doing that.

So that's what I mean by like if this were regular zoning, I wouldn't have this in front of me, and I would trust the process.

But I do have this in front of me, and I don't like where they've put the buildings.

I don't think that is a smart way to do this because you are putting people's homes in an area where we are seeing more and more likelihood of flooding, and I know it is 1 percent, but it's 1 percent over 100 years, and what we have seen is that those tend to flood every 10 years now, not every one year.

So I my point is I know they have to still go and get all of the building approvals.

This plan is not a smart way to use that land.

And because they chose to keep it planned development instead of doing straight zoning, I get to see this.

And so I get to decide if this is the smartest use of this land or not as a commissioner of planning and zoning.

And I don't want to put my support behind the way they have laid out the property according to the site development plan.

Yes.

The PUD allowed us, I am sure, to broker a deal for the roundabout.

So if it would have been straight zoning, we may not have had that negotiation.

That was already done in 2010.

Okay.

And the trail.

Already done in 2010.

Okay.

So if we went straight zoning.

Mm-hmm.

Right.

Yeah, but they decided to stay PD.

So would you have them just do it behind your back, or would you rather be up front about it so you can address that issue on the record?

The whole purpose of planning and zone of planned development is that we see the site development plan and decide if that is the best use of that property.

If they had done it straight zoning, then that would have all been done administratively.

The trade-off for shorter setbacks is that they show us this plan, and I get to look at it and using the criteria laid out in our ordinances, which I read, decide whether or not I think this is the smartest use of that property.

I have a problem with them putting an entire building in a half in the floodplain.

Now they could have done straight zoning and they could have argued about that with the administration.

They're still gonna have to argue about that with staff.

But because it's still planned zoning, we get to see the site development plan.

And I don't like the site development plan.

I think legal has a bone to pick with my assessment of the 2010 agreements.

Yeah, the proportional contribution for the um roundabout is in the development agreement that is is being drafted.

I am currently drafting right now.

So that was not part of the case.

It was not part of 2010.

Ah.

Thank you, Councilman.

I misunderstood.

I thought that was also part of the 2010 and so only the trailhead was part of the 2010 agreement.

That was negotiated as a result of the conversion of track two from 80,000 square feet to an additional 124 dwelling units.

So we have negotiated to the benefit of the community, which is one of the criteria associated with approving a PD plan, a trailhead, contributions, proportional contributions to transportation infrastructure improvements, and we have a plan that does depict development in an inclusive fashion versus a elusive zoning classification of straight zoning.

So we are, I I would I that those are the differences.

Did I completely misunderstand that in the 2010 ordinance there were there was a development agreement as well?

So in 2010, there was a development agreement that specified the uses for the tracks in question.

There were provisions that required when 300 dwelling units were reached, 300 dwelling units or lots were reached on either track three, track four, or track five, the city reserved the right to request up to a 10-acre park.

So because this request is proposing to amend the uses that were applicable to all of the development tracks in 2010 that are within the boundaries of this 50 acres, they are shifting development densities from track four, which was the track to which the dedication of the up to 10 acres was possible and increasing the dwelling unit yield by 124.

We have arrived at the conclusion that when you combine that with the existing development in track five, which is consistent of the Brooks phase one, we are over 300 dwelling units.

We are taking a proportional piece of the up to 10 acres through negotiation out of this tract, even though the development parcel that was subject to it is not where the development is occurring.

It is occurring in the track at the intersection.

So we have brokered as a part of this complete redo of these three tracks, contributions that never existed in 2010.

Well then, Mr.

Zinner.

I withdraw my objection.

I misunderstood what was in 2010, but I still don't like the plan.

No, and I I we completely understand that from a staff perspective, and I will tell you, staff would much rather prefer that we handle issues like this through straight zoning.

But as I had pointed out in my comments, RMF straight zoning has a series of other unfortunate issues associated with it, which often we do not generally hand that out without normally giving great consideration to what potential pitfalls may come with that.

And this is the PD here does allow us that.

Yeah, I understand.

I read the 2010 portions about rolling kills road incorrectly.

Thank you.

Thank you for correcting me.

I own my mistake.

Commissioner Stanton, you want to rub it in?

Yes, I do.

As I stated before, we made a brokered deal and got a trailhead and a roundabout pay for.

And thank you, Mr.

Zinner and Council, because I was on the ropes because Madam Chair had me and all the ropes.

Thank you for saving my argument.

I misread completion of Rolling Hills Road.

I apologize.

All right.

Any other Commissioner comment?

Commissioner Walter.

If there is no more comment, Commissioner Walters, please make your motion.

I may regarding case number 49-2026, I move to approve the request to rezoned a 50.8 acres from plan development to plan development as well as the PD plan for the vantage and the associated statement of intent.

Second.

All right.

Okay.

We'll give it to Commissioner Gray.

Any discussion on the motion.

Seeing none, Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call.

My vote is yes.

Commissioner Darr?

Yes.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

And Commissioner Wilson.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Moving on to our next case for the evening.

Case number 64-2026, a request by Campus Spa LLC agent on behalf of BVSH SSF Columbia LLC owner for approval of a conditional use permit.

CUP to allow a SPA to be constructed within Suite 400 on property address 1205 University Avenue, pursuant to the standards of Section 29-3.32 and Section 29-6.4 M2I of the Unified Development Code.

The subject site is zoned RMF, multiple multiple family dwelling, and is located at the northwest corner of University Avenue and South College Avenue intersection.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may.

Thank you for the introduction there, Madam Chair.

We sent out early notification notification postcards on January 5th, followed by public hearing letters on January 19th.

And then we ran an ad-in thribune on the 20th of January.

Here's a site highlighted in red here.

The site is located at the northwest corner of the universe of University Avenue and South College Avenue, and Suite 400 specifically, which is located in the bottom left corner of the University Place apartments to the south here.

The subject site is surrounded by RMF zone properties in all directions.

The property is zoned RMF RMF itself and does not allow the saw intensity of commercial usage by right.

The existing barbershop essentially uses all the commercial square footage allowed for the building, though with the building exceeding 50,000 square feet.

This site is reviewed using uh using the U specific standards found in Section 29 3.3 II3, as well as the general CUP standards of Section 29 6.4 M2.

And the SPA would be located in an existing suite in an existing bacon suite that is 640 square feet.

Following this use specific standards evaluation, the use would is considered accessory and subordinate to the existing multifamily building, and it would primarily serve residents and any nearby users looking to do so.

It would not uh sell age restricted products.

It would offer quiet services such as face facials, therapeutic sizes, reflexology, and nail services.

There would be a limited intensity, two clients at a time, and there would be no additional parking required as there are two sites on space already included with the lease.

This uh request is consistent with the cop plan, specifically livable and livable and sustainable communities, aging in place, infill development, and small scale entrepreneurship, and is compatible with the surrounding development.

Reason being there is an existing mixed residential and commercial activity in the area.

Specifically, it is adjacent to a long-standing barbershop.

There is adequate access provided from university place and as well as adequate infrastructure and utilities.

There is no anticipated adverse traffic noise or neighborhood impacts expect to be expected.

In conclusion, the SPA complies with the UDC's use specific and CUP standards and approval would support broad policy strategies and actions of the comprehensive plan.

This staff's recommendation to approve the CUP for operation of a 640 square foot spa within suite 400 of property addressed as 1205 University Avenue.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

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

Seeing none, questions for staff seeing none.

We will go to public comment.

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

State your name and address for the record, six minutes for the applicant or a representative of a group, or three minutes for an individual.

Carrie Nichols, Campus Spa 1205 University Avenue.

Um good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission.

Again, my name is Carrie Nichols.

My husband Travis and I are the owners of Campus Barbershop and Campus Spa.

Thank you to Ross and Pat and the rest of the P and Z staff for your presentation and the work you do to keep our town growing responsibly.

I'm here tonight not just as a business owner, but a lifelong resident of Mid-Missouri.

An MU alum, a graduate of the Chamber of Commerce's Leadership Columbia program, a longtime employee of one of the few businesses in Columbia older than our own barber shop, Boone Central Title, and a mother to three future potential business leaders.

My 20 plus years in real estate has allowed me to work really closely with the county collector, recorder, and assessor to ensure that our work is accurate.

But the last six months have really shown me what very little I know about City Hall.

So quite frankly, it's a crash course I didn't even know that I needed.

But here I am, and like any good parent, I'm forcing my boys tonight to participate in this uh education I'm receiving.

So at least the big brothers are here.

Um, and I know that you don't believe it after being here, um, but you'll thank me for this one day in a very, very long time from now.

So, campus barbershop was established in 1935.

We just celebrated our 90th year in Columbia.

We're extremely proud to be a part of its legacy, and we're fully committed to securing its future.

The barbershop is called University Place Apartments Home since July 1st, 1980.

We're requesting a conditional use permit tonight to expand our footprint and evolve our business.

To put it simply, we want to take a very small piece of dead space adjacent to the barbershop, which is a unit that sat vacant now for many years, and use it to provide wellness services to our clients.

So, unbeknownst to us, the building was rezoned in 2017.

It's in its entirety to residential multifamily, excuse me, um, which I feel is a bit of a misrepresentation of the property's configuration.

The entire lower level of this structure is dedicated exclusively to commercial use, and it is not intended for residential conversion, which is obviously posed a problem for us, but it will also continue to be hurdles for future business tenants of University Place.

So UP, as we call it, is a massive building.

It's one over 167,000 square foot.

This expansion will take us from utilizing 0.3% to 0.6%, still well under 1% of the building's total footprint.

So in our opinion, um there are three simple reasons why we're hoping this is an easy yes for you tonight.

One, we've taken a complete dead space that's trapped between our barbershop and the neighboring international church office, and by making rent-ready repairs only, have created a beautiful Zen-like area that is ready to open.

Our service providers are also here tonight.

Um, two talented young women, educated, licensed, insured, and eager to work.

Two, we are a family-owned locally operated business.

Travis and I have both spent our entire adult lives working in Columbia.

And we've proven our ability to run a very successful business in that very spot.

Children who once sat in Travis's chair are now grown and returning with their own little ones for haircuts.

We are committed to ensuring our hometown shop thrives for the next generation.

Three, we are a textbook example of a high value, low impact tenant in a mixed-use development.

And this is precisely what Columbia's strategic plan aims for.

We don't create noise, spas are quiet.

We don't increase traffic congestion, and our lease provides more than enough parking for our needs.

The plan outlines this exact vision of a walkable city.

We are simply asking for the opportunity to continue to serve and benefit Columbia in a space that is currently doing nothing for the city's economy.

I want to be really respectful of your time tonight, but I'd be remiss not to share just a little bit of barber trade history with you.

This isn't just about growth for us, this is about evolution of a business while we pay homage to its history.

Barbering is one of the oldest professions dating back over 6,000 years to the Bronze Age.

In ancient Egypt, barbers were highly respected, often acting as priests and healers.

During the Middle Ages, barbers expanded their roles to include bloodletting, dentistry, and minor surgery, providing essential medical and restorative care alongside grooming.

By reincorporating wellness services, our barbershop is not diverging from its path, but rather reclaiming its traditional role as a holistic space for the physical and social well-being of the community.

I'm asking for your approval tonight so that we can get to work.

I respectfully ask the commission to approve our CUP, and if possible, the hex to help us expedite the final steps.

Thank you tonight for your time and for your consideration of the heart and the history behind our application.

I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for the speaker?

Commissioner Wilson.

Thank you.

Um I have a question.

I do have a comment.

I think it's brilliant that you brought your children.

Start learning the process now.

This is your future community.

This is how things work.

So that's a great idea.

Oh, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions for the speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here tonight.

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

Anyone?

Going once, going twice.

Okay, we will close public comment and go to Commissioner Comment.

Is there any commissioner comment on this case?

Commissioner Stanton.

I'm winning this one.

You won the last time.

I love this space.

I love the idea.

I love the history.

I plan to support it.

And if anybody doesn't have anything else to say, I would like to entertain.

And a motion.

You got it.

Go right ahead.

As we realized the K 64-2026, 1205 University Avenue Condition Use Permit.

I moved to approve the CUP to operate a 640 square foot spa within suite 400 of property addressed as 1205 University Avenue.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none.

Commissioner Brodsky, maybe we have a roll call.

My vote is yes.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commissioner Gowway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray?

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

And Commissioner Wilson.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

That concludes our cases for the evening.

We will now go to public comment.

I understand we have a public comment this evening that is pre-planned.

We will keep you to the same rules as our regular public comment, which is to say three minutes for an individual.

I'm Adrian Stalwick at 212 Hearth.

I just want to speak in support of accessory dwelling units and in general loosening regulations.

It is hard to build accessory dwelling units.

It's hard to get financing for them.

And uh I think what the lever we do have to operate in the city is is loosening the restrictions, and I could think it could have a good impact.

I'm very supportive of allowing ADUs in R1 zones.

Currently, the CUP process is a deterrent.

I met a 90-year-old person in that area highlighted in pink.

She wanted to build an ADU, have her grandson move into the front house.

I told her what would be required.

And she had worked in real estate in her younger years, and she said, I don't want to do that.

I don't want to jeopardize my relationship with my neighbors.

And that's really just a shame.

I'm very um in favor of relaxing setbacks on corner lots, and I think the 12.5 feet that Pat was suggesting the work session could be really reasonable.

Those are these are lots on the corner of Hearth and Worley.

You can see that if you try to put a garage on a 52-foot wide lot, you're left with 21 foot feet for uh a garage depth.

That's really not functional.

I feel like 24 feet is a reasonable depth for a garage for a modern car.

Um I also think that like the 12.5 foot setback or just that lesser setback, it helps constrict the street and your experience of the street.

Narrower streets that feel narrower, whether that's through street trees, building facades, whatever, slows traffic down, makes it safer for pedestrians.

This is an example of Tower Grove Park, and I'm just gonna skip through it.

Um I am also in favor of allowing the 24-foot ADU height.

For reference, in Seattle, you can build an ADU that's up to 32 feet in some zones, 40 feet in other zones, and the entire state of Arkansas has joined the ranks of other coastal states, passing a state law that requires municipalities to allow accessory dwelling units by right in all zones and counties.

So, and as part of their regulation, they say that the ADUs can't be held to stricter rules than the main house, including for the height of the house.

So in Columbia, you're allowed to build a 35-foot tall front house.

I feel like a 24-foot tall accessory dwelling unit is kind of a reasonable compromise.

This is an ADU that was built on Bicknell.

I know the builder, the owner, they wanted to build an ADU over the garage, but then they found out that they were going to be height limited by their one and a half story front house and didn't think it was really feasible.

They instead built the ADU as part of the on the back side of the house.

So you can barely even see the front door there.

I don't think that if this house that if this ADU were 24 feet tall, it would really have that much visual impact on the streetscape because ADUs are necessary detached ADUs are necessarily set back from the front house.

They're in the background.

I have a potential client who is interested in the Burrwood neighborhood.

There's a mix already in this neighborhood, South Near Green Meadows of one and two-story houses, split level houses.

I don't think an ADU that's 24-foot tall is really that much different than the fabric of these R1 neighborhoods.

I do think limiting windows might be an easier way to limit privacy or to achieve privacy if that is the goal.

But I you know I understand sorry, my main point here with this slide is just that it is very hard to get a garage on some lots and build the ADU over, especially if this is a hypothetical design for a ADU on a busy street.

The owners would want to be able to exit the driveway facing the driveway, not back out onto the busy street.

So you need space to maneuver a vehicle.

When you lessen the setbacks, you make it harder.

Thank you, Adrian.

Appreciate you being here tonight.

And thank you for sending the things that you have been sending us.

We do read them.

I appreciate it.

Yeah.

Any other public comment this evening?

Seeing none, we will go to staff comments.

So your next meeting will be on the 19th, which is two weeks from today.

We will start with another tantalizing work session, uh.

Hopefully make progress as we are continuing to go through the ADU standards.

Um I'll give you an update uh as it relates to our uh public input that we have received uh to date uh as it relates to our definition of family uh change that we have out on uh be heard.

Uh that will close if I am not incorrect on the uh 14th or 15th of this month.

Uh so uh we will uh have a little bit of that analysis, have not received a tremendous number of comments, so that will be the second topic uh that we will cover.

So we were circling back uh to getting through some of our other uh related matters.

Um we have a couple of items on the upcoming uh agenda.

Uh so there will be three uh and that is uh a PD rezone, uh revision to an SOI and a new PD plan.

Yes, yes, Ms.

Galloway Jones, this is uh another one that you will likely um be frustrated by.

Uh so uh this is an existing, this is the Broadway office park.

Um we have had some interesting conversations.

There was never a PD plan, or there was a PD plan approved for this.

It is part of broader um complex of uh PD zone property.

Um we'll make sure that Mr.

Coontz prepares a report that indicates what we are getting out of it according to the uh requirements to maintain PD.

We did we were asked uh if this should be rezoned to MN.

Um given uh the fact that MN would allow the multifamily development that is being proposed, but in the context of what is in the environment and what they were trying to achieve, uh we felt that the planned district would be a more appropriate management tool for future impacts uh that could be wrought to the existing single-family neighborhood.

Uh the second request is the first short-term rental that we've seen in a while.

Um, just as an update to our short-term rental requirements, and we talked about this during work session.

Um our vendor uh has provided notification that uh their vendor services are prepared for us to be able to be utilizing.

Uh we will be investigating um some training that we will need to engage with our vendor on and that the complaint hotline is also ready to be launched.

There will be more information associated with STR-related movement moving forward as it relates to the regulatory structure uh here uh before the end of this month.

So that is where STRs are, and we are seeing a lull in STR application submissions.

So uh just as an FYI.

And then finally, the last item on uh the upcoming February 19th agenda will be uh the text change to the UDC to uh introduce uh a definition for data center, uh which was discussed at the uh January 22nd uh meeting uh as well as a modification to the permitted use table that's in the UDC to place such uh data centers as a conditional use only in the IG zoning district, meaning that there would be supplemental review before a building permit, before uh a land use entitlement and a building permit could be issued for such uses.

The first is to just deal with defining what the use is and where it would be allowed.

The second stage will require additional research and the development of use specific standards that are tailored to the City of Columbia and its needs and desires in potentially accommodating such uses moving forward.

In order to allow you the opportunity to see Ms.

Stolick's presentation in full, you will receive that via email tomorrow.

So we will PDF that down for you and distribute that out.

There were no changes to the ADU regulations that were made during work session.

Yeah, ADU during work session, so we will not be sending you that again.

That will be seen in the packet as was presented this evening on February 19th.

With that, that is all we have to offer this evening.

I thank you very much for your time and your attention.

Thank you.

Are there any Commissioner comments this evening?

Anyone at all?

None?

I move to adjourn.

Thank you, Commissioner Wilson.

Is there a second?

Thank you.

Seconded by Commissioner Darr.

Without objection, we stand adjourned.