I will now call the February 19th, 2026 meeting of the Columbia Planning and Zoning Commission to order.

Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call?

Commissioner Darr.

Here.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Here.

Commissioner Gray.

Here.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Here.

Commissioner Stanton.

Here.

Commissioner Stockton.

Here.

Walters is absent.

Commissioner Wilson.

Here.

And I am present.

We have a quorum of eight.

Thank you.

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

Zinner?

No, they're not, ma'am.

Is there a motion to approve the agenda?

I'm moved to approve the agenda.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there a thumbs-up approval on our agenda?

Unanimous.

We all received a copy of the February 5th, 2026 regular meeting minutes.

Are there any changes or adjustments to the minutes?

None.

Is there a motion to approve?

I moved to approve the minutes from February 5th, 2026.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there thumbs up approval of the minutes?

Unanimous.

Thank you.

Our first case for the evening, case number 68-2026, a request by Crockett Engineering Agent on behalf of Lake Broadway Town Homes LLC and 2101 Burlington Street L C owners for approval of a site-specific PD plan and a new statement of intent to be known as Lake Broadway PD plan.

The 2.7 acre subject site is located directly southeast of the intersection of Gary Street and Pershing Road and is currently zoned PD plan district.

The proposed SOI and PD plan establishes a development plan for the parcel inclusive of 13 dwelling units developed in townhouse style and an additional office building.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may, and thank you for the introduction.

Yeah, the address for this site is going to be 1207 West Broadway.

Uh but presently only one of the two lots have actually uh been developed at this point.

Um so the the office structure in the eastern lot is what has been developed thus far.

Um the PD plan originally contemplated office development on both of the sites uh and the purpose for this PD revision is to change more or less what's being built on the northwest corner of this site.

Um again, it's 2.27 acres.

Um it's a PD plan SOI revision and the PD plan would serve as a preliminary plat.

Um and it will be encompassing two lots which are owned by two different people, um, hence the two owners in the introduction here.

And it would be 13 total dwelling units on the northwest lot and on the eastern lot here, it would be around a 2,000 square foot uh office structure that would be constructed north of the office structure which already exists.

Umtifications were distributed on the fur or the 20th of January for postcards and on notification letters to owners, occupants, and tenants, uh those were distributed on the second of February, of which they were seventy-three.

And a advertisement was placed in the Tribune ad per state statutes for public hearings.

Um so this is just a Google image of where the lot lines kind of stand today.

Um this was re-platted last year in April, if I'm not mistaken.

Um results in the lot configuration that we see today.

Lot 4A1 is on the left, route 4A2 is on the right.

Um notable you know, kind of amenities around this area.

Um you can see Agin Street Park if you go north on Pershing, um, it would be right around there, or if you go north on Redwood after you head uh east from Gary, that would take you to Aegon Street Park.

Um and then there's also uh a commercial node around the area, but we'll get more to that in later slides.

Um here's the parcel viewer, uh gives a little bit better of an idea, uh bird's eye view of what's actually been developed thus far.

You can see the western of these two lots uh has no site features uh except for a little bit of paving on the southern corner there, and that's uh a product of lot lines being uh modified from the replat um that occurred last year, um, and then the office structure that was built in conformance with the 2003 PD plan as approved.

Um here is a illustration of the site and the surrounding zoning.

So as you can see, south of Broadway, uh largely that's in the old southwest area.

We're gonna have mostly R1 subdivisions and single family homes.

Um and then there's R2 for the majority of the zoning that's more directly around here.

Um these are also mostly going to be single family homes despite being zoned R2 uh just potentially on smaller lots, and then there's some residential multifamily as you get closer to Clink Scales uh over there to the west.

Um and then the the rest of this site, it was all zoned PD uh back in 1983, is I originally believe the uh the first time when uh development was considered around here uh for the site uh and it was all going to be PUD that's changed multiple times.

Um but the site to the east of our subject site um has been developed with condominiums.

Um so there's residential dwellings that already exist around this area.

So yeah, again, like I said, originally zoned PUD in 1985, excuse me if I said 83, and that's the top image here.

And you can see that comprehensively shows where all of the dwellings were originally to be planned for this development.

Naturally, this changed a lot, but it was all planned for condominium units akin to those that exist to the east of the site presently.

And the condominium development around that area appears to have 108 bedrooms and 64 dwelling units over around six acres.

So we're looking around 10 unit per acre density.

This proposal is around 9.5, so comparable density overall.

The most recent revision to this site again was in 2003, and this was for the Lake Broadway CP plan.

That's illustrated on the bottom of these two plans.

As you can see, there's an office structure.

There's a parking lot that kind of loops around, goes back down, exits out on Pershing to the west, and it would accommodate uh two office structures that are similar in size, uh, but we are are they proposing to no longer build the office structure on the western site in place of dwelling units.

Um the original SOI for this site allowed many of what was previously O1 and C1 uses.

This would probably be most akin to our mixed-use office or our mixed-use neighborhood districts nowadays, um, but not exactly.

It was a little, it wasn't all of them, it was most of them.

Uh and only half of the the CP on these lots was built out thus far.

Um a little bit of background again.

Um PROS PPPD revision would permit 13 dwelling units on the west slot.

Um there would be two stories.

I said this requires revision because um what we distributed with the agenda did not illustrate uh two stories for these dwellings, uh, but the physical plan we were given today does illustrate two stories on these dwellings, so we can confirm that as the intent.

Um additionally, 2,000 square foot office edition on the eastern lot.

And the statement of intent also notes only permissible uses within this site would be multifamily dwellings and office.

Um you may be asking, well, these are looking like single family attached townhome style development.

Um, and since they are not on individual lots, it cannot be single family attached.

So even if you build something that would be considered town home by international residential code per R cities code, that would be classified as multifamily because it is more than three dwelling units uh on a lot more or less.

Um so therefore the site features for this development must accommodate the use as if it were multifamily, so it's parked to multifamily standards.

Um we'll go more into what maybe those multi-state family standards may be in future slides as well.

Um so the SOI uh has a maximum height of 30 feet, um, and this is consistent with the previous SOI.

Uh, this is also something that in the agenda packet um it noted 35.

Um we have received an updated statement of intent that notes 30 feet as the maximum height here, um, and we believe that is appropriate.

Excuse me.

Um the SOI also notes no front or rear setbacks.

Um all those structures as they're illustrated on this plan are all set back at least 60 feet from existing structures and at least 13 feet from rear and non-corner side yards from my measurements.

Um so they're in excess of the the non-existent setbacks that they have requested for this SOI.

Uh, but we do believe the siding of these structures um is appropriately set back from existing structures from right of way.

Um they have 25 foot setbacks along all of their frontage on both Gary and Pershing, which would be standard um for front yards and corner side yards whenever you have corner lot.

Um the landscaping requirement was another amendment from the previous SOI.

It reduced it to thir or from 30%, not form, excuse me, to 15%, and that's consistent with what the uh standard would be for uh development in in base zoning districts within our city.

Um so some design exceptions uh are being sought here.

Um and uh although the the site is zoned PD, staff would analyze the property edge buffering requirements for zoning districts based on the permitted and existing uses within the PD.

Um so level three buffering would typically be required when a multifamily use is adjacent to commercially zoned property.

Um so the red line that I've illustrated here, um, that would typically be something where uh if this were in a base zoning district, we would expect to see level three buffering requirements in lieu of this.

Uh we understand that the the landscaping uh buffering requirement for level three, which is 10 feet, um, would perhaps not be feasible with the siding of the dwelling units as they are right now.

Uh so in lieu of providing level three screening and buffering, staff's just recommending placing screening fences at six feet in height, the rear edge of the patios uh to screen um potential residents of these dwelling units uh and their what would ostensibly be their rear yard uh from being visible from a commercial parking lot.

Um and then level three would also be required from a commercial use to a multifamily use, which is the yellow line that I've illustrated on the eastern portion of this site.

Uh but this is not believed to be necessary at all due to the existing siding of structures on the eastern lot, uh, as well as environmental features around this area and the topology.

It's a lot of drainage area, if I'm not mistaken, that exists around there right now.

And all of the condominium structures that exist to the east are on the eastern side of a point of ingress egress that would uh serve as a buffer in some capacity for these structures.

Um so we don't believe it's necessary for level three buffering to be required for that eastern property edge.

Um so independent points of ingress and egress are being established for each site.

The residential dwelling units will have their own points of access on both Gary and Pershing with the parking lot situated in the middle.

Uh excuse me.

The office use has access to Pershing through uh an ingress and egress easement that was recorded via a separate instrument, which was uh determined necessary for the replat configuration that was pursued in 2025.

Um access to Gary is now also being provided for the office use, and that was not originally contemplated within the CP plan for this lot.

Um so it's adequately parked for multifamily uses and for the existing office parking as well as for the addition.

Um there is a pad on the southern corner, uh, or not the southern corner, but south of the point of ingress and egress off of Pershing, which will be a location where a dumpster would need to be located.

Um that will need to have its own screening device, but there's also landscape screening that's to be provided at these points of ingress and egress for both of them on Gary and Pershing for the residential dwellings for the purpose of uh screening the parking lot from the public street so it it's not quite as visible all the time.

Um and the the provided landscaping is is largely consistent actually with with what was considered in the 2003 CP plan.

Um so we we believe that you know the the landscape uh features that are being provided here uh are comparable with what was considered in 2003 and would uh create an attractive site for residentials uh or people to live more or less.

Um so a stormwater plan um does not require is not required to be revised uh because the 2003 plans um assumed that there would be impervious surface of up to 1.48 acres on the site.

This has about now been reduced to 1.29.

Uh so this 0.2 reduction, uh 0.2 acre reduction in total impervious surface uh would not exacerbate runoff greater than what was considered in 2003.

Um so there are not requirements for stormwater plans to be updated here.

Um sewer water main extensions, both required to serve the dwelling units and the water main extensions also uh required to extend to the office uh and and part of this is uh with the replat configuration.

Um there's some extension that needs to occur because a water main cannot cross a lot line here.

Um so that's uh part of why the design layout that's it's been pursued is being pursued.

And there's also uh a 16-foot electric easement uh required along the southern lot line, which will be dedicated upon final plating.

Um that's illustrated in yellow.

Uh and then I also didn't put a text on the slide here, but the the red um graphic that's illustrated kind of going between the townhome development here is is for um storm sewer to lead to the uh detention pond that exists in the middle of all of this development.

Um so public correspondence that was received for this uh received three written comments.

Two were in opposition, and one was not entirely in opposition, but more um recommending conditions for approval, um, mostly related to the fact that this residential development um has a name that's similar to the way that the condominiums on the east side have been marketed, um, although that's not necessarily something that we would be considering with uh with this today, but uh nonetheless is a concern that has been brought about.

Um also received one phone call today.

Um their concerns were mostly about uh traffic calming along Pershing uh as well as potential uh light pollution around the area and uh I think both of those items are things that um maybe, or at least the the lighting will be dealt with at a building plan point and for traffic calming um it's uh the residents here would be using the the street as residence, it wouldn't be cut through traffic, um, and we can't assume that that they would be speeding or creating a more hazardous area simply by living here before the dwelling units have even been constructed.

Um so noted concerns uh also included in the written correspondence are incompatibility of the residential use uh on the office side of this PD, concerns of potential shared access, um, and then concerns of increased traffic on both Gary and Pershing, um, concerns of what is to be done with the existing boundary fence that is along the western edge of this property, uh, as well as the adequacy of the stormwater plans that presently exist.

Again, 73 letters were sent and five went to neighborhood associations.

So the proposed dwelling units to the east again are comparable with the proposed or dwelling units here are comparable with the existing dwelling units to the east.

PD zoning already exists.

So design exceptions again for this site are believed to be reasonable in conjunction with the proposed site plan.

And the revised statement of intent setbacks and landscaping are also believed to be appropriate when in conjunction with the proposed site plan.

And the plan is compliant with city standards for all other elements, notably the site features.

So I also wanted to have a few slides where we discuss how this PD accomplishes goals of the comprehensive plan and the housing study goals.

So first for the comprehensive plan, this is in an infill development tier one priority area.

Utilities already exist.

Extension of utilities are unlikely to be burdensome on the existing network because it's in an infill area where it already exists again.

Frequency of those lines may be not ideal at the moment, but it does exist, and this area was identified as higher propensity for transit demand.

Around a half mile is is really the maximum tolerance people would have to walk to a commercial area for something that's necessary.

So we believe it's good to have residential units around this area to utilize the commercial node that exists.

So again, with the housing study, uh we know that the city has demand for rental units uh particularly positioned between 1,000 and 2500 USD per month and demand for multifamily units for rent particularly are about uh we need to provide per the housing study 163 per year until 2035, so the next 10 years.

Um so the provide type typology is is a little bit less intense than typical multifamily units, but does provide the rental units that are needed within the community, um and we don't know exactly what the price range would be but typically uh development of this type um would likely to be positioned between 1,000 and 2,000 USD per month.

So ultimately uh the requested PD plan we believe accomplishes the goals and objectives of both the housing study and the comprehensive plan.

Uh the design exceptions that are sought, we believe they are reasonable in this circumstance.

Excuse me.

The SOI revisions, uh adding use of multifamily dwellings is not believed to be incompatible with surrounding development, especially when you consider the 30-foot height restriction and comparable density already exists for the condos to the east of this site.

Um separate points of ingress and egress reduced concerns uh parking um access conflicts between the neighboring uses uh and the illustrated landscaping plan is largely consistent with 2003, but again, we would recommend screening at the porches facing the commercial parking lot.

Um so ultimately staff's recommendation is to approve the plan development plan, revised statement of intent and preliminary plat to be known as Lake Broadway PD plan.

This is subject to technical corrections, and it's also subject to staff's recommendation at least.

Uh a note on the plan stating that installation of a six-foot screening fence at the rear of the porches for dwelling units facing the commercial parking lot to the east is required in lieu of providing level three screening and buffering at the property's edge.

Um if the commission has any questions, uh be happy to answer them.

Thank you.

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.

Commissioner Darr.

Have has the city had any applications or concept reviews that you are aware of in the past 20 years that would comply with the existing statement of intent and PD plan or similar in nature, like office uses or commercial uses?

Um I mean if if what they're proposing to develop were well.

Umbe not that I've had a concept review before.

Pat Pat might be able to provide more insight.

And I guess I'm not understanding your question, Commissioner.

If you've seen any other potential developments that were office or commercial related, like the existing statement of intent is.

I would I've I'm just going to the point that if we're changing from an office use to a residential use, I just want to know what the interest in the community was to build offices in this area over the last 20 years since it's that vacant.

We have we have seen integrations of residential into former office.

I would suggest the south east of the Macadoodle site and Toshville ice.

No, just this site and particular?

Yes.

No, we have not, other than the 2003 request that was processed to change from the multifamily from 1985 to office.

Obviously, the office development in what it exists for today, it has been this way for quite some time.

In 2000, shortly after the 2003 plan, the building that's on the eastern lot was built.

Development stopped at that point, and it has not been pursued since.

And so this parcel has laid vacant for probably since I'd say 2005 to 2006, um, while all the rest of the development around it has continued to just exist uh somewhat insulated by having this as a green space.

But there's been no active uh act of pursuit of developing this property as an office within that period of time.

Thank you.

Other questions.

Just a brief comment.

Thank you.

Very well done, and thank you for including the reasoning.

And this is the reason we have PD plans.

So we can do these mixed use without having to do split zoning.

So thank you very much.

I know I'm usually not a big fan of them, but thank you.

Thank you.

Any final questions before I open public hearing?

Seeing none, we will go to public comment.

Any members of the public wishing to speak on this case, please come forward.

Give you state your name and address for the record.

Six minutes for the applicant and a group, three minutes for individual.

Madam Chair, members of the commission, Tim Crockett, Crockett Engineering 1000 West NIFO.

Um, as uh as staff has indicated, this is about a 2.27 acre piece of property, currently zoned PD with the allowed uses.

Um it's a request for the PD plan only.

We already have our zoning, and we are asking for the single family attached or the multifamily uh for this property.

Of course, you've seen the location, you know where it sits, uh north of West Broadway uh at Lake Broadway development.

Uh I have 1986 on mine, so I don't know if it's 85, 86, but this this was uh this is a snippet of the original Lake Broadway plan.

And you can see uh in that plan, this is the area in question tonight.

And so the original intent for this property was indeed pretty much very similar to what we're proposing tonight.

Uh obviously everything to the uh to the east was developed in this fashion, and the corner to the uh to the south of us was uh was developed in an office fashion.

That was done back in here's in 2003.

This was the plan uh that was uh proposed and approved at that time.

And you can see the two buildings on the site, the one to the on your left in the upper left-hand corner, uh, that's actually a two-story building.

So there's about 25,000 square foot of total office space uh on that plan right there, only of which about 8,000 has been built.

Uh this is the plan that we're proposing tonight.

So you can see that we're kind of going back to the uh original intent uh of what was originally uh for this uh piece of property.

Uh we're also adding the 2,000 square foot office on the uh I believe the staff talked about the housing study and the needs uh for uh additional units in this community, especially in this area.

And what we're looking at is this piece of property, this development provides only 8 percent of what's needed for this entire year.

And with what's coming up, uh this commission has seen what's come forth so far.

Um eight percent isn't very much uh you know, hitting that demand that we need.

I always cover cover the utilities, they're all covered.

Uh this is an infield development, all utilities are provided by the City of Columbia.

Um there has been some neighbors' concerns, and I want to kind of address those a little bit.

So the surrounding area is not residential in character.

Um this is a thousand foot radius of the site.

What the site in our site, the residential sites, the yellow piece, the blue area is the area that's been developed as uh office and everything else within that thousand foot is residential and neighbor in character.

So I believe that this is indeed uh a residential uh character in the neighborhood.

Stormwater concerns remain inadequately addressed.

Well, 1985 and 86, uh Lake Broadway didn't exist.

And so that plan at that time was to create Lake Broadway, and they built detention in that pa in that lake.

And it handled this development specifically, as well as other additional areas within the watershed.

So things can be argued that well, the the intensities have changed and additional development has taken place.

The fact is is when Lake Broadway was built, this piece of property was intended to have detention for this for this specific site in that lake.

So it has been addressed.

Traffic and parking impacts are understated.

Uh we do uh we do meet the city requirement for parking.

And I would argue that in a typical apartment project, the parking might be a little higher, but in attached single family or multifamily as being called here in this configuration, uh, what we're seeing is we're seeing that that parking demand is less than the city requirement.

And so we think that by hitting the city requirement, we're going to address parking concerns without much problem.

Uh the amendment represents a fundamental change to the original PD intent.

I'd argue that.

This is the original PD intent from 1985 or 86.

We're not in we're going back to that original intent.

Uh and so uh we believe that this project um is needed.

We believe it's a good location.

Uh as indicated by staff and Mr.

Darr, this piece of property has sat vacant for uh since 2003.

Uh there may have been some interest here and there with the property, uh, but nothing uh has come forth as far as development goes.

And so uh we believe that this project that's being proposed is adequate, uh, is needed, uh, is sufficient.

It's gonna be a good area, a good uh uh good development for the area.

And uh just this afternoon we did receive um I did receive uh a letter from the neighbor, the the office owner to the uh to the east uh with regards to the landscaping and screening, and they're they're fine.

There's like we don't we don't want the additional screening and landscaping, that's fine.

We like to have the buildings like the openness, and so they're fine as the plan has been presented.

So uh they're the ones that's gonna be impacted more than anybody, and they uh they're they're in favor of the plan as presented.

Um so with that uh the project at an in-field development as we talked about.

It adds residential stock to the housing market uh in accordance with the housing study.

Um adjacent roads and utilities are there, and the project is supported by city staff.

Uh there may be some concerns and questions about traffic, but let's keep in mind that Pershing, Pinewood, uh, and Redwood, as well as Gary are all through streets.

So it's not all one way in.

There's multiple ways in and out of this area uh to get to Ash to get to Broadway.

So those streets are not inundated uh with a lot of traffic.

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

Thank you.

Any questions from Mr.

Crockett?

Commissioner Darr.

I'm curious on what your thoughts are on why it hasn't been developed as office in the past 20 years.

Uh Mr.

Darr, I mean, I think office is one of those um it's one of those tough zoning classifications.

We don't have very many office rezoning requests that come before this commission.

Uh and I think that a lot of that has to do with if you want if you're in the market for office, it it it overlaps so much with commercial.

Um, you know, maybe a second-tier commercial lot is a first-tier office lot.

Um and then also since the pandemic, I mean, I have a lot of clients that are actually working on one today that is actually downsizing their large corporate operation because of uh hybrid work environments, remote work environments, and that type of situation.

So um there's a lot more office space on the market uh for lease.

Um when I have a client that has you know 60,000 square foot office now and they're increasing their employees, but they're looking to downsize somewhere between 35 to 40,000 square foot, but they're increasing their employees because they're doing that hybrid or or remote work environment.

Um I think that that opens up, you know, they're gonna they're gonna leave a 60,000 square foot office uh facility that's gonna be that's gonna be vacant, and I think there's a lot of office space out there.

So um new office builds I think are difficult.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Brotsky.

Um we've this piece of land is started as residential, went to office, now we're back at residential, and I'm gonna ask you this because I asked this at um our last meeting when we had a uh uh plan come before us.

Um the developer or the owner has three years to begin construction on this.

Do they intend to to do so?

Yes, yes.

Um he's giving us authorization as soon as should we get approval through P and Z and Council to authorize us to proceed with the construction documents so he can proceed?

Great, thank you.

Any further questions?

Seeing none, thank you, Mr.

Crockett.

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

Hi, Brent Gibson, um 1201 West Broadway in the Broadway office complex condominium association, whatever we want to call that thing.

I can save a lot of time.

Did you all get the letter?

Everybody got it.

Great.

So the only thing I want to point out, and Tim's done a great job on explaining all this.

I can answer your question almost directly in terms of why that property was never developed.

In the condo association we have, there's three buildings.

There became two owners or two possible owners, and the association would only have two people, two votes.

And I even looked at that property to put the one that was on there, that 8,000 square foot building.

But by the time you do that, you're fighting with the other owner because they don't want to contribute to the association's fees to redo all the parking lots and and other things.

So that's why that lot has been vacant for so long.

At least that's my understanding with dealing with the original guys, uh Bill Powell, Dave Knight, and and so forth, that developed that area back in the late 90s, I believe, or early 90s.

Um that being said, they did want to make it into an office area.

It was just a nice little spot in the middle of Columbia that you could have that you know, the retention pond.

We we want to talk about that real quick though, because that's really being mislabeled.

If you look at the printout or the picture aerial, you'll see all that residential that they're talking about, is on the other side of the retention pond.

There's no residential in this area.

Now I'm not against the residential, but right now you've got an office condominium association there with three buildings, and there is a five-foot, I believe, looking at the survey lines or whatever, there's a five-foot line from the corner of the one building to this property we're talking about.

So I think you need to look at maybe something that can differentiate between that commercial and this residential that's coming in.

And putting that uh what I just overheard earlier about the garbage dumpster bins and stuff or whatever, right there on that uh corner spot, you're getting it real close to the influx of people going into that doctor's building that's there.

So I think you there's a little more that needs to be done in this plan before it gets approved to make sure things you know actually work not only functionally but cosmetically.

And I do want to touch on our retention pond.

Uh there's been some concern.

You know, we're we're talking about something that was done at least 20 years ago, and you've got a lot more runoff running through that from the old knolls, the Boone County Health Department or whatever that is now, um, running through the creeks through Agin into this retention pond.

And right now you've got a lot of um ground that's absorbing that that you're gonna be putting construction on.

Yes, it's it meets the 40-year-old plan that you had, but will it really meet and hold up to what you've got now if they put that much uh impervious surface?

So I think that needs to be looked at carefully before you make this decision, because that retention pond again has had at least 20 years of sediment and stuff running through it.

Um grocery carts and everything else.

But um so I think you need to need to double check that before you make a decision and look in terms of uh like we're CPA firm, we have late nights, especially this time of year.

Um, the additional traffic around there in terms of foot traffic, people.

Uh I love the fact that this is a little, I won't say it's a gated community, but that uh wrought iron fence around the whole place, this whole area is great.

Um it kind of sets it off as a separate little section.

It'd be great to see that put into place, how they're going to implement something to keep things segregated from residential and commercial, but just having a second floor balcony or something looking down into the uh commercial buildings, that doesn't sound fun either.

So appreciate your time and hope you give some consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Oh, wait, just one moment, please.

Any questions for the speaker.

None.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker, please come forward.

Uh Pam Dodge, uh representative for 1205.

Uh so I'm in the same condescend condo association that Brent was just describing.

Um we are the doctor's office that the lot line is literally five feet from the corner of our building.

Uh which wasn't very clearly disclosed when we bought the building twelve years ago.

But um to kind of follow up on what Brent uh was discussing.

I don't know if there's a whole lot of clear expectations of who's managing the retent the detention pond.

Uh we've been there 12 years and city has never been out.

I mean, there's overgrown trees.

It's always been at the condo association's expense.

So if we now are gonna have all this other uh dumping into it, I feel like that the city should be uh paying a little bit more attention to detention pond.

I don't think the condo association should be responsible for the upkeep and the cleanup around it.

Um to kind of go back a little bit on Tim's comment, he said that the neighbor to the east fully supports it.

That's a little misleading because there's two neighbors to the east.

There's the building on the ex the lot, um, which is 1207, and then we are also 1205, which we both face this lot, and we are not in support of what is being proposed uh for numerous reasons um discussed here tonight.

Uh kind of like Brent said, Um the proximity of the lot lines, the current uh proposed development.

The townhouses would sit up right next to literally where our employee parking is.

Um we are a doctor's office, we're specialty office, so we're really kind of lower use.

We're not a primary care office seeing you know, 50 to 75 patients a day.

It has been a very nice space for the last 12 years.

Um quiet, and you know, we have some concerns about what that's gonna look like for us and for our patients.

Um we also have some concerns about the traffic.

Um I mean, I my office faces Gary Street every day.

Um there's a lot of cut through traffic, a lot of speeding up and down the road.

Um there's traffic accident after traffic accident at Ash and Gary because um people run the stop signs on Ash.

There's traffic accidents at West Broadway because of the hill, so I do think the other neighbors' concerns about the increased traffic is valid.

Um so I would just like I said, just wanted to kind of come up and support what Brent said and make sure you know that there's two neighbors to the east and one is not in support as what was said.

So thank you.

Next are any questions for the speaker.

Um I I do have a question.

Can you explain to me a little bit how you think that having a residential development in in front of your office might create more disturbance for your patients?

Um well, in part, um we have I have some concerns about the parking.

I know that there's gonna be separate entrances for this, but I can tell you right now, I mean, if I come in on a Saturday to catch up on work, we already have in uh I mean we don't have a problem with it because this weekend we're not having people come in, but you know, there may be somebody visiting somebody that's that is on the in the the houses across the street and they're parked in our parking lot.

Um oftentimes our parking lot and because we're right there front and center is a turnaround for people that you know are literally turning around and they're coming in there.

Um our clientele is elderly, and I can tell you how many times I've seen them almost run into our building, much less worrying about people driving through.

So the parking is a concern, um, especially because as the lot line sits, uh the corner of the lot line actually cuts off um parking in front of our building, which we have an easement for um that we've used for the last 12 years.

And so, you know, I'm looking at that, and I know that there's gonna be proposed fence on the patio, but if I'm living in that townhouse that is on the I guess would be south east side, um why not park in that spot right behind my house and just walk up to my patio?

And that's three employee parking spaces for us.

So and again, it's uh there's some concern there.

Um now if there was a buffer more than just on the patio, would we have necessarily a problem?

I mean, there there's gonna be a six-foot fence along the entire length of the parking lot.

Well, they were saying just on the patio, so they were saying they the the proposed section, it just says screening fence at the rear of the porches.

I take that as the patio, not the whole, not all the way across.

No, it because see how it says has to provide a level three screening and buffering at property edge.

But see, it says in lieu of, yeah, but that's that that's gonna be there.

I guess maybe it needs to be a little bit more clear of what's actually expected.

That's that's gonna be the I guess maybe it needs to be a little bit more clear of what's actually expected because when I read it to say the rear of the porches, if I was a developer, I would think I only had to put on literally at those pads.

Okay.

So if it's all the way across, that's a little bit a little bit better than just at the porches.

So I see.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

None.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker on this case, please come forward.

Hi, my name is Emily Piantek, um, and I live at 1305 Gary Street.

So I wanted to thank you all for this opportunity to come here tonight and speak about this proposal.

I also want to thank you for the notice since receiving the postcard in the mail.

I've been waiting for this meeting because there were two things I wanted to say.

I did call staff today and I learned that this might not be within your purview, but I also am concerned about um traffic on Pershing specifically.

I live on Gary and I frequently walk from my house to Agin Street Park.

And there's no sidewalk along the length of uh Pershing to all the way to Agan Street Park, so you have to walk in the road um for a portion of that time.

And then there's no sidewalk on Gary if you're heading west towards GURBS.

And so people do cut through and drive really quickly, and it's a concern um for me walking to the park, but then I can imagine for others as well who may be moving into this um residential unit.

My neighbors and I have signed a petition and submitted it to the city asking for traffic calming on Pershing.

Um and so I just I'm putting this before you as this is something I would like to see on Pershing with the development or without, and I'm hoping that when city council reviews this proposal, um they will again consider the request that I and my neighbors have made for traffic calming on Pershing.

Um then the other thing that I wanted to say, and this is maybe for um Crockett engineering, um, and I don't know when this aspect of the plan will come before the commission.

Um but I'm worried also about light pollution um for the development that's I think just east of this proposed development.

Um they've put up some very bright lights that make it seem more like a shopping center than um a place where people live in a residential area.

And so when it's time to get into the engineering um and the design of the buildings and everything, um I would like to see lighting that takes into account um maybe some recommendations from um I think it's called um darksky.org, uh, making sure that lights are only where needed, um, low and minimal just to kind of maintain the residential character of the neighborhood.

Uh those that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Oh, sorry, Commissioner Ortiz.

I when did you um turn in your petition?

Because I'm not seeing it online yet.

I didn't personally turn it in.

Um, so it might not be under my name if you're looking under the I'm looking at Pershing.

Oh, it would have been it would have come from someone on Gary Street.

Okay.

I don't see Gary on here either.

I'm just curious, and they might not have updated it online, but they have a score sheet for traffic calming projects, and so I wanted to look it up to see where you were and like the score, but it's not on here yet.

So if I were you, I would check in with public works to see if your petition actually made it in.

So that way they can review it and get it on this list.

That I think that would be a good first step.

Okay, yeah, thank you.

We will do that.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

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

Hi, D Doc and 804 Aegon Street.

Um this was brought up previously by someone, but I I am curious whether the impervious surface, how the proposed impervious surface um relates to what would be required currently in our code.

Is it the same, less?

I mean, how much have they changed since 2003?

I know they're proposing a little bit less, but I think that'd be a good question to clarify.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for Ms.

Dalton?

See none, thank you.

Next speaker.

Can you get a lot closer to that?

I'm sorry.

Um, good evening.

My name is Crystal Rhine.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak with you.

Thank you for your detailed explanation of what it is that we are discussing tonight.

I um you filled in a lot of questions that we had, so I greatly appreciate that.

Um I live at 104 Pershing Road.

Um just coming here this evening before having dinner in downtown Columbia.

We were almost rear-ended on Pershing.

Um that is a daily occurrence.

Um we walk our dog down to Aegon Street Park multiple times a day if we're being good pet owners.

Um, but the traffic is terrible on Pershing.

So I was delighted to hear that a petition is potentially going to somehow make its way to public works.

But I have a recommendation, which is simply a stop sign on Gary and Pershing.

I think that would dramatically assist.

Um there's usually individuals who are driving 40 miles per hour in between Ash and Broadway.

And that is not safe for kids.

We have West Boulevard where parents are walking students to West Boulevard.

Um I'm not necessarily saying that this is going to increase that traffic, but something has to be done to minimize traffic, and I don't think this is potentially going to help that.

Those are my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for the speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

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

Anyone?

Come on.

Good evening.

I'm Emily Perigo, and I live at 103 Pinewood Drive.

And my only comment is that I would like to not see there be an exit right by Pinewood.

I know that there are multiple ways to access this area, but I would like to see the existing driveways used.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

Anyone else to speak on this case?

Going once, going twice.

Okay.

We will close public comment and go to Commissioner Comment.

Any commissioner comments on this case.

Anyone at all?

Commissioner Ortiz.

I I just um really appreciated the presentation, especially um bringing in the proximity to marketplace node and transit.

Um that's definitely something that there's an appetite for everywhere, but here in Columbia.

Um, especially trying to get better transit in our community.

Having housing that's close to transit is a great first step.

Um so I plan to uh support this.

Commissioner Darr.

Uh, do we have clarification on what it was meant when it said six foot along the porches?

Yes.

Uh what was intended is what the um community member from the office medical office has mentioned.

So it would just be at the end of the patio, not a porch.

Excuse the typo.

Not not the entire length of the northeast-southwest traversing lot line.

Part of the rationale behind that has to deal with the space that you have left between the back end of the patio and the existing parking lot that is serving the building, the office building immediately to the east.

It is a maintenance-related matter.

So putting an obstacle there and being able to maintain behind the multifamily dwelling units by putting up a physical barrier or any type of landscaping.

It impedes the ability to be able to do that.

And so the fence location that is being suggested at the back of the patio provides at least a minimal amount of privacy uh for those residents at that grade level from the parking itself.

Um that that's the rationale about how we came to that.

It's a combination of elements.

It isn't that we just felt that giving up entirely on the screening buffer between the two properties was in the it was best, but you have to look at it from some of the other practical limitations.

Thank you.

Other commissioner comments.

Commissioner Brotsky.

Um Mr.

Zinner, could you talk a little bit more about um the barriers to just having a full length fence there and just doing I'm assuming you're talking about doing like a fencing segment where the patio Yeah, so it would basically be either incorporated in the pouring of the patio with fence posts on either corner of the patio itself, the patio porch area.

Um there's a slope.

I mean, there's an elevation change in this property as well.

And so being able to maintain behind these buildings is something that is going to become more challenging if you completely reduce that space.

The patios today, the patio's porches today are probably no more than five feet from the existing property line that divides the two parcels, the eastern and the western parcel.

Therefore, when you drop the fence in there on a sloping surface, A, the fence at that property line is not going to effectively serve the purpose that it is typically intended for, and that would be to screen views because the residential dwelling units are going to be above possibly the midpoint of the fence.

So if you put the fence at the patio porch, it actually provides more effective screening to those residents.

Furthermore, creates basically an additional outdoor living space that they may choose to use.

Thank you.

Commissioner Gray.

And I think that's in reference to the 2003 plan.

I feel like impervious surfaces and concerns about stormwater come up quite a bit.

And I just want a little bit of clarification about what that approval was anticipating.

Yeah, so the I guess I don't know specifics about what the approved stormwater plan in 2003 were.

But we do know that it considered 1.4 acres of impervious surface comprehensively on both of what are these two lots today and what is being proposed to development has been reduced to 1.29 acres of impervious surface.

So there's about a roughly 10,000 square foot reduction in total paving and/or coverage that would be from what was originally proposed.

Like specific engineering, environmental engineering related metrics, uh I'm I'm not sure I am the best person to give you those.

Um but if you have a previously approved stormwater plan, uh so long as you are not increasing the amount of impervious surface.

Uh my understanding is that we honor the previously approved stormwater plan.

Um but yeah, Mr.

Zenner, do you is am I missing anything?

I I don't believe you are.

I think you have adequately explained it.

I think also in 2003, uh a significant amount of the development in this particular area was already pre-existing.

And so as we looked at at that time, the engineering staff was looking at, well, what is it that the pond has capacity to carry?

Um that pond is not a city drainage feature.

That is a privately that's a private piece of property.

And therefore, our getting involved in clearing or dredging out that pond, that would not be the city's responsibility.

That is that would be left to a property owner now if it is potentially impacting other public issues, we may be.

But at this point, I don't think that it is our it would not be our obligation to get out there if the pond has not been maintained, if it hasn't had trees that have fallen into the pond removed or things of that nature, that is actually property owner's responsibility.

Um we do have stormwater BMPs and covenants that may have been filed on this.

We don't have any record or reference to that that we can refer to this evening.

So uh as a part of the overall development approval process, uh the the standard statement we generally make, post-development flow rate cannot exceed pre.

Um and what has to be accommodated here, it can't exceed what the pond originally had.

And as Mr.

uh Coons has indicated, it actually is proposing a reduction.

So our staff will evaluate that.

I'm If the public does have concerns, further concerns, my recommendation is that they do contact our building and site development division, uh, ask questions specifically of them.

They will be the department that reviews these plans, uh, and potentially a follow-up with Mr.

Crockett as to providing additional detail to what their engineering expertise uh and their design plans will be doing to try to mitigate any additional impacts that may exacerbate what is currently possibly a problem.

Thank you.

Other questions I don't want to nitpick the plan, but I'm going to there are in my mind there are two reasons for buffering specifically between different use types.

The first is the one that you all are thinking through, which is privacy.

The second is foot traffic.

And I I do think that there is a legitimate concern, not just that someone's going to use the commercial parking spaces as residential parking spaces for their guests or whatever on off hours and then walk up to their patios.

But also that there is now visual or physical barrier between someone's back door and a commercial area.

Specifically like up to the property line.

And I'm just wondering, are we saying that you're going to put five foot fence segments at each patio and no additional buffering requirement at the property line?

Because it sounds like that's what we're saying.

A complete lack of barrier between the two properties, other than that.

But I I find that concerning.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to think about that for five seconds.

Commissioner Brotsky.

And you know, I think you rightly point out that yes, there's there's privacy considerations, but uh foot traffic for sure.

And I I do think that that has a potential to uh increase the impact on the uh existing property owners to the south.

But I don't know if I'm gonna I don't know if that means I'll vote no for this, but any further comment or are we ready for a motion?

Commissioner Gray?

Um can you like make more clear for me what your concern is about the the lack of separation?

Because I feel like I don't fully understand and I do want to.

Sure.

So I'm concerned that both it's going to result in um people utilizing the commercial lot for their residential parking because I am the kind of lazy person who would carry my groceries the shorter distance across a bit of grass as opposed to parking in the front potentially.

Um I'm worried about that on the existing uh landownerslash you know, commercial residents.

But I'm also concerned that if I lived there and there was an empty commercial lot ten feet from my glass patio door, there is a potential for someone to just walk up and like literally this I used to live in a condo complex very similar to this, and this happened to me all the time.

People would walk up to my back door and knock on it, and it was the wrong door.

Or it was there's aren't not there aren't numbers on the back.

Or they were just looking to see if it was an empty unit or whatever.

I just think that when we're talking about between commercial and residential, not having any barrier there creates a potential for friction.

I don't know that it's a big enough concern to get me all the way to a no.

But I definitely would like to see something there.

So thank you.

To clarify, um, if there were the level three screening, would that concern be mitigated?

So is that a condition that we can impose given that it's a PD plan or no?

We can.

Staff's recommendation was to do either or um and I guess the question is, and and maybe I can have the applicant come back up here in a minute if if that's what we if we want to have that discussion.

I I think it is an extra expense to try to do both.

And I don't know if it's worth it to do both.

But the level three buffer would be fine to me, or even fence segments at each patio and a fence along a thing that maybe doesn't even have to be a full six-foot fence, just something so that it's not like, oh, I can just walk right up, is is really what I'm thinking.

Like I I don't like the I can just literally walk right up and there's no barrier.

Um especially since if it's what I've seen other people do, we're not talking about like a fully enclosed patio.

We're talking about a small segment to create a visual thing.

Commissioner Darr.

Could we just make a motion and vote on that particular adjustment, a recommendation, and then if it passes or fails, then we make a motion on the We absolutely can.

I think traditionally, if we're going to make a change like that, we allow the applicant to come back up and say whether or not they're okay with it.

Um so with my fellow commissioners are okay with it, I'll do that at this time.

Ms.

Chairman, if I may.

So the applicant has asked for a full waiver.

The staff is suggesting as an alternative to that, that the screening at the patio porch be installed.

So the application at hand is that the applicant wants a full waiver.

So that's I think to the point of you either vote, if you're going to change what the applicant is asking for, what uh term Gaway Jones is asking for is the standard practice.

If you are interested in not dealing with what staff's recommendation is in lieu of going to a full level three buffer, that's what you probably want to talk with the owner about, right?

Now you could you could basically make a recommendation, depending on what the applicant wants to say, ignoring staff's recommendation.

That is our recommendation, and is not what the applicant has asked for.

The applicant has asked for something to be fully waived.

And so if you choose to not take our recommendation as the in-between or add to the in-between, that's entirely what between you and the applicant and what they agree to.

So they asked for no buffer at all.

Correct.

They've asked for no buffer at all.

We basically have come back after discussing why the screening buffer at the patio porch area was essential.

It was more of a quality of life issue.

They did not incorporate that into the plan, but I think that they would probably be willing to do so if that is what the planning commission's uh desire would be.

I think the applicant will probably tell you vote the project as it is when you ask him if he wants a full level three buffer, or does he want the staff's recommendation?

And as it is is no buffer.

Yeah.

Voted up or down?

We have three options.

You do this fantastic.

I mean, uh what a quarter copia of uh opportunities.

We could do so many things.

All right.

With that, unless one of my Commissioner Ortiz.

I fully support staff's recommendation, like fully and strongly.

As someone who walks everywhere, it is so annoying to go to a fence and have to walk all the way around just to get to where you're trying to go.

I think about children that might live in this town home walking home from school and having to go all the way around.

I doubt that the doctor who is a resident there is going to have nephrology pet patients go up to the windows of these residents.

Um I support staff.

Okay.

Commissioner Brodsky.

I was just gonna make a clarifying point.

I I'm not in favor of a level two buffer or a level three buffer, even.

I but I think a simple six-foot fence along the back would would be where my preferences would lie.

But I want to hear from Mr.

Crockett.

Okay.

Any further comment before we bring Mr.

Crockett back up?

In that case, I will reopen public comment and ask the applicant to approach.

Tim Crockett, Crockett Engineering 1000 West NIFON.

Um, so let's let's let me clarify a couple things.

So we that the proposal before you tonight by the applicant is no buffer.

Staff in their recommendation put in the buffer of the the porches and patios.

We're not opposed to that necessarily.

That came at a later date.

We didn't revise the plan.

Um we would be okay with that if need be.

Um very similar to what Mr.

Broski is saying, you know, we'd prefer not to do a level two or level three.

When you do level two, level three, you get landscaping on both sides.

It's easy to maintain it on one side, it's hard to maintain landscaping on the opposite side.

So then it's a detriment to the commercial development at that point.

So we don't want to do the level two or level three.

Um as Mr.

Darr has stated, you know, the applicant, we would be if if you if if the commission would like to have a six-foot fence across there, we could we could do that too.

However, we would like the commission to vote on what they would like and then then incorporate that into the recommendation.

Um so there's some consensus there.

What we would like is no buffer or what staff is proposed.

Now, to your comment, uh, Commissioner Galloway Jones, those porches are going to be as Mr.

Uh Zinner has indicated, they're going to be elevated.

So it's not going to be able to some folks can't get back there, uh, can't go up to the window, can't go to the door.

The only issue is going to be is um again, the cross, you know, walking through there.

Is that an issue or is that not an issue?

Walking uh back, you know, by if you think the units are people are going to walk between the units and walk through the commercial parking lot, uh if that's an issue, then you know the way to solve that would be the fence and not the landscaping.

Um but that's how we would we would propose to do it.

So we're we're okay with the plan is presented, staff's recommendation, or as Mr.

Brodsky indicated, uh thank you.

Any questions for Mr.

Crockett about the applicants?

Which is Commissioner Stanton.

So theoretically, these porches these porches are not at ground level, they're up.

Uh we haven't graded the site out entirely, but some of them they may be elevated a little bit.

Yeah, given the the topography, given the train sloping down, they may be elevated above that a little bit.

Um staff's recommendations would satisfy Madam Chair's concerns about people walking straight.

Um I think I think that to the existing topography would satisfy uh Galloway Jones' concern with folks coming up to the back.

Okay.

And you are in support of outside of what you're asking for straight up right now, you are a support of staff's recommendations concerning buffering.

We would be okay with staff's recommendation for buffer.

We would prefer what we have for what we have presented, but if you know if decided by the commission, we're okay with staff's recommendation.

So if we made an amendment to uh accept staff's recommendation, you're okay with that, or would you rather have a straight up and down do or die vote?

Um we would we could support staff's recommendation.

I would we would we would like none, but you know, and I think that way to do it is how Mr.

Dard uh presented it that way.

We have what the final vote uh is a consensus of what the commission wants.

Okay.

What what I what we don't want is someone voting no over a simple fence issue.

I would like to have a consensus of what the screening is and then have a have have everyone vote on that consensus.

That's what I'm trying to get at.

Do you want to do you want to ride or dive vote or you open the street?

I don't want to run or dive vote based on you know, because some commissioners may be very supportive if that we did just the fence or just what staff's recommendation is.

Okay.

Yet if that's not being presented, um, I don't want to no vote just because of that.

I wanted to have it vote on the screening and then vote on the plan.

Gotcha.

Thanks, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Crockett.

Any further questions?

Nope.

Thank you very much.

We will just for no one yells at me.

Anyone else want to come while we have public comment still open?

Anyone who hasn't spoken before.

Okay.

Seeing none, I will close public comment.

Go back to Commissioner Comment.

What do we want to do?

Commissioner Darr.

I was going to say let's make a motion on staff's recommendation and see if there's a consensus just on the way.

Staff presented it with the six-foot fence just along the rear of the patios.

Very good.

Can can you state that as a motion?

Sure.

Um regarding case number 68-2025 regarding the condition for a six-foot screening fence at the rear of the porches for dwelling units facing commercial parking lot to the east.

Uh that's good enough.

Yeah.

Do yeah.

Is that it?

Okay.

Yeah.

Is there a second?

Thank you.

Motion made by Commissioner Darr on the fencing seconded by Commissioner Ortiz.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Just clarity.

Yes.

You like staff recommendation.

I'm in favor of staff's recommendation.

Okay.

Yeah.

Got it.

Yeah.

So this is the recommendation by staff as shown on the current slide.

If there's no discussion, Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call?

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commissioner Gowway Jones.

No.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

No.

Commissioner Wilson.

Yes.

My vote is no.

The motion carries five to three.

Very good.

Now we are ready for a motion on the plan as a whole.

I would make a motion.

Please, Commissioner Dargo ahead.

Regarding case number 68-2025, I would make a recommendation to approve the plan development plan, revised statement of intent and preliminary plat to be known as Lake Broadway PD plan, subject to technical corrections and subject to note on plans stating installation of six-foot screening fence and rear of porches for dwelling units facing the commercial parking lot to the east in lieu of providing a level three screening and buffering at property edge.

Second.

I'm going to fight it out.

Motion made by Commissioner Darr, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none.

Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Commissioner Wilson.

Yes.

And my vote is yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Our next case for the evening, case number 70-2026, a request by Alina Sass owner seeking approval to allow 1707 Nellwood Drive to be used as a short-term rental for a maximum of six transient guests and up to 210 nights annually pursuant to Section 29-3.3 V V and Section 29-6.4M2 of the Unified Development Code.

The subject dwelling sought for STR operations is the western half of an existing duplex that is addressed 1705 and 1707 Nellwood Drive.

The point 46 acre subject site is located on the west side of Nellwood Drive, approximately 105 feet north of the intersection with Quail Drive.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may.

Thank you for an introduction.

As mentioned, this is a short-term rental condition use permit for 1707 Nellwood Drive.

This is for 210 nights with a maximum of six guests.

We sent out early notification postcards on uh January 19th, followed by public hearing letters on the 2nd of February.

There are 77 of those, and an ad was run in the Tribune on the 3rd of February.

Here is an aerial of the site highlighted in red.

The site is located on the west side of Nellwood Drive, which is a 32-foot-wide local residential street that does not have sidewalks installed on either side.

There are RMF zone properties to the south, west, and east, whereas IG zone properties are located to the north.

The property itself is zoned RMF and is not the applicant's primary residence.

This is a three-bedroom, one and a half bathroom dwelling.

That is half of a one half of a duplex.

With the six requested guests, there's three parking spaces required and are accommodated on site.

The property was previously offered as a short-term rental since 2024.

Furthermore, there are no additional short-term rentals within 300 feet.

With these uh properties surrounding the uh the dwelling, there are 66 of them.

65 of them uh within 185 feet appear to be used for rental or commercial purposes.

The designated agent lives in Columbia, roughly four miles or 10 minutes from the subject site.

Received one letter of support.

It stated that the owner is taking good care of the property and is overall good for the neighborhood.

The property has a couple of violations associated with it.

Specifically for 1705, there was a illegal short-term rental violation, a letter sent to them on August 4th, uh alerting them that they need to be become compliant, as well as two solid waste violations.

I included the uh violations for the other half of the uh duplex because it's contained on St.

Parcel and owned by the state property owner, and there are three via three solid waste violations as well as one landscape uh management violation associated with that side of the property.

In conclusion, the condition use permit analysis supports approval for compliance.

The short-term rental regulations would provide an oversight and means to address impacts.

Approval supports broad policy strategies and actions of the comprehensive plan.

Staff's recommendation is to approve the requested short-term rental condition use permit subject to a maximum of six transient guests as well as a maximum of two hundred ten nights of annual rental usage.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Before we go to questions for staff, if anyone has had contact with parties to this case outside of the public hearing, please disclose so now.

Seeing none.

Any questions for staff?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

We will go to public comment.

Any members of the public that wish to speak on this case, please come forward.

State your name and address for the record.

Three minutes for the individuals and six minutes for groups or the applicant.

So when you're ready.

Those people are screened.

I have a right not to rent someone who doesn't have a good background or reviews from other owners.

And it feels amazing in improved quality of the property and quality of life in Colombia.

Thank you.

Any questions for the speaker?

Commissioner Stanton.

What took you so long to come into compliance?

Well, you got a note for illegal STR.

So why now versus June versus Early last year?

Right.

Um it took me a while to fill out the application.

It's rather complex, and it's required the documents, which I didn't have at that time because I purchased that property 13 years ago and I got divorced.

So if the property owners should change, then we never update the deeds.

So I had to go through redoing all the paperwork basically.

Okay.

Based on that.

And that property wasn't renting anyways at that time because honestly, it's not a popular place to stay.

It's not in a good area.

So, you know, for a while I thought maybe I'm just not going to do it at all and just um, you know, sell the property.

But then my ex-husband agreed to transfer the property and everything worked out.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Um, how many Airbnbs are you operating in Colombia?

That's only one.

Okay.

Thanks.

Any other questions?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

The record, I'm staying next door at least three to five days a month.

Um I'm a doctor, I'm a psychiatrist, so I work telemed, and I have some clients actually in Colombia who I come and see in their homes.

And um I survive there through my um summers since it's very hot in Arizona.

So in the summer, it tends to be my winter residence.

I love it there.

Very good.

And did you say your daughter was staying?

Yes, my daughter, she when she's in relationship, she tends to move in with someone, but then she comes back and lives there intermittently.

So recently she lives there most during the week, and then she's gone on weekends.

But she has also her own place.

Um, and she'll be helping me with management.

And she should be she's been very good so far.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Any other speakers on this case, please come forward.

My name is Kirby Mitchell.

I'm with uh son of mine LLC, and we own the six fourplexes that butt up to this property.

Uh ours face is Quail, our address is on Quail.

And what's the address of your business?

Uh so of the business, 1441 South Victoria Avenue is the business name, but our address is on Quail are 2603, 2607, 2611, and I own four other duplexes on the street.

Uh we've been down there since 1989.

We have fought that street from top to bottom, trying to make it a better place for people to live to feel safe.

I fight other landlords on that street constantly trying to accomplish this.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yes.

Sorry.

Sorry about that.

When I first saw this public hearing, um, I guess I wasn't very clear on what she was wanting to do with the property.

My concern was is that we have a lot of uh uh homeless traffic that comes down quail drive.

That is a through fare for them to go down to the end of the street and then they get out along Hingson Creek and whatnot, you know.

And we have a lot of problems with them, as someone was saying earlier about coming up to uh my tenants' houses and asking to come in out of the rain or charge a phone or just things like that.

So until I got here and heard, my only concern is is who's coming and going, because literally the side that she's gonna rent out is probably 30 feet from my fence of my parking lot.

Uh and I I just don't want it to become an issue with my tenants, because I have a lot of long-term tenants standard, plus I don't want it to become an issue for future uh tenants also.

So but if it's gonna be an Airbnb, as long as I don't know if there's a way to regulate who's coming and going.

Um, but that was my biggest concern is just property value, you know, coming down and just who's coming and going.

You know, I have a lot of people down there to look out after, and I just want to make sure they're safe.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Stanton.

Yes, sir.

STR thing has been a journey for all of us.

So the key to success for these, and nothing's guaranteed.

We haven't taken a vote.

Absolutely.

Is the communication?

You see the owner behind you, it is essential to you guys communicate because good neighbors is what's gonna make or break this whole thing.

I agree with you.

I agree with you.

Um, this is the first time I've ever even seen the owner of the property.

Definitely exchange, you definitely talk.

Either way goes.

Sure, sure.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Yeah, I saw and and to be honest with you, just to be completely transparent.

When I first came up, or when I first came here, I probably should have gone and looked up the definition for transient.

Um, because in my mind, it was another just she was gonna let transient homeless people live there for short terms.

I didn't really know how they were gonna pay for it.

I thought maybe there was some subsidy or something, you know, but um, you know, if it's Airbnb, you know, as long as like I said, and I I don't have a problem having a conversation, because like I said, I have we have tried and tried and tried on that street to make it a better street.

And uh unfortunately there's some landlords that just don't care, you know.

So we're not one of them, unfortunately.

But thank you for your time.

Thanks, sir.

Yeah, um just to comment on the record because we actually hear that a lot.

Yeah.

Umsient guest is the tax term, which is why we use it.

Yeah, because it's how we are able to tax it.

It was just a little confusing for me.

I guess I'm just trying to protect my investment.

Uh like I said, we started buying property on that street in uh 1989, and uh we've put a lot of time and effort down there, and and I'm just trying to protect that.

You are not even close to a loan in people who are confused by the term.

But we use it because of the tax code.

Yeah, all right, thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else to speak on this case?

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

Any commissioner comments on this case?

Seeing none, would someone like to make a motion?

Commissioner Stanton.

Madam Chair, I would like to entertain a motion.

Please do.

As it relates to case 70-2026, 1706 Snailwood Drive, STR conditional use permit.

I moved to approve the requested STR CUP, subject to the following.

Maximum occupancy of six transit guests and a maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

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

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commissioner Gahway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Commissioner Wilson.

Yes.

My vote is yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Our next case for the evening.

Case number 74-2026.

I think there's an extra two, but did I stay the number right?

74-2026?

Yes.

Okay.

A request by the City of Columbia to amend sections 29-1.11 definitions and 29-3.2 permitted use table of Chapter 29 of the City Code Unified Development Code pertaining to the regulation of data centers.

The amendments proposed revisions to the definition section of the code to include a definition of the term data center and revisions to the permitted use table indicating what zoning districts allow data centers.

Defining this use and establishing where it may be pursued is the first step in regulating data centers as a use.

Use specific standards and specific conditional use permit criteria for data centers are necessary as well and will be developed at a later date.

Maybe we please have a staff report.

Yes, you may, and uh thank you for the introduction and uh specifically noting that again this is the first step in regulating data centers.

Um we certainly understand the urgency of developing use specific standards and conditional use permit criteria specifically for the use of a data center.

Um but before we can do that, um in order to uh reduce community and council concerns regarding uh IG's rezoning requests, um we think it's it's the imperative that we at this point define what the use is and place it on a use table so there's clear expectations for community members, council, the commission when you're seeing these rezoning requests and staff as well in order to uh more appropriately make recommendations for any rezoning request to IG.

Uh again, as this was a required public or is this a public hearing it's state statute that we place an advertisement in a publication of distribution within the city uh now is the Columbia Tribune, and that was placed on the third of February.

Um so a little bit of uh project history for this, uh how we got to this point in the first place.

Uh on November 17th last year, uh City Council denied a rezoning request of 63 acres along Route B, which is uh Paris Pass 63, um, from agriculture to industrial.

This was case 30125.

Uh the commission voted in support of this, but council did not.

Um concerns about uh or the rationale for denying the request was largely due to concerns about the site being uh developed for a data center, uh which the applicant uh or the owner rather referenced would be a possible end use for the site during a concept review.

Um we like to ask what if there's any end use in mind during concept reviews because it's frequently a question that people ask, and that's why it was included in the staff report for that.

Um then following the vote of denial, council directed staff to begin drafting regulations for data centers so they would not be placed in the difficult situation that they were where they uh felt it was necessary to deny the zoning request due to potential data center development.

Um January 22nd, 2026, staff presented the proposed definition that we're talking about today.

Um, and it's placed in its use table to the commission at the work session, and we'd receive direction from the commission to hold a public hearing for the adoption of the proposed definition use table revision so the commission can make a recommendation to be forwarded to City Council.

Um so some more uh amendment considerations.

Um we're wanting to do this to reduce overall concerns about data center development within the industrial zoning district.

Um the Plaza Realty uh market report in 2025 for the end of the year indicated that industrial structures have around a 2.5 percent vacancy rate.

Typically a healthy vacancy rate is anywhere between five and eight percent.

So um if you see anything below five, that implies that there's not enough structures for the anticipated demand for that type of use.

Um it's also important to note that that that study really um it only talked about structures, it didn't talk about zoning districts.

So it could also be a fact that industrial zoning districts are not necessarily being used for industrial purposes all the time.

Um rather struct industrial structures that do exist um have incredibly low vacancy rates, or maybe not incredibly low, but lower than what would be considered healthy typically for the real estate market.

Um this would also review uh remove some ambiguity as to what a data center is and how the city would define it in use tables.

Um we determined that it would be light industry uh back in uh the 30125 case uh for the 63 acres uh route B.

Um we think that adding this definition is going to give a lot of clarity as to what how it would be defined and how we can evaluate that use.

Um also is to make decisions about rezoning is less difficult for the council and the commission.

Uh so the changes that we are proposing is adoption of a definition for the term data centers and the use, uh and as well to revise the permitted use table so that data centers are only available as a conditional use within the industrial zoning district.

It is not available anywhere else in what we are proposing.

So types of data centers, this is a non-exhaustive list, um, but it's what uh I found through my research and and notably uh through looking at uh material that the Urban Land Institute has provided uh in regards to data centers.

So uh this can include an enterprise data center, which would be all for one organization, a co-location data center, which is a a third-party provider that leases space within their data center for uh other businesses and whatnot to utilize for their digital data operations.

Uh hyperscale is I think what typically people think of when they think of data centers.

This is going to be, it could be enterprise, it could be co-location, but ultimately it's going to exceed 10,000 total square feet, uh, and it's going to be uh a relatively large user of utility, specifically um water and specifically electricity.

Uh there's also modular and edge data centers.

Modular are prefabricated or container servers, and they're a non-permanent solution that you need to have in a particular location for a certain amount of time for computing capacity.

Um, and edge data centers are smaller scale uh and more for the purpose of allowing data to be accessed faster by people who need to access it, uh, but it's not a large um operation typically.

Um so again, this is the revision we are proposing to uh section 2932, table 2931.

Uh as highlighted in red, you can see the term data center has been defined under industrial uses under manufacturing, production, and extraction.

Uh and we have it placed as a conditional use only in the industrial district, nothing else.

There's no use specific standards again.

We're going to be working on that in future.

Um revisions to the definition section here.

Uh the definition that we are proposing reads as follows.

A data center is a building facility or premise used for the storage, management, processing, and/or transmission of digital data that typically contains computers, network equipment, systems, servers, appliances, and other accessory components necessary for digital data operations.

A facility may also include air handlers, power generators, water cooling and storage facilities, utility substations, and other associated utility infrastructure to support the operation.

This definition does not include facilities in which data storage, management and/or processing and/or transmission is incidental to the primary use.

Um why exactly this definition?

In the following slides, I'm going to go through four elements that we just wanted to touch on for why we believe certain elements of this definition are imperative.

Um also these definitions are largely informed by language and other definitions that various municipalities and counties uh throughout the country uh have adopted.

Um we looked at 12 particularly for the um it would that was included within the agenda here.

And the four elements uh for the definition that we believe are most important to look at is one the description of the use being within a uh structure, facility or premise.

So what's happening in a structure, facility, or premise.

Uh second, what necessary equipment exists to support said digital operations or the use that's occurring within the structure, facility building or premise.

Uh and then also we need to include utility adjacent equipment that would be necessary to support the necessary equipment for the digital data operations.

And lastly, we think it's necessary that there's a provision that notes that certain data center uses would not necessarily meet this definition, although they would technically be a data center, so long as it's accessory or incidental to the principal use.

Um so it wouldn't be restricted to a conditional use permit in IG only if it is incidental to a use that already exists.

Um I'll unpack that a little bit more in the future slides.

We'll go through all four of these elements in the future.

Again, here's the definition just for reference.

So first uh description of the use is within a facility building or premise.

Uh so we start the definition with a building facility or premise used for the storage, management, processing, and or transmission of digital data.

The use does occur within a building facility or a premise.

That uh is likely to happen.

Um and then the the verbs that are most consistently used in adopted definitions as it relates to digital data operations are as we've listed, storage, management, processing, and or transmission.

Um we think sticking with these verbs uh because they've been adopted in other municipalities and seem to adequately describe what you would need to actually do with a digital data operation uh makes sense for this definition.

Um second, inclusion of necessary equipment for digital data operations.

So it's a building facility or premise for storage management, processing, and or transmission of data, and that typically contains computers, network equipment, systems, servers, appliances, and other accessory components necessary for digital data operations.

So these nouns are things that would be necessary for the digital data operations to occur, and would also help staff determine um if the use would be defined as a data center.

So if it has some of these equipments and we know that it's for digital data, then we have a really strong definition in terms of classifying the use.

So third, the inclusion of utility adjacent equipment needed to support the necessary equipment for digital data operations.

This is where we talk about how the facility may also include air handlers, power generators, water cooling and storage facilities, utility substations, and other associated utility infrastructure to support the operation.

So data centers can use a lot of water, again, and electricity.

And that requires power generators in some capacity.

It also requires water cooling and storage.

And sometimes it requires utility substations.

Utility substations were particularly mentioned as something that should be included in a definition by the Urban Land Institute, because it's uh frequently perhaps overlooked, although we may not have as much of a problem with that because utility substations would be permitted as a public utility service major as a defined term already in the UDC.

And that's buy right permissible within the industrial zoning district in the first place.

So and then the provision that notes that certain data center uses would not meet this definition if accessory or incidental to the principal use, therefore not restricted to CICUP and IG only.

So the sentence we're going with in the definition is this definition does not include facilities in which data storage, management, processing and or transmission, those same verbs, is incidental to the primary use.

So this provision clarifies uh that this definition uh perhaps doesn't encompass all digital data operations, but it needs to be incidental to a principal use.

Um and just for some some context on on why we believe that's necessary.

Uh uh a lot of large employers would would really they need data centers for their operations um as we are in you know everyone needs CRMs and hospitals need um like the client software to to be able to track um patient information.

Um ISPs need more processing power.

So these are just three examples of um kind of uses where a data center may be necessary as an accessory use or incidental to the primary use, um, and we would not want to throttle their ability to provide a necessary service to the city by adopting a definition for this use that would end up being too restrictive.

Um ultimately uh staff still needs to devise use specific standards and conditional use criteria specific to data centers.

Those are the next steps after if this definition is adopted by city council.

Um secondly, if it's approved, data centers would be evaluated under general CUP criteria.

Um while this wouldn't be specifically tailored to data centers at the time, uh we believe it provides broad enough discretion to both council and commission uh to make reasonable conclusions about whether or not a CUP should be issued for a data center should a request come in before we have use specific standards or specific CUP criteria.

Uh and lastly, or not lastly, but defining the use inclusion on the uh permitted use table again is step one, and staff believes the proposed definition and placement in the use table alone uh can help ensure that council can consider IG zoning requests without imminent concern of data center development and or strain on utilities uh for the rest of the community.

Um so ultimately staff's recommendation is to approve the proposed tech changes to Section 291.1A and section 293.2 of the unified development code.

Um and should the commission have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Before we go to questions for staff, if anyone has had contact with parties to this case outside of a public forum, please disclose so down.

Yes.

I forgot to note during the presentation, we received an email at 450 today from someone who had a concern and it should have been distributed to the commissioners as a part of your agenda.

Um they had concerns about um a data center operating under the or a facility operating under the guise of being a data center, but ultimately being for the purpose of uh being a private unregulated power plant.

Um think that's a reasonable concern, but if city utilities are the only provider of electric and the only provider of water that exists within the city, um, I don't believe that that would result in um I don't believe that that would be an outcome that could exist from the adoption of this definition alone.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um yes, I was going to say the rural crisis center and renew, Missouri both reached out to me and I directed them both to email staff.

So they should have done that.

It seemed like the questions they were asking were more appropriate to the use specific standards and CUP criteria.

Yes, the email we received was from the Missouri Rural Crisis Center.

Anyone else?

Commissioner Ortiz?

Umone who I know in the community, I think he works for MRCC also reached out to me.

Um but I was too busy to even read the message, so I I didn't engage.

Yeah, yeah.

No, generally I just tell them all to contact staff.

That way we all get the same information.

Sorry, staff.

All right.

Any questions for staff?

Commissioner Darr.

I guess that I don't know, it's a question, more of just a comment.

I was reading this email, and it was an interesting viewport, and I didn't really get the same meaning out of it as you described.

It was more of they didn't like data centers bringing their own power and not using the municipalities' power, which I didn't understand why they would be opposed to that, other than they just said it's potentially noisy and they wouldn't have any responsibility to the neighbors, which is addressed with noise ordinances and other use-specific standards that would come along.

But I I don't know if uh Mr.

Murphy, who is the person who sent that email here is going to talk.

But I feel like it's an interesting thing they brought up.

I just didn't know how it applies to this specific action.

Any other Commissioner Stanton?

Go ahead.

If I'm reading these referring to generators like backup power, but they were abusing the use of that.

But hopefully the guys here and we can stop arguing, stop guessing about it.

Yeah.

Any other questions?

Um I just want to be very clear for everyone, because I know this is a big topic.

So next steps are developing use-specific standards in CUP, which will say if we approve it, this is why we would approve it, this is what it would have to do, here are all the guardrails around it.

Yeah, correct.

The CUP criteria would be guidance for when approval would be considered to the bodies that make decisions and recommendations regarding this, and the use-specific standards would be we need to collaborate with utilities a lot for that because it likely will have specific benchmarks and metrics for uh you know, if you require a certain amount of megawatts, then uh XYZ.

Uh but again, we don't have that this time.

Yeah, the but the C UP criteria would be more guidance for the regulatory bodies and the use-specific standards would affect more how they would be developed.

Yeah.

And potentially where.

Correct.

Yeah.

And then between now and then, this definition basically means if someone comes in with anything that looks like this definition, they have to come here.

And they can't do they cannot be in any zone other than IG, and in IG, they have to come and give us their full plan.

That's they would need a site plan for it.

I do not know if that would need to include all of the infrastructure associated with it.

But the current conditional use standards uh are very broad.

And so I think in order for us to wrap our arms around an application or a request for a CUP seeking uh data center approval.

In the absence of actually the use specific standards, there will be a tremendous amount of latitude as to what studies are required, what additional analysis is needed.

Um presently we have been approached.

We have been asked questions uh by potential uh uh data center users to our utility, so we have begun a process of what is typical standard practice or utilities department, as Mr.

Keynes has indicated, uh, would be a critical component of a partner in this along with REDI in order to ensure that we're preparing those standards.

But in the interim period of time, uh given the broad, very broad nature of the uh general conditional use criteria, anything is fair game.

And I hate to say that uh in fear that anything becomes fair game, but in order to be satisfied that all of the concerns that would be expressed as a part of that conditional use application, uh much less the rezoning action, because what's going to end up happening, like we have unless you're going to take an IG zone parcel of property, which as Mr.

Kins has also pointed out, there's a very limited amount, you're gonna have to seek to rezone.

Concurrent with that rezoning request is going to be obviously a clear indication, you know, uh that you're wanting to do this.

And now that it's defined, now that it's a conditional use, um to go through the IG zoning process if the end goal is a data center, you're gonna want to pull both band-aids off at the same time, so to speak.

And I think what we will do to strive to work with that applicant should one come that's a real applicant wanting to pursue it.

We're going to be not unlike any other project, hold a concept review.

We're going to get some information out of it.

We're going to start to set some benchmarks at the bottom at the very beginning to say, here's what we need in order to do an assessment.

Right.

Once we have that, then we have the ability to take it to you without use specific standards.

The purpose for the use specific standards, though, is to be able to get all of that out of the way up front when they choose, or if they choose to do an IG request, we know that they still have to go through the CUP.

So somebody may not, like we see often, you know, you're not going to go ahead and go through all of your engineering if you don't know that you have your zoning.

So we the two of them are very critical together.

But at this point, everything is very, very speculative.

We do not have any firm users.

So the community needs to understand that we are not actively being approached to give consideration of an approval for construction.

We have been asked as to what's our capacity and our availability, and our utility staff has been responding to that accordingly.

So how I am seeing this action that we're contemplating tonight is it gives us the opportunity to provide extreme scrutiny over any data center.

I think that is a very, very accurate statement.

And without this, they are subject only to the general IG guidelines.

Or the use specific standards for light industry.

Or like as we've defined it.

Yes.

And that was the problem with the previous action that we all had concerns about.

Yes.

So to me, I I think what people need to understand about what we're doing tonight is by defining data centers, we are not allowing data centers.

By defining them, we are actually subjecting them to a higher level of scrutiny that they would get without the definition.

I would agree with that statement.

Thank you.

Just wanted to get all that out before we open to public comment.

So people know why we're doing this.

Any other Sorry, Commissioner Gray, go ahead.

Thank you.

So with this definition change, uh the only by right use would be if it were incidental or accessory to uh hospital universities, et cetera.

Oh, yes, go ahead.

No, you can finish.

Um it may be my brain is just stuck in the ADU conversation, but like if this is like incidental to a primary use, how what are the parameters of what makes it uh incidental or accessory?

Uh we would yeah, it's a it's a good question.

I would say if the site is already has a principal use and it is very clear that that's the primary purpose, and this is being uh installed not on a standalone lot for support for their existing use.

Um I think we would have a pretty clear idea if that's the case whenever a building permit would come in for it.

Um typically uh a customary accessory use is by definition it's incidental and subordinate.

And when we talk about subordinate, it is subordinate in size and area.

Um I think the impacts though, again, this becomes, while it's incidental potentially to a university operation or a hospital operation, there will be possibly issues associated with what's the power consumption.

And I think that is maybe where your question is going, Dr.

Gray.

Uh as a part of, I think evaluating that incidental aspect, incidental and customary and accessory, those are things that we will have to address as each unique situation may arise.

I think as David pointed out, when we discussed this back in January, the university already probably has a data center.

And so the university is, you know, they're already a power consumer.

Now, are they consuming, is the power consumption that the university needs in order to maybe run a data center going to get it above what the capacity is available to serve the university?

That's part of what we have to evaluate as part of that addition if they are wanting to put it in.

So there may be a permitting process.

You're probably gonna have to, you may have to put an additional electrical circuits in.

You may be doing an expansion to a building.

So there may be other triggers that are going to allow us to be able to evaluate not at the same level as a freestanding facility that's not that's not incidental, which is um the purpose of the definition that we're looking at, but we may have other methods by which we're gonna be able to evaluate, well, this data center, which is incidental, we determine it as incidental, it's gonna have other impacts, and we need to mitigate those impacts with that applicant, um, but unique to the fact that it's incidental to that existing use.

So the question I think we'd have to ask ourselves is the addition of a data center that may not exist in an existing facility, high-level insurance company that's in, you know, their their home base is here, or a medical facility that's part of a hospital.

Uh, you know, those types of things, do we want that additional supplemental accessory activity or not?

And that's a question that I think we have to also we have to balance.

But we don't have any specific situation that we've had to make that determination yet, because we believe probably all the data centers that are here that would fall into this exception are already existing.

So we're not building anything, we're not seeing anything built that may be adding a data center at this point.

But if something comes along and we have questions, uh, you know, the building permit process is going to allow us the opportunity to probably dig a little bit and get more information.

I ask a follow-up question.

Um that accessory use is not the same as what is shown on like uh the permitted use table.

Like you wouldn't go through that table and put like accessory for universities, hospitals, and et cetera.

That's correct, because the definition would exclude it, so you wouldn't it wouldn't meet the definition in the use table, so it's it would uh uh I suppose be un undefined kind of or defined but incidental, therefore not meeting the definition, therefore not included in the use table.

Got it.

Thank you.

Any other questions, Commissioner Ortiz?

Um in reference to the the um comment that we got or the email that we got kind of last minute, um there was a kind of an ask to include a modifier at backup or redundant in front of um I'm sorry, it's like I'm kind of just reading it in front of uh power generators.

Would there what what does staff think about adding that that word and uh do they do you feel that it's necessary?

Uh it's a good question.

I I at this moment I I wouldn't necessarily see a downside in saying backup power generators.

Um, that's a good point.

I think we just need to clarify if that's what he's talking about.

I think the backup, you're not going to run a data center off a diesel generator, just not going to do it.

So I think they had to refer to the backup power if your primary power goes out, and what do we want to regulate as far as noise and all that kind of stuff.

But hopefully we can get some clarity on that here very soon.

Yeah.

I would just add that I don't have a problem with the concept given that this is literally a stopgap measure, and we're getting ready to amend potentially this as well as everything else.

I don't want to um slow anything down or create complications.

But if if we're all fine with it, I don't have a problem adding the word backup.

I don't just don't want to throw um a wrench in the works.

Because I I think it's really important we get this done.

Just for clarification, I didn't see that that email.

Where would where would this before the word power generators?

Thanks.

So the definition that's on the screen right now, we would just add backup power generator.

Oh backup in front of power.

And I I'd like to point out, and I think adding backup to this provides, I think, added clarity to the purpose of the power generator, because within that same sentence This utility substation substations, which is obviously a component that if the if the city were to build or participate in the operation of a utility substation that the applicant may be building in order to support their data center operation, it's a public utility substation at that point.

The backup generator is simply in case our system were to shut down.

And so the clarity of a backup generator, I think gets to the point that you're not running your data center off of a off of a diesel generator, which is gonna create more of an of an impact environmentally.

Commissioner Darr?

I I don't see why we would go to I feel like we're getting too far in the weeds in.

If they want to have a backup generator, why shouldn't they be able to have one?

Now they've still got to meet noise ordinance that they're in an industrial zone property.

I mean, it's why are we I feel like we're just getting in there and micromanaging the development at that point.

I think what we're saying is that the facility as a whole isn't just the one building, it also includes all these other ancillary buildings.

The the question is just do we want to include the word backup or not?

Yeah.

Commissioner Stanton.

From my wisdom at this on this commission is you want to be clear and clean from the beginning because if you're not, they will people will try to find the gap.

The reason why we're concerned with the where it says power generator, because that is different from the from how you are generating power to your data center versus a backup generator.

What the email we got, I think is concerned with a backup generator.

So that's why we want it clear in the definition from the beginning.

Because if you don't, those who are trying to abuse this definition will take it to the lawyers and dig through all of this.

We can go from the beginning and be clear from the beginning.

Very clear.

Backup generator is not the same as power generators.

That's different.

So I don't think that word will muddy up.

You'll thank me later, young man.

Go ahead, Commissioner Tarr.

So we're saying a facility can have a backup generator, but they can't have their own power generator.

We're not saying this facility can't.

So you're saying a facility may also include air handlers, backup power generators.

That insinuates that they can't they are not allowed to have their own generator.

No, the it what it's saying is that the term facility may also include includes all of these items.

Power generation.

It's not it's not saying what they can or cannot have.

We're not we're going to have to get a spike site-specific plan for everybody right now.

We're just saying the definition of facility includes all of these other um the word appliances is what I'm thinking, but that's not it.

Components, thank you.

Does that make sense?

So we're not saying what they can or cannot have right now.

Okay.

We're just saying what's considered part of the facility.

And I I I think that it's probably overcomplicating it at this point because we're just talking about the definition.

I don't care if we include the word backup or not.

We're just talking about what's included in the definition of facility, not what is allowed on the property.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Wilson, and then I think legal has something for us.

I just wanted to ask if we could please open it up to public comment so we could understand what we're doing.

That's a very good point.

That's a very good point.

Thank you, Commissioner Wilson.

Legal, do you want to?

I I just wanted to say if you if you decide to add backup power generators.

I mean, adding the word backup in front of power generators would exclude power, you know what I mean.

If you add backup power generator, it would be the exclusion of power generators.

I just want them to get that the the consequence of doing that.

So if if that's a path this commission goes down, you want to spell out both power generators and backup power generators.

Thank you.

We will close staff questions, which turned into Commissioner comment.

Thank you, Commissioner Wilson, for getting us back on track.

And open the floor to public comment.

Who would like to approach first?

State your name and address for the record.

Three minutes for individuals, six minutes for folks in uh representing the group.

Hi, my name is Dan Murphy, so you have a face to the email.

I'm a Columbia resident and uh been a longtime member of uh MRCC or Missouri Rail Crisis Center.

Oh, I'm sorry, could you state your address?

Oh, I'm sorry, 707 Mount Vernon.

Thank you.

And uh I'm also on the board of uh Missouri Rural Action.

Um I've been texting back with our staff at uh MRCC just because this conversation is so productive.

And I want to say appreciate everybody reading that email.

Um that was basically what I came to say to uh the board here.

And I think it's really important.

I don't recall the exact term you used, uh, but I do think we need to take due really serious diligence in any consideration of any kind of data center coming here in the City Council meeting.

I mean, it was a tied vote of whether that property would be zone light industrial.

And we don't know for sure if that would have become a data center, but it but it very well could have.

And so I just want to emphasize from personally my point of view and also my organization that we appreciate really your thoughtful address of this issue.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any questions for Mr.

Murphy?

Seeing none.

Thank you very much for being here.

Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Darr.

So what were you What was your concern with power gener with with data centers having their own power generators or backup generators?

My understanding, not so much backup generators.

If there's, you know, if there's a power outage or something and they need a backup generator, it's them creating their own their own generators, their own power.

And that came about basically because, like in Memphis, they're now that's a big data center, but they're using their own power.

And uh it's created a lot of problems with the diesel and the fumes in the in the uh basic area as well as you know, just the uh harm that that can cause when it's not regulated.

So you would be okay with the power generator that was regulated?

Oh, well, I don't know if it's if they're running it, I don't know.

I don't know.

I I to be honest, they asked me to come here and read my state, read that statement.

And I'm not the expert on it.

We do have staff now that is dedicated to this issue because it is so important to us.

Thank you.

Okay.

Mr.

Murphy, again, I I'm sorry, I know that.

You're not uh, as you just said, you're not the expert.

The definition that we're talking about tonight doesn't permit necessarily them to have these things.

It's just talking about what is included.

Right.

Right.

That's my understanding.

Okay.

Yeah.

So your concern isn't what's included in the definition of data center.

Your concern is that a potential data center may be allowed to run a generator full-time unregulated.

Right.

Okay.

Perfect.

I really hope, and I know because I know I know the folks over there, and they're very diligent.

I really hope MRCC stays involved as we go through the use of specific standards portion of this, because I think that's where the bigger concern is on what's actually allowed, not what we're describing.

Am I correct in that?

You're very correct.

Okay.

Since I've been a board member, we have our issues continue to change.

COVID was a big issue for us, helping the community with COVID, and now data centers have suddenly popped up, and we have dedicated staff to that right now.

So we're trying to address all the a lot of issues, you know, as they come up.

Yeah.

And I appreciate your support.

Thank you.

Commissioner Stockton.

I'm just curious, Dan, are you all working on this on a statewide level as well?

Yes, we are.

Okay.

Any further?

Seeing none.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Murphy.

Bye-bye.

Anyone else to speak on this case?

Please come forward.

Hello, Commissioners.

My name is Paul Land, business address 2501 Bernadette.

Bear with me a moment.

These new glasses have hearing aids in them.

I start getting, yeah, pretty cool, huh?

I mean, better than data centers.

Uh, but if I start getting feedback, I'll take them off and look at you blindly, okay?

So but I I want to hear your comments.

Uh I appreciate uh the efforts that the staff has done.

I uh I really think we need to put this in a conditional use.

The conditional use gives you absolute control.

Uh even uh even uh if you don't adapt uh specific use standards, it gives you absolute control uh on a site-by-site and case-by-case basis.

Uh my purpose for being here tonight is you need the ability to have a property rezoned without that discussion.

Uh that discussion completely derailed, not it is okay to bring it up, but it derailed uh uh an important site uh which we'll have to come back with.

And we can go through an IG zoning without that discussion.

If we had to come back for a data center, which I don't think is likely, it would require us coming back through this again.

As painful as that is each time, we don't want to come here twice.

Uh it's a very costly exercise to come and rezone a property.

And there's no reward for it if you if you use that.

I like the discussion tonight.

I uh I don't I can't tell you uh about a backup versus uh a power generator, but I think you could merge it and call it a regulated power generated and a regulated backup generator.

And that would satisfy your your definition definitions for tonight.

But the most important thing is I'd like to move this on because we need uh we need more opportunity in this community for industrial development.

We need that kind of employment base.

And uh by separating this into a conditional use, it allows us to have that flexibility on rezoning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That was a feedback.

It wasn't there at all.

Okay.

Any questions for Mr.

Land?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here tonight.

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

Seeing none, we will close public comment and uh resume Commissioner Comment.

Any Commissioner Stanton, go ahead.

And then Commissioner Brodsky.

I really wanted to grow Mr.

Lamb, but his presentation was so solid.

I didn't have a news anything.

I think he brought up a great point that yeah, we're getting ahead of this and adding clarity to this will help future endeavors, featured businesses and all that good stuff.

Anyone else, Commissioner Brodsky?

Um Yeah, I when we had that uh rezoning for that parcel land to IG several months back, um I made the comment that I thought that we really needed to get out ahead of this issue uh so that we were prepared as a community when we did get a uh bona fide data center proposal.

Uh I didn't know what mechanism that would take, but I think this is the perfect mechanism for that to take for us to kind of give it a pause.

If we do get one, we will have uh a lot of control and say over what that looks like.

And in the meantime, we can develop some standards for um, you know, if we do uh have data centers come to town, uh what that would look like.

And then also to Mr.

Land's point, it allows us to freely rezone uh IG land as needed without it uh the waters getting muddied with a data center.

So I'm fully in support of this.

The backup power, um I I kind of agree with legal's comments.

Um, you know, power generators necessarily encompasses backup power generators, and I think that conversation is probably left better left to when we actually go through the process of of discussing the uh performance standards for data.

Anyone else?

Commissioner Ortiz?

I okay.

I don't know like a lot about data centers.

So I just want to put that out there.

But I'm I'm staff was receptive to adding backup.

And I generally support what like like staff was being supportive.

Um I have it in front of me that other cities have included backup in their definitions.

Um I don't want there to be loopholes.

So I would support adding backup and whatever legal things will close that that loophole.

Anyone else?

I would just say I I think we are will actually create a loophole by adding backup.

Because this isn't this isn't what's allowed.

This is what is included when we say the word facility.

So that needs to be broad, not narrow.

When we get to what's allowed, we want that to be narrow.

But we want to make sure that someone can't say, well, I did a data center, but I only had backup power there, so I didn't fall under this definition or something like that.

So I I feel like the definition needs to be as broad as possible to encompass every kind of facility and every kind of utility infrastructure they may try to use.

And then when we get to what's actually allowed in the property, that's where we want to say you can only use backup, it can only be this much, it can only have this much noise, it can only do this.

Does that make sense?

That does make sense.

But I also want it to be in public record that I that I brought this up.

So if City Council does get more information, they can make that decision to amend it.

I clearly am not like it.

But I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Yeah, yeah.

And I don't feel super strongly one way or the other.

I just I think the more specific the definition is, the more things get around it, and that's the whole problem we're trying to solve.

Okay.

Anyone else, Commissioner Stockman?

I just wanted to thank the city and the staff for addressing this.

Um I think it's important.

Uh not the first time you have had to add something and won't be the last.

So I know it's not something you do every week.

So we appreciate it.

Anyone else?

If not, are we ready for a motion?

Anyone like to make a motion?

Commissioner Stock.

Commissioner Stanton, sorry.

As it relates to case 74-2026, data centers UDC text change.

I move to approve the text change to Section 29-1.1, Section A and 29-3.2 of the UDC.

Second.

Thank you.

Motion made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz.

Is there any further discussion on the motion?

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

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Commissioner Wilson.

Yes.

My vote is yes.

The 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.

If any member of the public is here to make a comment of a general nature, please come forward.

Seeing none.

Staff comments, Mr.

Zinner.

So your next meeting will be on March 5th.

We will start with our regular work session at 5 30.

We will complete the last one or two items that we have left with our amendments for ADUs.

We will be bringing something else to you.

I don't know what that is yet, but I'll we'll we'll figure something out.

On the March 19th meeting, so our our February and March meeting dates, just so we don't get confused here, are the same.

And then we have a March 19 meeting.

Your March 19 work session will actually include a presentation from our sustainability office as it relates to the CAP amendments that have been made.

And then in April, your first meeting in April, I believe, will be an update from CMT, our complete streets consultant who are completing the rounds as it relates to the public comment on the complete street revisions.

Leland Renard, Ronald, I believe.

But Leland with the Sustainability Office will be giving that presentation on behalf of the Department, who has also been the lead with Eric.

And so we will not be covering any text amendments.

We will not be that we're going to allocate the entire meeting on March 19th to that, and then we will allocate the entire April meeting the first meeting in April, I believe, to CMT for their presentation.

Both of these are projects that do need to move through the City Council, and as I understand it, both projects are being presented for the purposes of receiving comment from this body prior to processing the final documents to City Council for their consideration.

Staff is in the moment is in the process right now of reviewing the actual changes to the complete streets and the complete streets policy that CMT has been working on for over a year.

So we will have some technical comments associated with that.

I just want to update you on the fact that we have not uh had an opportunity to send out our uh integrated uh draft of the uh small lot integration.

Some of that has been due to the fact that as uh many of you probably have noticed, we are uh absent a staff member.

Uh Curtis Orendorf had uh uh resigned.

Uh and so we are reshuffling some work, and then this is the time of the year where we are required to do budget, uh, as well as a variety of other things.

So my schedule has become uh quite occupied by a variety of other tasks.

It is my goal uh to get out by the end of this month.

So we are only a month behind uh the integration project, but we do have a number of other text changes that are very relevant that will need to be brought to the commission.

One of them has to deal with home-based business operations.

We will need to bring that to you, so that is something that is on uh the docket.

And then as we move forward, as we have discussed through multiple work sessions, some revisions to the general dimensional standards table as it relates to lots.

And so we do have other work that we can be working on.

We are not going to be taking a hiatus by any means.

Um we have just had to slow things down a little bit due to some other complications.

The other thing I was informed uh is the submission calendar for the 2026 year will be modified.

Um the council chamber as well as 1A1B are going to be completely renovated for AV equipment.

Um that is uh going to result in our July 9th meeting uh needing to be canceled.

Uh it will affect both our work session and uh the regular meeting.

So the published calendar for this year will show that that uh meeting has been removed.

We will redistribute a calendar to you and inform all of our design professionals of that change as well.

So if you had thoughts of taking a 4th of July vacation, you can do that now.

Um because I know I am.

Uh so uh with that in mind, uh let me go to our cases because we do have a couple of them coming up.

Uh we'll have four.

Uh so we are seeing a little bit of an uptick.

Um we have two uh three public hearings and then a short-term rental, all of them are public hearings, but we have one short-term rental, uh, which is an oddity.

Uh I'll start from the bottom and work my way up.

That is old Highway 63.

This is the parcel that is at the corner of um East Walnut, an old 63 that was recently rezoned from PD to MOF.

Um the applicant, as indicated during that uh rezoning request, has come in now and asked for conditional use approval for an STR in that structure in the MOF zoning district, unlike our other commercial or office districts, it does require the conditional use.

So that is why this is coming before you.

Uh Wood Rail Terrace.

This is out towards the uh Columbia Country Club.

Um this is a request to revise the PD plan uh that applies to uh uh a portion of the property, and it is to really just grow a lot uh and take a piece of a lot away.

And it has a lot to deal just with uh some needs that are out there.

Umover uh is a rezoning request uh to allow for duplex development in an area that is in essence surrounded by duplex development, so that is an R1 to an R2 request.

And then the favorites of our chairperson uh are removing PD zoning designations and converting that to straight zoning.

So that will be your first case uh on the agenda, and that is out at Center State, uh, right at the corner of Vandever and um the entrance driveway to uh Bass Pro Drive.

So those are your items.

Uh there's our meeting uh maps, so you can put yourself together and in the reverse order now.

Uh and that is what we have got.

We appreciate your attention, your comments and your contributions this evening.

We are this far from getting through short term from the ADU request, and I think we can then get that one scheduled.

And just so the public is made aware, um, we did determine this evening that we will be uh preparing advertising uh for public hearing before this body on the definition of family, and that will be the earliest it would be as the end of uh March on March 19th, or the latest would be our April meeting coming up.

With that, that is all I have.

Thank you very much again.

Thank you.

Are there any Commissioner comments this evening?

Commissioner Santon.

No.

Nothing.

Send us home.

Madam Chair, I would like the integrated motion.

Please.

Before I say that.

Yes.

Happy American History Month.

I know somebody saying, why did you say that?

Happy American History Month.

And in addition to that, Madam Chair, I would like to entertain a motion to adjourn.

Moved by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray without objection, we stand adjourned.