Good evening.

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

Commissioner Stanton, may we have a roll call?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Commissioner Darr.

Here.

Commissioner Glowway Jones.

Here.

Commissioner Gray.

Here.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Here.

I'm here.

Commissioner Stockton?

Here.

Mr.

Walters.

Here.

Commissioner Wilson.

Here.

We have a quorum, ma'am.

Thank you.

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

Zinner?

There are not, ma'am.

Is there a motion to approve the agenda?

Move to approve.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Gray, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz.

Is there a thumbs up approval on the agenda?

Unanimous.

Thank you.

We've got two sets of minutes to approve this evening.

The work session minutes from February 19, 2026.

Are there any changes or adjustments to the work session minutes?

Seeing none, is there a motion to approve?

I'll move to approve.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Gray, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz.

Is there thumbs up approval of the minutes from the work session?

Unanimous with Commissioner Walters abstaining.

Likewise that we all received a copy of the February 19th, 2026 regular meeting minutes.

Are there any changes or adjustments to those minutes?

Seeing none, is there a motion to approve?

Move to approve.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Gray, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, thumbs up approval of the minutes.

Again, unanimous with Commissioner Walters abstaining.

Our first case of the evening, case number 76-2026.

A request by all state consultants, LLC agent on behalf of DLP properties, LLC owner, for approval to rezone five acres of property from PD plan development to MC mixed use corridor.

The subject site is located directly southeast of the intersection of Woodard Drive and Vandever Drive and is currently unaddressed.

May we please have a staff report?

Ms.

Humanian, thank you for the introduction, Chair.

Yeah, again, these lots are currently designated as lots 2B and Lot 2A of Center State Platte 7A.

It has been undeveloped since it was platted, so there are no addresses for the site.

That's around five acres in size, and the request we're uh considering today is rezoning the site from PD plan development to MC mixed use corridor.

Um notification was sent in the form of postcards uh which were distributed on the 2nd of February, of which they were 10, as well as notification letters uh sent out on the 16th of February, again 10.

And an ad was placed in the Columbia Tribune on the 17th of February in compliance with state statutes regarding advertising for public hearings.

Um this is an aerial image uh of of kind of what existing development around this site looks like uh with our subject site highlighted in red.

Um notable development around this area include the Menards, which would be directly to the west of this site, um, as well as the Hilton in Columbia, which also has an event space over there, and then farther to the west, you have Bass Pro Shop, uh fronting on the street aptly named Bass Pro Drive, um, which the site would also have frontage upon.

Um here is a look at it from a parcel view standpoint.

Um again, you can see lot 2A and 2B are labeled respectively.

Um they are sandwiched between um restaurant row, Bass Pro Drive, and Vandever Drive, uh the intersection with the on-ramp for uh heading southbound on 63.

Um this is the zoning around the area.

Um as you can see, it's it's largely all PD zoned.

We'll go into a little bit of the history of the zoning around this area in future slides.

Uh but basically all of the items that you see PD zoned around here were part of the same rezoning application um which took place before the turn of the century.

Um some of them have been rezoned to MC since then.

Um but anyway, there's yeah, a lot of PD uh commercial development and then a lot of undeveloped uh PD zone land around here.

So the site was annexed uh in 1966 uh with the subject tracks as you can see on the diagram to the left.

And these went from A1 zoning to CP zoning.

Um as you can see uh in the bottom part of this graphic.

Um the rezoning permitted all of what were former C3 uses, which is uh from the previous zoning code.

Um the exceptions of C3 uses were largely those that are considered conditional in the C3 district, which was halfway homes, uh farm machinery sales and services, drive-in theaters as well as machine shops.

Um the rezoning of this site into plan development along with all of the other respective tracks for it, um, created a transportation development district, which led to the extension of Vandever, uh a bridge for Vandever crossing 63, as well as uh the bridge for Mexico Gravel, if I'm not mistaken, was all uh kind of part of the uh TDD for this area.

Um there have not been any revisions to the statement of intent for this particular site since its 1998 rezoning.

Um and these two lots as they exist today were platted in 2005 and again have not been developed.

So uh just for some clarification, we have also received a request for a replat resubdivision of this site.

It's currently being processed under case number 7726.

Um it's going to result in lot configuration as illustrated with the graphic to the left.

Um this is the proposed final plat that has um excuse me, been deemed to be technically correct, uh now is awaiting um execution and delivery to city hall before it can be introduced to city council.

Uh it will run concurrent with this rezoning request when it does go to city council.

Uh so C3 uses from the previous zoning code, uh mostly closely aligned that is with uh the current MC zoning district.

Um there's some differences, but it's largely consistent.

Um and kind of the impact of rezoning this site out of the plan development district would mostly result in a loss of control over the siting and the scale of structures.

Um there would not be an opportunity for this body or city council to look at proposed development on the site.

Um they would have legal lots, they would have buy right zoning or sorry, Euclidean zoning with by-right uses.

Um they would be able to pursue those uh at their convenience more or less.

Um it's not believed to be detrimental to rezone this site and lose this control because the surrounding development kind of already exists.

Um the site isn't large enough to result in a bunch of concern about what could be developed uh in the MC district around this area.

Um also has uh adequate vehicular access with streets that have been designed to handle non-residential traffic.

Um it's also consistent with its designation in the future land use map.

Um the two other lots that I kind of mentioned before in this zoning graphic.

There's two other lots that were previously CP zoned that have now zoned to MC.

So this would be uh kind of a third in in suit.

Um again uh uh or not again, but a transportation impact study would be required if the uh end use development would result in greater than 100 in trips at a peak hour factor.

Um that's to be determined.

Um the applicant during a concept review noted that the uh potential end use would be for a retail development, um, although that is not something they are beholden to.

It's just what has been referenced in the concept review.

Um access would be provided to this site by the existing private streets, all of these are private.

Um Bass Pro Drive has at least 40 feet of width throughout all the areas on which this property would front it.

And restaurant row has 34 feet of width, and both of these exceed the minimums for local non-residential streets.

Uh and direct access, just as a note on Vandever would not be permitted because there's fewer than 300 feet of frontage on lot 2B1.

Um also there'd probably be some difficulties with driveway spacing there in the first place.

So it's unlikely that uh I guess either of these would have direct access off of Vandever, but particularly for 2B1, since it doesn't have 300 feet of frontage, it would not be permitted as um Vandever is classified as an arterior or a collector.

Um so some discussion about the public correspondence received for this.

Um I received one email which just was asking what the staff's position was.

Um this was received on Friday just before the agenda was published.

Um so I gave them a link to the uh where the agenda would be when it is published for them to read their convenience and did not hear back.

Um letters were sent uh in regards to this request, and there was uh one neighborhood association that received this correspondence.

Um ultimately the requested rezoning uh staff believes provides greater development flexibility without permitting previously non-considered uses on the site and uses not defined under C3 zoning but permitted in the mixed-use corridor district are not believed to be too inconsistent with the uh existing surrounding development.

Just a few examples for for what I could find that didn't exist in C3 would maybe be indoor and outdoor recreation facilities, which would be by right and MC, as well as uh vehicle and equipment related uses, uh, which also are not believed to be inconsistent, especially with the proximity of this site to Highway 63.

Uh and control over the development provided by the PD zoning uh is not believed to be necessary uh and loss of this is not believed to be the detriment of the city.

Um and we believe that rezoning to the mixed-use corridor district would reduce friction in the development process uh for both the city and the applicant.

So the ultimate recommendation here is to approve the request to rezone five acres from PD to MC.

Uh and if the commission has any questions, I would be happy to answer them now.

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 a public hearing, please disclose so now.

Seeing none, are there any questions for staff?

Seeing none, we will go to public hearing.

We allow members of the public to speak on this case on all of our cases.

Uh we allow six minutes for groups and the applicant and three minutes for individuals.

Please state your name and address for the record and start when you're ready.

Thank you.

3312 Lamone Industrial Boulevard, 65201.

Here on behalf of the applicant.

We appreciate staff support and are just here to answer any questions that you might have.

Great.

Are there any questions for the speaker?

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 go to Commissioner Comment.

Are there any commissioner comments on this case?

Commissioner Darr?

It seems pretty straightforward.

I think this is a goal that we've had uh with the city to get to straight zoning and get away from plan districts, so I'm in support of it.

Thank you.

Any other commissioner comments?

Seeing none, would someone like to make a motion?

I would.

Commissioner Walters.

Uh I'd like to uh move to approve case number 76-2026 to approve the request to rezone five acres from PDE to MC.

Is there again?

Thank you very much, Commissioner Gray.

Motion made by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none.

Commissioner Stanton, may we have a roll call?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray?

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Yes.

I'm a yes.

Commissioner Stockton?

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Mr.

Wilson.

Yes.

Unanimous.

Thank you.

A yes.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Our next case for the evening, case number 78-2026, a request by a civil group agent on behalf of RK Legacy Holdings, LLC owner, for approval to rezone 1.81 acres of property from the R1 one family dwelling district to the R2 two-family dwelling district.

The subject site is located north of the intersection of Hanover Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard and includes the address 1805 Hanover Boulevard.

May we please have a staff report?

Ms.

May, and thank you again for the introduction.

Yeah, the site actually does have an address, even though it hasn't been developed.

Not exactly sure why that is, but that is the case.

But if you were to look at it as a plat, um this is lots 501 through 506 of Glendale Gardens Plat 5 that are requesting this rezoning from R1 to R2.

It's around 1.81 acres in comprehensive size.

Uh postcards were distributed on the 9th of February, of which there were 39 uh property owner letters sent out on the 16th to owners, occupants, and tenants.

Um and again, an ad was placed in the Columbia Tribune per state statutes uh 14 days uh prior to this public hearing taking place.

So here is a little bit of Google aerial imagery of the area we're looking at.

As you can kind of see, there's a mix of residential uses around this area.

Um may not be super visible visible from aerial view, but there's uh duplexes that are on the west of this in the subdivision that was plotted at the same time.

Um also there's a lot of or I think exclusively R2 development along Hershey Court as well as on the west side of Olympic Boulevard.

So two family dwellings are um uh a use that are present in this area, although it does become more R1 concentrated on the east side of Olympic Boulevard, which should be illustrated better by this graphic.

Um you can see there's kind of a clear delineation between where the R2 zoning starts and stops and where the R1 zoning begins, as well as this little multifamily portion that's just north of the mixed-use corridor area on Hanover Boulevard as you head north.

Um background information on this site.

Um I had to reorient the plot to make it fit on the side, but hopefully it is evident that the six lots we are discussing today are those highlighted in red and the nine or ten lots to the south, or rather the west of this site are all presently R2 zoned, and they were part of the same final plat that was approved in 1997.

Um it was annexed in 69, it was assigned A1 zoning.

It was rezoned to R1 1978, and it has stayed that way since has not been developed uh even upon final plotting in 97.

Again, the western lots uh just to the west of this, but part of the same subdivision action uh have all been developed at this point with two family dwellings.

Um rezoning would enable the following new uses by right, and this would be two family dwellings, one family attached dwellings, an adult daycare center, and accessory dwelling units, but that's only in the scenario where it were developed with single family, um, either attached or detached dwellings.

Um if it were a duplex, you could not pursue an accessory dwelling unit on the site.

Uh single family attached uh would require resubdivision of the site.

Um very likely, technically, it could be constructed without resubdivision, uh, but there would not be a unit or acre density that's greater than what you could already do in R1.

So it's unlikely that there wouldn't be subdivision if that were pursued.

All of the existing lots meet the minimum two family dimensional requirements as well.

So that's 700 or 7,000 total square feet and 60 feet of frontage.

All of these lots suffice, those requirements, and all of them are already legal lots.

So they would be able to be developed with two family dwellings, should that be the intent without subdivision in the future.

So R2 zoning would be different than kind of around this area because it is kind of seen that Olympic is kind of a break between R2 and R1 zoning.

Um, but ultimately R2 uses would still be uh residential at its core.

Um and so R2 would be consistent with the other lots in the same subdivision.

Um we would see rezoning this to R2 as kind of a la logical and natural extension of the R2 zoning along the north side of Hanover.

Um and we think that if it were R2 zoned and should it be developed with um uh a dwelling unit type that is only available in R2 or available in R2 and not R1, it could complement the existing mix of housing typology in the area greater than what already exists.

Um driveways also um are typically not permitted on collectors, but the lots to the west already have driveway access, and Hanover is a major collector or it's classified as a neighborhood collector, but it's been constructed to major collector standards, and this would permit the city to have control over where driveways would be placed.

Um we believe that the rezoning of this site from R1 to R2 would be supported by the comprehensive plan as well as the housing study.

Um we'll go through the comprehensive plan, the future land use map first.

Uh this is an area that's been classified as a tier one growth priority area for infill development, which means that there's not extension of utilities or city services that would be uh necessary or they have the capacity to extend uh in this scenario without plotting.

It also adds a little bit of more gentle density to an established neighborhood, uh which is a goal of the comprehensive plan is to kind of you know add a few more opportunities, different types of homes, a little bit more density in areas that are already established, predominantly as R1 subdivisions.

Um access also does not go through an existing single family subdivision, so there is unlikely to be conflicts between people who may live here and those who live to the south outside of obviously many of them will probably have to use Hanover at some point.

Um the housing study also notes that there's a perceived supply gap with two family dwellings in established neighborhoods.

Um we think that this is a good opportunity to close said perceived gap.

Uh and again, it increases the housing variety uh that already exists in an area to potentially serve varied levels of income uh for different level members of the community.

So the requested rezoning from R1 to R2 is believed to be appropriate by staff when we consider um that the surrounding land uses are entirely exclusively residential in this area.

Uh and the site is in a tier one infill area, so it can provide more housing diversity in an already established neighborhood without creating burdensome impacts or uh too much strain on city utilities.

Uh it also comports with the goals of the housing study, which is providing integrated housing variety and gentle density in established neighborhoods, similar with a comprehensive plan.

Uh and also just of note, there's commercial zoning and development less than a mile away that should be able to provide the commercial needs for people who would live in this area without being too much of a burdensome trip.

Um ultimately staff's recommendation is approve the request to rezone this property from the R1 uh one family dwelling district to the R2 two family dwelling district.

And should the commission have any questions about this, I would 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 a public hearing, please disclose so now.

Seeing none, are there any questions for staff?

Commissioner Darr?

I assume the city uh isn't going to require the Olympic Boulevard stub to be built to the northwest.

Um so this uh funny enough, we'll go to the plat here.

It's not very well illustrated.

That portion of property is actually still owned by the uh property owner to the north of this site.

So um and they are not involved with this request.

Um so uh there's no no means to request that.

Not plotted right away.

So I guess that means my follow-up question was is the city going to require that sidewalk connection if the street's not built.

Uh on Hanover or on that strip that would be Olympic Boulevard to connect to the existing sidewalk that's no, because uh if there's no plating necessary, then there also wouldn't be a performance contract, and also it wouldn't be within the the bounds of of the property.

So I I would I would say no, there would be no means to require that.

That's what I figured I was just it's gonna leave a gap in their sidewalk there.

Yeah.

That gap, Mr.

Darrell, however, will be completed with the development of the parcel that is not subject to this rezoning at this point that's behind the property to the north.

They will have to gain access, and that's a relatively large acreage track, which is probably going to require a public street to be installed.

So as a part of the plating of that road right of way, the sidewalks that would wrap the what would be the western boundary of the subject site as well as what is on the eastern boundary of a future road would be connected.

Sidewalk will be required along Hanover as a part of the development because it is a major collector.

I was just afraid that the timing might not be, you know, the timing would be unknown.

So it is, but we're well aware of that.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Seeing none, we will go to public comment.

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

Good evening.

My name is Jay Gephardt.

I'm a engineer and land surveyor with the civil group.

And I'm just here to answer questions tonight.

I think this is pretty straightforward.

So any questions for Jay tonight?

Seeing none, thank you for being here.

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

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

Any commissioner comment?

Anyone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion.

Commissioner Darr.

Uh regarding case number 78-2026.

I would recommend approval of the request to rezone the property from R1 to R2.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Darr, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

See none.

Commissioner Stanton, may we have a roll call?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray?

Yes.

Yes.

I'm a yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Commissioner Wilson.

Yes.

I have a yeses, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Our next case for the evening, case number 82-2026, a request by a civil group agent on behalf of South Side Development LLC, THM Construction LLC, and the Woodrow J.

Simmons and Donna S.

Simmons Trust owners for approval of a PD plan amendment to the Wood Rail Terrace PD plan that would that would transfer approximately 30 feet from the existing lot 13A of Wood Rail Platte 13 to lot 104 of Wood Rail Terrace Platte 1 to be known as the Wood Rail Terrace Platte 2, Lots 201 and 202 PD plan.

The point four eight acre subject site includes 3405 and 3407 Wood Rail Terrace.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may, Madam Chair.

So as indicated here, we are looking at a major amendment to an existing PD, which was formerly a PUD for Wood Rail Terrace.

This project has some history as you probably identified within the staff report.

The specific area that we are looking at is that which is highlighted, which only contains 0.4 acres.

It is a lot of a 2023 approved PD plan and a lot of a prior PD plan that was part of the original Wood Rail Terrace PUD.

Early notification was sent on February 6th.

Uh public hearing letters.

There were 43 of them were sent on the 17th.

Uh and public notice in the Tribune was also advertised on that date.

Oblik aerial obviously identifies this project site.

This graphic just want to unpack this a little bit.

The area that is defined on this graphic that incorporates the lots that are following this property line here, the four lots that are in this particular area are the subject of the 2023 PD plan that divided lot 14B and 14C of Wood Rail into these four lots.

So that is the 2023 PD plan that we have previously approved.

This particular lot is one of the two subject lots that will be amended as a result of this present major amendment.

The lot to the north, as you can see by the match line, and then the extension.

This is the lot 13B of the, I'm sorry, the lot 13A of Wood Rail PlatI, if I'm not incorrect of Plat 13.

And that is the southern half of basically another paired structure.

So this the that particular southern portion of that lot 13A.

So the PD plan itself and the SOA were approved.

In essence, PD plan in 2023 was approved to allow for the connection of two sets of two homes.

So originally lots 14B and 14C were for single family construction.

So in 2023, when we did the plan amendment and we divided the property, the major portion of the property into the four lots, it was to allow for attached single family housing.

The attached single family housing is still at least the objective on the eastern side of the property.

I was informed just before the meeting began this evening by Mr.

Gebhardt.

The western portion of the property, which we labored to divide into the two lots, may be coming back as another amendment to recombine those two lots to allow for a single family home to be constructed.

That is to be seen.

We have not yet seen a submission on that.

So now that we're looking at a little bit more in focus with what we're dealing with here this evening for this particular PD plan amendment, the highlighted tract of land that you see is a tract that was detransferred to the Southern property owner.

A detransfer, which in essence constituted a subdivision of land and has resulted in essence the creation now of the lot to the north and the lot to the south no longer being legal because the subdivision occurred.

And furthermore, the property owner of the southern parcel would like to build a fence, which is classified as a structure across that existing property line.

And therefore, in order to allow for the structure to be constructed, we need to amend the boundaries of the PD plan.

So the 30, the highlighted parcel can be combined properly into the southerly parcel.

He can build his fence across it, and the two lots can once again become legal.

There is a subsequent final plat that is being concurrently reviewed with this that would move forward as well.

The preliminary, the PD plan will serve as a preliminary plat for this particular property.

Therefore, the final plat, if this project is recommended for approval by the Commission and approved by City Council, would facilitate the means by which to record the final plat, which would again re-establish legal lot status.

So we've gone over all of what I've just explained on the prior slide.

So really this PD plan configuration that you see in front of you now would be what will comport or comply with the lots as they have been deeded.

The new property line for the southern lot, old property line is here, new property line will be moved to include the deeded transfer parcel, and we will then have one larger lot here.

We will still have a large lot for the one-half of the existing constructed uh two-family attached unit to the north.

The proposed SOI that came with this particular uh major amendment is consistent with the current SOI that has been approved both for uh both with the 2023 PD plan amendment and that which existed on the properties to the north.

Uh and from a dimensional perspective, all of the dimensional requirements within that SOI are consistent.

Obviously, when we take property and we are extracting it out of former statements of intent, which defined what the density was on the property, there will be certain modifications associated with that.

Um the SOI is different.

It is an SOI specific to these two lots moving forward, meaning we are amending basically the ordinances that approve the prior statements of intent by extracting this acreage, this point four acres out of them.

Um there are some technical corrections that will need to be made to that statement of intent, uh, and we will get to that under our recommendation.

No nonconformities, however, will be created by the plating of this property.

All structures otherwise meet the required setbacks, and they would meet all other intended statement of intent requirements based on use and the like that were originally discussed in both 2023 and then back in the uh late 80s uh when the Wood Rail Terrace Project was originally approved.

As stated, the revision is really being triggered by a couple of events.

The land transfer, which was considered the non-legal subdivision, the loss of the legal lot status, and the desire to construct the fence over what is today a property line, which is otherwise prohibited by the code given that it is considered a structure.

As I stated, the proposed SOI maintains the existing SOI regulations applicable to each of the sites individually.

However, it is being modernized to today's UDC standards, so that does require some amendments and uh revisions, but ostensibly all of the dimensional requirements are the same.

So there's nothing here that would be permitting something that is different than what was originally generally contemplated, either in 2023 or previously with the property to the North's statement of intent.

There was at the time of the staff report uh a variation in the ownership of the transfer parcel and the southerly lot of the subject request that has since been resolved by the recording of a trans uh a new deed transferring the transfer parcel to South Side Development, which is the owner of the southern tract of land, uh and therefore uh that particular element of this request has been resolved, but it was resolved after we had produced the staff report, and hence the reason for this last bullet that we need to have the transfer and the notation on the development plan updated that has occurred.

So our recommendation is to approve the Wood Rail Terrace Plat 2, lots 201 and 202 PD plan with the proposed statement of intent subject to the following technical corrections.

The first bullet is no longer relevant.

That has been addressed.

The second, however, is still relevant, and that is the requirements and restrictions in the SOI that is proposed to go with these two lots will need to be updated to reflect only the subject lots as being shown as they are shown on the PD plan.

The submitted statement of intent, unfortunately, included some carryover provisions from the 2003 amended uh PD statement of intent, and so we have to just clean that up.

But again, dimensionally, all of the requirements are identical.

Basically, the statement of intent will indicate that there are only two dwelling units allowed within the boundaries of this acreage.

If you have any questions, I am more than happy to answer them.

Thank you.

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

See none.

Are there questions for staff?

Commissioner Darr?

I understand there's a few moving parts here, and it's a little bit complicated.

But it seems like this is there no way this could have been a minor amendment?

No.

You're expanding the boundary of a plat, you're expanding the boundary of the 2023 PD plan.

So just because additional land is included.

Additional land is being added into a former PD, that constitutes an automatic major amendment.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Seeing none, we will go to public comment.

If any members of the public are here to speak on this case, please come forward.

State your name and address for the record.

My name is Clark Twisher.

We live at 300 3403 Wood Rail Terrace, which is the house is right north of this particular part that is attempting to be added to the two lots to the south.

Our covenants, this is a green piece, green space of the of the 3403 and 3405.

And in our covenants, it says that that green pace piece, green space cannot be sold by the owner of the green pace is all is everybody's.

And it in our covenants it says that you can't sell part of your or your green pace.

And uh I'm just wondering how protected if it if that part gets sold by the uh developer from the owner of 33405, then is the rest of the green space in the entire wood rail terrace with the inside of the Woodrail Wood Rail Terrace Road Street?

Is that being protected?

There's some way, I mean can we sell it or can somebody sell it if the covenants say you can't?

That's the first question.

So uh we don't deal with the private covenants.

We are dealing only with the land use.

So you would have to talk to your HOA and potentially an attorney about that part.

But the City has no control over your private covenants.

Okay, then a second question.

Can I have another question?

Truth.

Who who is responsible for?

These are huge homes that are being built.

And the con the concrete trucks that are moving up and down Wood Rail Terrace, that Wood Rail Terrace Road is not built for concrete, and it is being beat up pretty badly.

Who is responsible for the repair of that of the road that these concrete trucks are chewing up?

I am not sure if it is a public or a private street.

I assume it is a public street.

Both wood rail wood rail itself is a public road as well as as wood rail terrace.

That would be an issue and a question to be asking public works as it relates to maintenance of the streets post-construction.

And so we we do charge a development fee associated with the square footage of construction that may or may not be utilized to offset infrastructure improvements to streets that are impacted by construction.

I don't have a direct answer for that because that is on an area that we deal with out of the Community Development Department, best directed probably to Jake Ray, who is our city's traffic engineer.

And he probably can get you an answer for that.

Who is that?

Jake Ray, our public uh our city's traffic engineer.

And he's in public works.

Public works, yes.

So if you call the city hall and ask for public works, they would be able to tell you who is going to be responsible for that.

And that would be Mr.

Ray.

Ask for Jake Ray in public works when you call to the city.

Um is how we how can we get a map of the continuation?

That map in there is the if it's a little bit incorrect in that the top line of that particular map goes through the middle.

3403 and 3405 are a single lot line duplex.

And that map goes right through our south border of our I live at 3403, and that line goes right through.

So I where we're concerned of most of the people adjacent to these lots are concerned what is going to happen to 3405.

Sure.

Any idea?

Well, we we don't control what happens, we only control what they are allowed to do on it with the land use itself.

Um I believe recorder of deeds would be the place to get the most accurate plat map, other than uh surveying?

Correct.

And where the line is shown, sir, where the red line is shown, that is what we have in per our assessors related parcel viewer information.

That is actually where the property line is mapped.

Um it may not be exactly accurate based on a survey grade accuracy, and that's where you would have to probably, if you are wanting to establish the property line.

Can you speak into the microphone, sir?

Sir?

Can you speak into the microphone?

Oh, excuse me.

That's okay.

Got caught up in it.

The that map, it looks like it's a lot farther than the 30 feet.

Sure.

And I I would just point out that this isn't what is getting platted.

This is just for purposes of demonstrating generally where it is.

So this isn't a legal document, the picture that we're looking at now on the screen.

Okay.

Sir, the piece of let me just explain.

The piece that is where this orange line is that you can see on the graphic in front of you.

That orange line is the northern boundary line of the piece that was transferred to the southerly parcel.

So the upper portion of what is in the red outlined area with the hatching that is north of where my cursor is right here.

All of that is what is being retained in the existing southerly half of the building that you share a common wall with.

That is their lot, and that is that lot will be restricted to a single family attached dwelling unit per the plan approval if it is approved.

Ostensibly what is happening is what your original concern was, is that this green space here, which is by your covenants not capable of being transferred to somebody else?

That is that that's sold?

It sold, sold and transferred are the same in our world.

So they sold the southerly 30 feet of their lot of the south portion of your building to the adjacent owner.

And so resolving that is a private uh covenant matter, which the city would not be involved in, and we would not have had any knowledge that your covenants said that it couldn't occur.

So it is a matter then that you need to, as the chair has suggested, you need to consult with your homeowners association and possibly legal counsel as to what actions you all may want to take to the owner of the home to the south of you and the buyer of that parcel.

Thanks.

And for what we are aware of, based on this application, the applicant's intent is to still build a paired uh uh uh home on the southerly lot, the two lots that were originally platted here and here, and they would like to use the upper portion as green space as their private green space for a garden and potentially fencing that in so they have a place for a dog run for their own personal pet.

That is why they acquired it.

That is what we understand.

No development, because this this PD plan also restricts how much development can go on the area that's hatched.

It's only two dwelling units.

So it's the dwelling unit there and the dwelling unit to the very southerly side of the hatched in area.

That is all.

So the additional 30 feet, 20 20,000 square feet.

Yes.

And what is what it does do we have to ask ask what is going to happen to that?

I mean, how is it going to be developed?

Well, we are aware, based on what we have been told through the review of this process is it's open space for the home that will be built on the existing platted lot.

Sounds like this is going to take further information.

Well, thank you very much.

I think I got enough to go on.

Yes.

And you might see if you can't get uh Mr.

Gephardt's information, because he might be able to answer more of the details.

He's right here behind you with the hat on.

Yes.

Sneak up behind you.

I know, right?

Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir.

Next speaker on this case.

Good evening, J Gephart, the civil group.

Um just kind of get a dive into this.

So the house to the south is a villa, and the north portion of that villa is not changing.

The footprint is not any different than what's proposed originally.

Um the owner or the future owner of that would like to have uh and inquired this um because the neighbor had this large side yard, and they they said, hey, would you sell us part of that side yard?

We would like to have uh basically a flower garden.

They want to put in a um handicapped entrance to that side of their home, and they also uh have a dog and they would like to have a uh a place for the uh the dog, a little bit of a yard.

So um it's green space now, it's gonna be green space later.

As far as the lot um to the north of us that is coming off of, um that is a true zero lot line lot, and that that line that um divides the two units on the north has not changed.

Um we found the irons um for that line.

We it's we established the line in the exact same place that it's always been.

So we nothing changed on the north side of this parcel that divides those two units.

Um not aware of this being any kind of common area, it's not shown as common area on the final plot.

Um doesn't mean the covenants doesn't say that it's green space, um, but I was unaware of that being an issue.

But if it is, it's it's still a green space, it's just owned by someone else, is all that's happened.

Guy in the north sold it to the guy in the south.

Still going to be green space.

We're not expanding the home, we're not expanding um that.

We're doing this all so the their dog can have a place to uh go outside.

So any questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Walton?

I have a comment it's for Jay and for the previous speaker.

If uh if you have and you can't answer you can't talk to me when you're seated, so I'm but I'm just gonna talk out loud.

So if you have an active homes association and you have a management for that association, one thing I would recommend to you is regarding this future fence, is that you become proactive and direct your concerns to the management regarding the appearance and location of that fence?

I would like to say, Bob, the fence is new to me.

The fence is new to you.

Yeah, I don't know.

I don't know if there is going to be one or not, but I've never no one's ever mentioned a fence to the case.

I should have commented regarding his talk rather than you, but anyway, now is an opportunity.

I have managed several homes associations in the past, and uh which I don't enjoy and uh didn't enjoy.

But one of the things is you you need to be proactive about this and you need to enforce it, like Jay said, if it was labeled a common area, they can't buy they they can't legally sell a lot or buy the lot, but apparently it's not labeled that way.

Just for your information, so thank you.

Anyone else?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anyone else to speak on this case tonight?

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

Any commissioner comments on this case?

Anyone like to make a motion?

I would.

Commissioner Walters.

Uh regarding case 82-2026.

I would uh like recommend approval of the Wood Rail Terrace Plat 2 lots 201 and 202 PD plan in the proposed statement of intent, subject to the following technical correction.

Requirement slash restrictions in the SOI are reflective of only the subject lots shown upon the PD plan.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

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

Commissioner Darr, yes.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

I'm a yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Commissioner Wilson.

Yes.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

For our next case for the evening, case number 84-2026, a request by Dominic and Stephanie Lee owners to allow 202 Old Highway 63 North to be used as a 365 night, maximum eight guest short-term rental pursuant to Section 29-3.3 V V and Section 29-6.4M2 of the Unified Development Code.

The subject property is located within the MOF mixed use office zoning district and improved with a three-bedroom one and a half bath home and no fewer than five on-site off-street parking spaces.

Available bedroom floor area and on-site off-street parking are sufficient to support the requested eight transient guests.

The.48 subject site is located at the northeast corner of old Highway 63 North and East Walnut Street.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may.

Thank you for the introduction, Madam Chair.

This uh request was uh publicly no was sent out for public notice as for early notification postcards on February 2nd, which is followed by public hearing letters, which were sent out by 20 of those on February 16th, followed by an ad in the Tribune on the 17th of February.

Here is a site located in red.

As you mentioned, the site is located on the northeast corner of North Old 63 and East Walnut Street.

North Old 63 is a minor arterial street and East Walnut is a local residential street.

Both do not permit on-street parking, nor have or both don't permit on-tree parking.

Where and Walnut Street does not have sidewalks installed, whereas North Old 63 does.

The property has driveway access onto both streets via a loop driveway.

As for the surrounding uh zoning, there is RMF zone properties to the west and to the north.

The north is a multifamily development, whereas the west are horse stables.

To the east is a mixed off mixed-use office zone environment, which is a medical facility, and to the south is R1 zone property, which is Stevens Lake Park.

The property is zoned MOF and is the primary residence of the applicant.

It was recently rezoned from PD in the fall to MOF with the intent to operate as an STR, as the pre-existing statement of intent for the PD did not uh allow for STR operation.

This is a three-bedroom, one and a half bathroom dwelling with the eight request requested guests.

This requires four parking spaces.

The site has five, so it is meeting the parking requirement per the UDC.

This has not been previously offered as a short-term rental, and there are no additional short-term rentals within 300 feet.

All 12 of the surrounding properties do not appear to be owned occupied.

The designated agent lives in Columbia, roughly one and a half miles away or five minutes from the subject site.

There are no violations on file according to our records.

And I received one phone call just seeking out general information about what the request was for.

In conclusion, the conditional use permit would support analysis given the compliance shown in the uh application.

The short-term rental regulations provide an oversight and means to address any impact imposed by the operation of the short-term rental approval would also support several broad policies, strategies, and actions of the city's comprehensive plan.

Staff's recommendation is to approve the requested short-term rental conditional use permit, subject to a maximum of occupancy of eight transient guests and a maximum of 365 nights of annual rental usage.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

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

Seeing none questions for staff.

Seeing none, we will close or we will go to public comment.

Any public comments on this case, please come forward.

Hello, everyone, my name is Dominic Lee, the owner of 2022 Old 63.

I'd like to thank you for your recommendation and am here for any questions you might have.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for the speaker?

Sorry, Commissioner Stanton.

My classic question.

The stuff is the fan, who's coming and how fast.

We have family located in Columbia, so we intend to have either the agent or uh uh hired uh additional help to manage that.

How fast?

Uh I hope to be immediate.

Um I have uh uh a handyman that's available would be available to take care of any home repairs.

You know, either that be with the uh appliances or the water heater issues like that.

But currently the most of the objects inside the home have been updated, they're modern.

Um I'd be willing to uh formally write you uh more specific description if that's what you I thought question I was prepared to answer.

My main my main concern is yeah, I'm glad you're keeping the house up.

I'm I'm concerned with something happens at the house as a party, cops are called, or something happens, who's coming and how fast they get into resolved problem.

That's that's what a matter of the question is.

Sure.

Uh I hope to handle any of those kind of situations immediately, personally, myself or my agent.

That would be my responsibility, my number one responsibility.

Any other questions?

Oh, sorry, Commissioner Dark, go ahead.

Do you foresee uh renting this out 365 nights a year?

I don't uh according to any data that I've seen, any home reaching that kind of capacity just generally.

It's not realistic to believe it would be rented for that.

Um I don't intend to have entirely 365 days, but I do want the uh availability for over 210.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at because usually we see these requests for 210 nights.

Any other questions?

Seeing none.

Oh, sorry, go ahead, Commissioner Stanton.

So can I say 210 nights and you're okay with that?

I would prefer it to be more than that.

Uh because I know that the tier three required the mixed office use, which is why we went through with the rezoning for the property.

Uh, which the commission approved of unanimously.

Okay.

Commissioner Ortiz?

I thought this looked familiar.

Because we saw this.

Okay.

Okay, cool.

Okay.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you very much for being here.

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

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

Any commissioner comments on this case?

Commissioner Darr?

I was just going to clear.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the 365.

I just thought it was interesting that this is the first time I personally had seen somebody ask for a whole year's worth of rental nights.

But given the location, I think it's probably appropriate to allow that, I guess.

Any other commissioner comments?

Anyone like to make a motion?

Oh, sorry, Commissioner Stanton, go ahead.

I missed something here.

Okay.

What allows him to request 365 nights?

The MOF zoning.

Okay.

That's what I thought.

Okay.

Just making sure.

I didn't want a title wave of people requesting 365 from here on out.

The commercial zoning.

Got it.

And I'm chair, if I may.

So the MOF zoning district is one of the three that are identified within the short-term rental standards that allow uh year-round operation.

Our MN zoning district, our MC zoning district, which do not require conditional uses regardless of tenancy, either owner-occupied or permanent resident.

The MOF zoning district, because it is falls within the mixed-use commercial category in general, but it is often found as a transitional use, is the only conditional use, regardless of occupancy.

And so, but it holds to the same number of nights.

And so often you may have, if you are in the middle of an office park, for example, uh, or office zoned, a disconnect in zoning.

You have office zoning, but it's all residential.

This is the type of scenario which you would have it brought to us.

Um that was a disc decision of the Commission and the Council at the time that the ordinance was adopted.

So this is an oddity to Mr.

Stanton's concern.

Uh not a lot of our office park property has residential or office zoning district property has residential dwelling units within it.

I will tell you administratively, I have approved numerous MC, MDT, and MN 365 night requests.

And so while they do not happen, they're there are a unicorn.

And I think as Mr.

Lee has indicated, uh, none of our information that we have received from our vendor or any of our previous information that we have received is ever shown a home within the City of Columbia being rented out year-round for short-term rental purposes.

The most that I believe we have heard is about 295 to maybe 300 nights.

And any other Commissioner comment?

Seeing none, would anyone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion.

Commissioner Gray.

Okay.

In the case of 84 attached 2026, 202 North Highway 63 STR conditional use permit.

I move to approve the requested SDR C E P subject to maximum of maximum occupancy of eight transient guests and maximum of 365 nights of annual rental usage.

Okay.

Motion made by Commissioner Gray, seconded by Commissioner Darr.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

See none.

Commissioner Stanton, may we have a roll call?

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Madam Chair?

Yes.

Commissioner Gray?

Yes.

Commissioner Artiese.

Yes.

I'm a yes.

Commissioner Stockton?

Yes.

Mr.

Walters.

Yes.

Mr.

Wilson.

Yes.

Yes, is Madam Chair.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

That concludes our cases for the evening.

We will now go to public comments.

If anyone member of the public would like to make a comment of a general nature, please come forward now.

Seeing none, we will close public comment and go to staff comments, Mr.

Zinner.

So your next meeting will be March 19th.

Two weeks from now, we will have a work session.

So we will feed you and entertain you with some tantalizing text amendment talk.

So we have that in store for you.

Our March 19th meeting should probably be equally as short, hopefully, as this evening's meeting.

This is to uh uh rezone from PD to PD with now a development plan.

This is northwest of the corner of Richland Road, Rolling Hills Road, and it is west of Grace Lane.

If those bearings seem familiar, it's because two meetings ago we discussed the vantage, which is Catty Corner to the southeast.

The second case is a short-term rental request at the very end of Valley View Drive.

And then the third item on the agenda is our proposed revisions to the definition of family.

So with that, that is the agenda.

These are your locations.

We are currently awaiting some additional confirmation as it relates to renovations to this space and to conference rooms 1A and 1B.

I have previously indicated to you that our July 9th meeting will be canceled as a result of that, and adjustments to our submission schedule will be made.

We are waiting to hear from our project management team as it relates to the official start date of the project.

We have got some conflicting information, and that may result in potentially the need to cancel our June 18th meeting.

We are trying to verify that, and once we have that verification, we will bring that back to you.

But I am getting to the point where I do have to make some changes to our submission calendar to ensure that we have given our applicants enough time to prepare properly for that.

A couple of options exist.

I am uncomfortable canceling two back-to-back meetings with our planning and zoning commission.

June 4th is the meeting prior to the June 18th meeting.

And if I can get a tacit authorization from the Commission here this evening, if the June 18th meeting must be canceled, the closure of this space will not occur until after the June 16th Council meeting, which is the Monday of that same week of our regular P and Z.

Would the Commission be willing to have a June 11th meeting, which is the Thursday following June 4th.

So it would move our calendar up roughly one week.

It would shorten our schedule of review.

So we would just have to prepare accordingly.

Is there a concern of the Commission should we have to execute that that that may create a problem for any of you at this point?

I am going to be out June 18th anyway, so that suits me.

So will I.

I'm on vacation.

So I would much rather prefer not to meet on the 18th if we can.

I think that suits.

Okay.

We will take effective action.

I should have some knowledge of when the actual construction date is, hopefully Monday or Tuesday of next week.

I will send out an email to all of the Commission at that point via our regular channels of communication.

I appreciate you allowing us to make that adjustment as needed.

We want to try to serve our constituency as best we can so we don't clog up your second meeting in July with two and three agendas worth of material.

So if we can continue to move them through, we will be okay.

With that, that is all I have to offer.

Unless you have questions of me as it relates to anything with our discussion with the amendments to the ADU ordinance.

As I pointed out in my correspondence to you and in the minutes, when I went back and I looked through where we had ended our discussion, all of the outstanding matters had been addressed.

I can either present the summarized document as we have previously discussed at a future work session before we schedule for public hearing, if you would like, or we can prepare for public hearing probably at the second meeting in April if that is your desire.

Otherwise, we probably would schedule it for the beginning of May if you would like me to bring it back to you at uh the first meeting in April, because we have a special guest that will be speaking with us about the cap on the night uh at the next uh P and Z work session.

So we will not have discussion of any general business items.

Does anyone feel the need for another work session on the ADU changes?

I didn't hear.

Do you need another work session on the ADU changes or are you ready for them to go to public comment?

Hearing.

Or public hearing, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

We will then what I will do is I will prepare to do public, we'll do uh notice and public advertising for the second meeting in April then for the ADU amendments, and we'll bring you back the complete package at that point.

If we have to delay it at that meeting because there is a question or two that comes up, uh that's just what we will end up doing.

Thank you very much.

Uh we will now go to Commissioner comments.

Any Commissioner comments.

Would anyone like to make a motion to Commissioner Stanton?

Madam Chair, I would like to enter 10 motion.

Please.

I moved to adjourn.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Without objection, we stand adjourned.