Okay.

Uh June ninth, twenty twenty six Board of Adjustment meeting will come to order.

Mr.

Zenner, would you call the role, please?

Yes.

Here.

Mr.

Sharp.

Here.

Mr.

Minchu.

Here.

Miss Olson.

Here.

And Miss Gaines.

You have a quorum of five.

Okay, we need a motion and a second for approval of the agenda.

Motion to approve the agenda.

I'll second it.

All in favor, say aye.

I'm April Fourteenth, twenty twenty-six minutes were distributed to the members of the board.

Are there any corrections or additions to the minutes?

Say nay.

Pardon.

I abstain.

Oh, okay.

Y'all be kind to me.

Um, am I reading the a request uh case number one five four dash two oh two six?

Another highlighted text.

Should have been on the crib sheet.

Oh thank you.

A request of Caleb Colbert, attorney on behalf of Richard G.

Miller, revocable trust owner seeking approval of a variance on MN mixed use neighborhood zoned property to permit the placement of multiple accessory structures, a pool, pool house, and proposed garage forward of the principal dwelling located upon property addressed 2710 Bluff Creek Boulevard, which is not permitted specifically per section 29-3.

Of the unified development code.

Umber have something to disclose regarding the case?

If so, please please do so now.

Okay, Mr.

Zinner, has the notice been properly advertised?

Yes, it was.

Yes, it was.

Have the parties in interest been notified?

Yes, they were.

Have there been any inquiries?

No, there are not.

Okay, Mr.

Colbert, would you come forward, state your name and address, and the court reporter will swear you in.

Thank you.

Uh Caleb Colbert, attorney at 1203 West Broadway.

I do.

Thank you, Madam Chair, uh, members of the commission.

I'll start with uh distributing our exhibits.

You should have labeled in your packet uh four exhibits.

Exhibit number one would be the staff report, exhibit number two uh are the locator maps, exhibit number three is the application denial letter, and our correspondence, and exhibit number four is the hearing aid and the parties in interest list.

And at this time, Madam Chair, I'd ask that exhibits one through four be admitted into the record.

Okay.

Can we admit that to the record?

Yes.

All right, it's all good.

Thank you.

And with that, I'll turn it over to Mr.

Crockett uh to tell you a little bit more about the request.

Madam Chair, members of the board, Tim Crockett, Crockett Engineering Consultants Offices at 1000 West NIFO.

I do the the uh requested before each night uh is for a tract of land that is currently 2.62 acres of land and currently zoned MN, which is neighborhood commercial in the City of Columbia.

Um we're proposing to add a garage and a swimming pool and a pool house on the proper on the plated property.

And it does sit in front of the primary structure, and I'll go over with that, give you a site plan, kind of show you what we're thinking here in just uh in just a minute.

Uh but the existing house does sit on the lot uh without residential neighbors.

Uh again, it is zoned uh neighborhood commercial and it kind of sits down off of a dead end street by itself.

We are requesting relief to section 293.

Uh 2i23i A of the Unified Development Code, which basically says uh that you cannot have detached uh detached accessory structures uh forward of the principal structure.

Uh this is the kind of an overview of the area that we're talking about.

The highlighted uh the yellow highlighted area is the lot in question, the 2.62 acres.

Uh a lot of people don't realize that there's actually a house that's down there, but there is.

You can't see it from the road.

Um commercial buildings, uh, office buildings uh to the uh to the north and to the west, uh, and then of course the uh the Hollywood Theaters uh also uh to the north.

Grindstone uh creek that's to the south.

Zoom out here just a little bit, you can kind of see uh further to the south, uh you can see Bluff Creek neighborhood that's that's several hundreds of feet away from uh from the piece of property.

Um if you drive out there and look at it, you're not gonna see much.

And if you drill by to take a look at it, this is what you're gonna see.

It's heavily wooded uh across the entire frontage of the lot.

There's just really you can't really see the house, you can barely see the driveway.

Uh certainly not going to see the improvements that we're making either.

Again, this is on a dead end street with no other residential neighbors.

And the hardship that we're asking tonight is uh the house was built in 2015.

It was compliant, it was permitted, it was built properly, but in 2015 we didn't have steep slope regulations.

Uh UDC uh was enacted in 2017, and of course, now we have steep slopes, which say that uh we can't build on anything that's over that exceeds 25% grade uh on the site, and most of the current lot contains steep slopes.

That's kind of the limiting factor on why it was developed as uh residential and not the MN or the neighborhood commercial that it was designated.

It's just not suited for neighborhood commercial uses.

Uh here's uh kind of an exhibit.

You see the house, uh the existing house that's placed, the green highlighted areas are steep slopes according to the City of Columbia.

What's not highlighted, uh, the areas that aren't highlighted, the areas that are less than 25%, in which that gives us the ability to construct on.

And so you can kind of see where we're going to place the uh proposed garage, uh, and then of course uh uh a swimming pool and a small pool house and a little storage area as well.

And again, you can see the substantial amount of tree cover uh that's across the entire uh east side and south side, all that's gonna remain in place so that it's uh it's shielded from the streets and the creeks and the trails and everything else in the area.

Uh when we when we ask for variants, there's some additional criteria that we uh have to respond to and these items.

The first one is that the variance is required to address a practical difficulty or uns are unnecessary hardship related to the shape, size, terrain, uh, location, or other factors of the applicant's site.

I certainly think that uh the terrain comes into play here.

Again, the existing house was constructed prior to the UDC and the steep slope ordinance.

Uh the steep slopes are the limiting factor here.

And so we want to stay off of those as best as possible.

So when we do that, uh the only logical location is to go forward of that.

Um then, of course, the other locations on the site, we would come before you tonight and ask for uh a uh a variance to the steep slopes if we were to go on those.

So it's one or the other.

Uh another another criteria that we have to that we have to address is the variance will not have uh the effect of permitting a use of land that is not indicated as a permitted use or conditional use in section 293.1.

Basically, you're not giving us a variance, and it's going to create a non-conforming use in the zoning district.

Well, we're zoned MN as I indicate, we're neighborhood commercial, and the allowed uses of residential are allowed in that zoning district, so we won't have any issue there.

Uh item C the variance will not uh permit a development that is inconsistent with the adopted comprehensive plan.

Well, um I think that um given that we are an allowed use in the MN zoning district.

Um I don't think that necessarily goes against the comprehensive plan.

Uh certainly the area out here is not conducive.

This piece isn't conducive to the MN zoning that it has.

Uh the fourth item is the variance is the least change from the requirements of this chapter necessary to relieve the difficulty or a hardship.

So there's several different options that we can go through here.

We can we can ask for a different variance than what we're asking for, but that doesn't really change anything.

Uh we could ask for it to be zoned planned development and discussing with uh with Mr.

Zinner and his staff.

Um that's not the intent of plan development when we have a situation that we can ask for a variance such as this.

I mean, uh we've asked for these variances before and have obtained them, and I think this is uh not out of character with those other requests.

When you look at what the intent, I believe the intent of the regulation is, is when you have a standard residential lot, um, you don't want to have a garage or an accessory structure in front of your house on a standard residential lot.

Uh we're certainly not a residential lot.

We have 2.62 acres, heavily wooded uh in a location that doesn't have uh immediate neighbors around us.

Uh the last uh last piece of uh last criteria that we have to address is the variants will not harm the public, will not harm the public health, safety, or welfare uh, or be uh injurious to this property or improvements in the area.

Um we're certainly not gonna harm the public in what we're doing here.

Uh the public's not going to see it.

We're going to be back on the property.

It's going to be screened with trees, it's heavily vegetated.

Uh it's a swimming pool into small, small garage, and so we're certainly not going to do any harm to the neighbors or the general public.

Uh again, here's our site.

Um you can see the yellow circle on this site, that's a band of 750 feet.

You can see that we don't have except for maybe just a little bit over there on the far upper northwest side that's screened between us, there's a couple large office buildings.

Um there's no other houses within 750 feet of us.

So we're certainly not going to be uh obtrusive to the neighbors or neighborhoods or anything like that.

So you know, I think that's important to know that you know we're kind of down there by ourselves.

Um and it's not uh not in the you know the typical location that you would see uh a house in a regular subdivision.

Uh we're we're not that situation here.

Uh again, this is what you're gonna see today, and that's what you're gonna see when we're done.

It's heavily wooded.

Again, the proposed use or accessory to that of single family residential use.

Uh the proposed uses are not a detriment of well filler uh to the welfare or safety of the general public.

Uh the proposal illustrates a clear hardship on the property and uh it addresses uh the criteria stated in the UDC.

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

So if the UDC didn't exist.

You could build you could put the structures, other spots on that property.

If the UDC didn't exist, they would not prohibit us from putting it in steep slopes.

Okay.

So if you had built the house after the UDC, would you have put it someplace else knowing then that if you wanted to expand or put a garage or add a pool, would you have put the house in a different spot?

Um let's possibly, Mr.

Mintch, and then here's the reason.

Let me let me talk.

Uh the current owners are not the ones who built the house.

So they're uh they're they purchased the house that's a second owner that owns that.

So who's making the request today is not who originally built the house.

Um however, the location of the house as it currently sits would not be permitted under the UDC today because of the locate because of the steep slope location.

And so it would probably have been slid forward.

So I guess what I was trying to figure out is that because the the UDC was put into place two years after this was built, uh it created a situation where you couldn't utilize the property if it weren't for the UDC.

Right.

Yeah, a lot of it's not used, not we can't utilize much of the property today as we were in 2015.

Thank you.

Um I have a question.

Yes, sir.

Um it's said to be at the dead end road, but from the maps, it looks like there's a right-of-way, and the fact the road continues down a little further.

Yes, sir.

Is that correct?

Um the road go to here.

So and I don't have a pointer, so I apologize.

Um you can see the road that comes through and it stops.

Basically, we're not too far past our driveway.

So the road is a dead end street.

It does stop there.

Uh from that point, doing moving south.

There we go.

It would tie into Bluff Creek Drive on the other side of the creek.

Right.

So it it could be extended.

Um if and when that ever extends, I do not know.

Um your guess is as good as mine, but crossing Grindstone Creek with bridges has not been a top priority of uh of the of the cities for quite some time.

So um I don't foresee that happening anytime anytime soon.

It is, but it is uh currently as it is today, a dead-end street that's out there today, yes.

And then I was just a little curious uh about the uh placement of the garage and the uh and the pool and pool house.

Yes, sir.

Uh it seems it's on the pool and pool house are on a steeper slope than uh the uh garage.

Uh seems like it would be easier to do it the other way around.

Well, the the pool house is actually gonna work with the terrain and kind of step down a little bit.

And so the garage is we can put a stem wall in the back of the garage, and so we can kind of embed it into the hillside just a little bit.

On the lower side, we're gonna drop the the pool and the deck down as we go down the hill a little bit so that it can work with the terrain and work with the grade.

So we're not just trying to flatten something and build big retaining walls, we're actually gonna work with the train as much as we can.

So if it weren't for the code, would you even want to put the pool and pool house in the backyard?

Um I I I I would have to talk to the owner.

I I work for the builder, and so um I think access getting to the back would be difficult given this given the steep slopes.

I think getting back there would be difficult to say the least.

Yes, ma'am.

I think you you talked about all of the elements.

Um the fact that it's essentially an island.

That's what I get from it.

Um my counterparts, they mentioned the code in and of itself.

Does the code um you say your engineer correct?

Yes, ma'am.

Does it make your life or your job better in terms of your enjoyment and creating specific designs for your clients?

I guess I don't understand the question.

Do you think using the code?

Is there an issue with I know there's prohibitions, but does it also make it beneficial for you and your clients?

And designing different things.

I mean, I think I think that I mean the code is uh is I mean, a lot of people argue they don't like the UDC.

I personally I really think the UDC is a great document.

Um but the UDC also doesn't cover each and every instance and every application.

And I think this is uh I think even staff pointed that out in the staff report that this is one of those instances that maybe the code doesn't exactly cover and it's not intended to cover.

And so um, yeah, so I like using the code as best we can, but there's sometimes that uh we have instances like this that it just doesn't quite fit all the boxes and it wasn't intended.

And I think that's the reason why we have board adjustment and we have this process is that when we don't check all those boxes just right, we have a board that we can come to and say, hey, I think this is a little bit different, and the code may not have attended for this specific purpose, and I think that's why we're here tonight.

Yep.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's it.

Any more questions?

Does anyone else want to speak in favor of the application?

Anyone want to speak in opposition of the application?

Comments from staff.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I think Mr.

Crockett has covered everything.

I think the one the takeaways here that we would offer when we looked at this parcel, it is unique.

Um this is a residentially developed parcel in a mixed commercial environment of neighborhood commercial, immediately to the north and the northwest.

And then to the northeast, you have MC.

Uh our highest intensity of commercial use, and then of course, Bluff Creek, in and of itself, uh the north and the south sections of Bluff Creek uh make this property even more unique.

Um at the time that the Bluff Creek Estates project was developed, uh the developer at that point was given uh in essence um an exemption, so to speak, to build the connecting roadway segment, which is considered generally a bridge structure or a major drainage structure.

And pursuant to the way that our code is structured, those types of structures are generally the City of Columbia's responsibility.

And so as Mr.

Crockett pointed out, the city has not prioritized this connection.

Even if the city had prioritized that connection, it does not change the natural attributes associated with this property.

It is approximately 30 feet above the road elevation.

You will not see, even at the elevations of the proposed accessory structures, which can't be over 24 feet, given the setback of almost 80 to 100 feet, you'd never see what is being built.

Um you may be able to have a linear view from the south side of the creek, but again, the distance and the separation between the existing development really has a tendency to mitigate that.

And so when you look at all things considered and what the design of the existing home is, how that home was carved into the hillside, which on the rear side of the property approximately falls 55 percent over 140 some odd feet of lot depth, uh, and that has about a 32 percent fall over 283 feet on the front.

This is not your normal parcel that's used for residential purposes.

This wouldn't be a normal parcel used for commercial purposes to where you could make a more compact development.

And so I think as we look at the criteria, when you talk about shape terrain, this parcel pretty well checks off those boxes.

And as we have explained to the board before, it is not necessarily all the criteria within that first criterion that have to be triggered.

You have to weigh all of the other applicable elements in that first criterion.

And you need to determine what is the most prominent.

There may be elements in any case that this board considers that some things may outweigh others, and it is just that is part of the duty of the board to be able to evaluate that and to articulate as part of your recommendation, should you support this, why the other criterion that may be in item A is not on point with the specific site, but what the criterion in item A that has had evidence presented in support of it is.

So with that, that would be the first thing I tell you.

The topography of this property and the terrain of this property definitely are the most substantial features.

When you look at then other criteria, is this use not necessarily consistent with the environment?

You don't often see MN parcels in our City of Columbia zoned with a single family home.

Somebody chose this property to put a single family home on it for a very specific purpose.

And if you look at the aerial closely enough, the Miller imaging building to the rear of this property, which is not the millers that are here tonight before us, if I understand correctly, there was a relationship, probably at some point when the commercial buildings were built behind it, that this home was somehow tied to those commercial businesses.

It may have been serving as a secondary access point in the winter.

It could have been just serving as a more convenient way to be able to traverse between the business and their private residence.

But that is something else that is unique.

They chose to develop for a very specific purpose, and as Mr.

Crockett pointed out, this is not your typical site for commercial use.

End of a cul-de-sac, it has real no excess, no visibility.

You would build an office building, maybe, but is an office building really sustainable on a slope of this nature.

They chose not to do that, and they chose to put a house tucked back on a perch, so to speak, above the grindstone creek.

I would only imagine what this home has a view going out to the west.

Uh, because I would imagine most of it is glass.

And so they have chosen to place this home not necessarily forward, not probably thinking at the time that they were building it, we would ever do anything for an accessory use.

It's an 8400 square foot home.

How much more do you need in an 8400 square foot home?

That would be a question just rhetorically that I would ask.

We don't know, but the owners would like to add these additional features.

And so this is the process we have to go through.

Um surrounding conditions, really, this is an isolated parcel.

It is not affecting any other residential development per se.

It is only visually affecting possibly the stuff that is on the south side of Grindstone Creek.

So as we run through the criteria, as we've discussed, I mean, really, when you look at the topography of this property, that really is the first criterion, the summary and the impacts.

Granting a waiver here does grant special privilege to these owners.

But when you weigh that against the impacts to the general public, the impacts to the surrounding properties, you have to ask yourself the question, is that grant of privilege significant?

Is it something that is necessary in order to allow the property to be improved like any other residential lot within the City of Columbia?

Homes that are conventionally built, 25 feet off the front property line, and they have a backyard, don't have this problem.

This home was probably built 300 feet off of the right-of-way line, if not more, built onto a slope that at the time that it was built, it wasn't regulated.

Now it's regulated and therefore they can't get in the backyard.

And quite honestly, practically getting in the backyard for any type of construction in the limited area that potentially would be buildable would be a danger to not only the contractors, it potentially could jeopardize the existing house.

And so it probably is not an appropriate action as it relates to the improvements.

There could be slippage off of the slope, depending on how the construction is anchored and all of the other things.

And so we don't want to create a greater hazard.

Build it on the flatter portion of the site, which just happens to be in this instance forward.

And so, you know, this is a grant of privilege, as is any variance, and I think that that's the takeaway here.

You have to balance the five criteria against what's being granted.

And as Mr.

Crockett laid out here, uh I would tend to agree that the points that were raised from a staff perspective are accurate.

Uh, and we would generally, not that Mr.

Crockett didn't parrot my report, but um that they are appropriate, and I I think they are worth the consideration.

Um we are creating uh nothing that would otherwise be allowed.

Single family housing, along with every other style of residential development, is allowed in the MN district.

So too, then, are all of the accessory structures that are allowed in the MN district, but they must conform to our dimensional requirements, meaning you can't put it forward of the house.

It can't be greater than 50 percent of the primary structure.

All of the boxes, with the exception of being forward to the principal house, have been checked.

It meets all of our setback requirements.

It meets the maximum coverage of the lot when compared to the primary dwelling unit that is on the property.

So we're not offering an opportunity to introduce something that would otherwise not be allowed, and we are not altering a portion of the definition to accommodate this.

Um the comprehensive plan identifies this property as being in a commercial node.

So the first thing that jumps off the page at this is a staff is this is a complete disconnect from what the comprehensive plan even envisioned for this particular area.

However, as Mr.

Crockett has pointed out, and I think as we have observed, this is at the end of a dead-end street that has no hope at this point, at least probably in my lifetime, that we're ever going to have a bridge that crosses the creek to connect north and south, Bluff Creek Drive.

The conditions that are here have been here for decades.

They will likely be here for decades to come.

This house is not going anywhere.

It's a significant investment, and I would tell you that redevelopment around the house is probably more likely than redevelopment of the residential lot.

You will not find a 2.6-acre lot perched on top of the creek with these amenities probably associated with it within the City of Columbia.

It is a unique unicorn style property.

Um we can't say that it's inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, because the comprehensive plan never envisions somebody underutilizing a parcel of this nature, but it has been underutilized.

Um, but you're not going to come and tear a structure down to go maximize it used to MN.

It is just not needed.

As it relates to the efficiency of the variance being really the only reasonable option, uh as we often speak to you, yes, plan district is always a possibility.

Plan district has a great deal of uncertainty.

The Board of Adjustments purview is to take unique situations and render recommendations on them based on the facts that have been presented.

We would not support a plan district.

It does not fulfill the general objectives.

We would not support probably a variance in the development prohibitions against developing on slopes greater than 25 percent.

There is a very, very solid engineering principle behind that.

So going in any other direction is probably leading to a no right out of the gate.

We have evaluated and we believe that other criteria here support this, and we believe the testimony that's been given hopefully is compelling for you to review.

And finally, our last criterion is this going to be uh harming the public health safety, welfare, or be a detriment to the surrounding development.

Again, this is the only residential property as Mr.

Crockett's map showed within approximately 750 feet.

It is likely going to be the only single-family residential development because the R1 that is at the south of this property is owned by the city.

It is all part of the grindstone trail.

It's part of our riparian corridor for the grindstone creek.

Uh it is equal almost on both sides.

And so uh there is no R1 development when and if development were to occur, which is a possibility, on the south side in the Bluff Creek subdivision, you still will not get down to the creek.

There is a buffer between the creek and whatever potential future development parcels exist.

So the separation of any actual R1 development, at least on the south, is going to be maintained in perpetuity, and there is no real availability to develop anything south of this property that could be negatively impacted.

This is a dead-end street that has almost no traffic on it.

The cul-de-sac was never fully completed.

Uh we have actually somebody has gone and they have emptied out a concrete truck at the end of the turnaround just past the driveway when I was out posting this property.

Uh there are a number of anomalies, and this is because the road is so isolated.

It's used to get to these to the Miller's property, and it has an access to the Miller Imaging Building that is up at the corner of uh Bluff Creek Boulevard and their connecting street, uh, the extension of Audubon Drive.

So with that, I don't have any additional comments to make.

I I think as I often close our reports, um we don't make recommendations.

We provide you the facts that surround the application.

The testimony should speak for itself, but if you have questions, I'm more than happy to answer them.

Yes, I add one.

So did I hear you say that the R1 lot to the south of the site is uh belongs to the city?

That is correct.

Okay.

Okay.

So access is not important since it would be.

No.

And so I we do have a trail access.

And I think what we need to make very clear is that trail access uh to the Grindstone Creek Trail, which is at the end of our current public street, Bluff Creek Drive, is not going to be at all impacted by this.

The public's access to the public trail will remain intact, unimpeded by this.

All of the proposed construction is fully on the applicant's property.

There will be no uh off-burdening of any of the impacts of the proposed construction uh to outside the boundaries of the parcel.

We would not allow that.

We wouldn't, you know, they don't have a right to be on our property.

And they don't have a right to basically block public accesses that we either have easements for or are dedicated as public rights of way.

And there are any other questions.

Any additional comments from the person making application.

Okay, then we're closing the public hearing.

Comments of legal?

Uh yes, Madam Chair.

Uh first, although it might be slightly cumulative, I would like to introduce uh board's exhibits one, two, and three.

Exhibit one being certified copies of Chapter 29, Sections 1.11 definitions and rules of construction.

Uh Section 293.

Subsection II, use specific standards.

Um Chapter 29 Section 6.1 C Board of Adjustment.

Uh 29, Article 6, Section 3, Standard Regulatory Procedures, and Section 6.4 D2 Variances.

Exhibit 2 uh would be the staff report.

Exhibit 3 would be locator maps, variance application, denial letter, and correspondence.

And exhibit 3 would be public hearing advertisement, parties and interest notice, and parties and interest list to enter those into the record.

If the board accepts those.

Oh, I we accept.

Thank you.

And secondly, uh, although it might be cumulative, I think uh Mr.

Crockett stole my thunder.

The matter before you here is uh request for variance pursuant to Section 296.4 D2.

And as stated in that section, the Board may only approve an application for a variance if it determines that all of the filing criteria have been met.

A.

The variance is required to address practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships related to the shape, size, terrain, location, or other factors of the application site.

Those difficulties or hardships are not generally applicable to the property in the area and the difficulties or hardships were not created by the actions of the applicant.

B, the variance will not have the effect of permitting a use of land that is not indicated as a permitted or conditional use in Section 293.1 of the permitted use table in the zone district where the property is located, nor shall a variance be granted to modify a standard that operates as part of the definition of any use.

C, the variance will not permit a development that is inconsistent with the adopted comprehensive plan.

D, the variance is the least change from the requirements of this Chapter 29 uh necessary to relieve the difficulty or hardship, and finally, E, the variance will not harm the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to other property or improvements in the area where the property is located.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I mean I I've been driving by this piece of property for 14 years.

I mean, I know there's a house there because I know there's a house there, but you can't see it.

Um they put a pool in, you can't see the pool.

I mean, I I uh I think you know um A would be the of our of the criteria.

A would be the to me the most important on here in my mind, and I think I think that's been answered.

Um the rest of it will not affect I mean there will be no effect uh by them putting this in.

And we already know that we don't set precedent when we grant a variance, so it doesn't mean everybody gets to put a pool in front of their property just because we said that this particular one could.

So in my mind, it's it's kind of a no-brainer.

It's just my opinion on it.

Okay.

Uh any more discussion.

How about a motion?

I make a motion to approve.

Oh, the thing the a request of Caleb.

Is that what I'm saying?

I I can I if you would like, I will I will proffer the remote.

I'm making a motion and you fill in the blank.

So a motion is being made uh to approve uh variance request to 2710 Bluff Creek Boulevard to grant relief such that multiple accessory structures, a pool, a pool house, and a detached garage may be located forward of the principal dwelling on the property addressed, 2710 Bluff Creek Boulevard, which is specifically not permitted per section 29-3.

I I two III A of the Unified Development Code.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Yes, and so is Mr.

Minshew that made the first, and who did make the second on that?

Thank you, Ms.

Gaines.

Ms.

Rogers?

Yes.

Mr.

Sherman.

Yes.

Mr.

Minchu?

Yes.

Ms.

Olson?

Yes.

And Ms.

Gaines.

Yes.

Motion passes with a vote of five, so ordered by the board.

Second item.

Is that what we're doing?

That's correct, ma'am.

Okay.

A request of Caleb Colbert, attorney, on behalf of Lake Bradley LLC owners seeking approval to use cottage optional development standards on property addressed as 301 East Old Plank Road, so as to allow for development of an 18-lot cottage subdivision to the to be known as the old plank cottages as required by Section 29-6.4J of the unified development code.

Has the notice been properly advertised?

Yes, it has.

Yes, it was.

Have the parties in interest been notified?

Yes, they were.

Have there been any inquiries?

No, there have not.

Okay.

Will the person making application to the board please come forward and state their name and address, and the court reporter will swear you in?

Thank you.

Madam Chair, again, Caleb Colbert, attorney at 1203 West Broadway.

Doubly sworn.

All right.

Madam Chair, again, I'll uh start with distributing the exhibits.

Again, each uh packet should have four exhibits.

Uh exhibit one is the staff report, exhibit two would be the locator maps, exhibit three uh is our application and our correspondence.

Exhibit four uh would be the hearing ad and parties and interest list.

Um and madam chair, at this time I would offer exhibits one through four into the record.

Can you I'm sorry, what?

I would offer exhibits one through four into the record.

Okay.

No objection.

No objection.

Yeah, absolutely.

With that, I'll turn it over to Mr.

Crockett.

Members of the board before you I'm sorry, before you start, just for continuity's sake, we had Mr.

Colbert swear back in if you wouldn't mind doing the same for the Do you support the testimony you're about to give this evening.

I do.

Members of the board, Tim Crockett, Crockett Engineering 1000 West NIFO.

Uh unlike the last uh request was a uh was a variance request.

This one is a little bit different.

We're asking for uh optional uh design standards for a piece of property, uh which in this specific specific case we're asking for cottage design standards.

Uh we're looking at a 3.68 tra uh tract of land, which is currently zoned R2.

In the City of Columbia for us to, in order for us to come to the board and ask for cottage design standards, uh, we have to have a piece of property that is zoned R2.

And so this was uh annexed and zoned R2 here uh by the city in the last year or so, if I'm not mistaken.

Um, and so uh it's compliant uh with that uh with that requirement.

What we're proposing uh is about 17 single family residential homes in a cottage development.

We'll talk about cottage here in just a little bit.

And what we're asking again, we're requesting for optional uh cottage development standards uh per section 296.4 J of the UDC.

Um other than uh other once we shall we get uh design uh the cottage design standards, everything will be uh developed in accordance with the city regulations.

Uh so the question gets asked a lot of times are what are cottages?

And so they're individual single family residential structures, their homes on individual lots.

Uh it's just that the homes and the lots have a smaller footprint.

And so if you kind of look here, you can see that in this chart, we illustrate what the size of an R1 lot is, a standard R1 lot in the City of Columbia.

Uh and then we also look at what the R2 standard would be and then what the R2 cottage would allow us.

And then the last column is what we're asking for.

So just because we're asking for uh the R2 cottage design standards doesn't necessarily mean we're going to go down to those minimum standards.

Those standards are pretty small, um, and many times we find it difficult to be able to design down to those.

And so uh we are going to go smaller than the standard uh R1 or R2 lot, but don't necessarily have to go all the way to uh to the limit of the standard uh cottage uh standards.

Uh here's the location map of the piece of property.

Um you can see what's located off of Volplank Road, just each of east of Bethel.

Uh I can't recall if please forgive me the name of the church uh there to the west.

Uh they subdivided the property and then sold this property uh to my client.

Um you can kind of see the development that's around it.

It's kind of a mixed bag of different types of units.

Uh there's a lot of duplexes immediately to the east as well as the north.

Uh there's a lot of apartments in the area, there's uh townhouses, there's single family residential, uh, but the one thing that isn't out there is cottage development.

Uh here's zoomed out a little bit more.

You can kind of see uh the quite a bit of uh uh of higher density residential just to the north of us there.

This is a copy of the snippet of the preliminary plat.

Uh this project uh has gone through the planning zoning commission.

Uh this preliminary plant, the process is is we take a preliminary plat that shows what we're doing.

Well what we'd like to do, we'd uh we take that to planning zoning commission.

This was last Thursday, uh and the UN and the uh planning zoning commission approved the plelary plat uh unanimously.

Uh then the next step is is before that plelinary plat goes to council, we come to this board uh to seek the uh the cottage standard requirement uh that we're asking for.

And if we get that, then we can take the plumber plat to the city council.

So this is uh what we're looking for as far as uh as far as the development goes, uh single uh public street uh with individual lots uh for development.

Uh just there's going to be narrower, smaller homes, uh try to hit a smaller price point.

Uh so what is the purpose again is to provide a smaller pocket, uh small lot cottage style homes to develop in conjunction with the surrounding areas while maintaining density uh to use the current UDC to develop a track to its best use.

Now it is zoned R2, it is zoned for duplexes, and if we were to take that same street and put duplex lots on it, we could get a higher density.

Uh that's not what the owner wants to do.

Uh we have about 17 single family residential lots uh that they want to put on this property.

If they did duplexes, they could get probably 24, maybe 26 uh units uh on this property.

So a substantial increase in density, but that's not the intent.

Uh we believe there's enough duplexes in the area.

My client believes there's enough duplexes in the area.

Uh their desire is to build small single family houses.

Again, this is kind of gives just a representation.

These aren't exactly what's going to be built, but just gives you giving an idea of what smaller cottage looks like.

Like the last request that had additional criteria, so does this process.

And so additional criteria here is the use of a di uh of optional development standards is consistent with the intended character of the area as shown and described in the city's adopted comprehensive plan.

Well, the city's comp plan calls for this area to be residential.

This area is a mix of different residential uses.

The comp plan also talks about livable and sustainable neighborhoods with diverse and inclusive housing options, meaning we have a bunch of different housing options.

We think that that makes for uh you know for a vibrant and uh sustainable area when we have different types of housing in the same area, and that's exactly what we have here.

Um it provides a good land use growth management by providing a compact development located in and around existing infrastructure.

There's sewer, there's water, there's roads, uh, existing infrastructure is here to serve this development, and so uh all of that is is compliant, and then it encourages integrated rent residential densification, meaning we want to take these pockets and increase the density where we can uh where it's appropriate.

The next item is the land use or excuse me, the use of of optional development standards will provide adequate off-street parking for the permitted uses available in the in the zoning district where the property is located and will not result in significant increase in off-site parking uh on sections of local neighborhood streets, other than those immediately fronting the applicant's property.

Well, we are building that street, and it is on our property, and we're building it uh to City of Columbia design standards.

So it's gonna be a 28-foot wide street, we'll have driveways on it, we'll have parking on it.

But more importantly, each individual lot will have the required off-street parking.

So we'll have parking in driveways and garages to serve each individual house, like you do in a residential safe or any other residential neighborhood.

Uh so it's no different than if this was a duplex development, whether it was an R1 development, uh, we're still going to provide those same parking standards.

So we adhere to this uh to that criteria.

Uh then the next one is the use of optional development standards will not create additional traffic congestion or risks to the public health and safety in the surrounding areas.

Again, uh it's uh already a highly uh developed area.

The amount of traffic that we're going to put on it is going to be minimal.

It's 17 single family houses.

Compare that to by right what we have with a duplex development, and again, increased development by possibly 50 percent.

Uh we believe that development in this fashion will actually decrease the traffic, but what we can put on it if it were to be developed under the current zoning regulations that it has.

And so uh, and again, we will add uh sidewalks in the area as well.

That's not really stated with regards to the traffic congestion, but it is a point to consider because uh old plank doesn't have many sidewalks on it, but as properties like this develop, they're becoming more and more.

Uh we're about one property away.

If this property were developed, build sidewalks, we're about one property away before we tie into the sidewalk network to the north, which would go to schools, parks, uh, and all of that to the north.

So we're we're pretty close, and that's how the sidewalk network gets built one piece at a time.

Um this development is no different than similar type developments that have been approved before, whether through the PD process or through through this very uh same process, Corinthian cottages, Amberson Place, North Ridge, Evergreen.

There's been several of these that were been done in the city of Columbia in the last several years.

So in conclusion, the development is appropriate for the area.

We believe that the density fits within this area as well.

Um all city development standards will be met.

Um so we're not asking for any variances.

The development is supported uh by Columbia Imagined.

Um we believe that it's supported by city staff, even though they don't necessarily come out with that.

Uh they did support our preliminary plat as it went through the process.

Uh and then again, the city planning zoning unanimously supported uh the preliminary plat.

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

Talk about the one lot that will be devoted to yes, ma'am.

Yeah, so in the city of Columbia, we have to uh we have stormwater standards that we have to adhere to.

So there's two parts to those stormwater regulations.

There's water quality and there's water quantity.

So we have to cleanse our water, and we have to detain it and hold it back.

And so typically what we have is we have just a uh you've seen them all over town.

They're a small basin uh that's put in, our stormwater goes into it, it holds it back over a period of time and releases it slowly into uh into the restrieving uh receiving waterway.

And so, in order to do that, we go to the low point of the lot, we create that basin, it's gonna be basically mowed and manicured, and it'll look uh you know look like a yard.

Um, but that's what it'll be for.

It'll be owned by the homeowners association.

Uh there has to be yearly inspections that have to be performed uh for the city of Columbia to make sure it's maintained and uh operating properly.

Um assess any might have to the surrounding areas.

Um when we look at that, uh we look at okay.

Do we have you know, do are we gonna take away any water resources?

No, there's no water.

Um do they have capacities in Sanitary Sewer?

Yes, we've talked to the sewer desk.

This is a little unique.

Um we will actually be sewer district customers that discharge into the city per in a previous agreement between the city and the sewer district.

So um we have sewer capacity, we have electric capacity.

Um traffic engineers have reviewed it, and we have traffic capacity, and so um that's what we look for is just what kind of what kind of impacts are we going to have, and can we uh do we have availability in those uh in those resources and and state staff says we do.

Have you determined the location of that one particular lot?

Uh yes, ma'am.

I'm I'm sorry, before Mr.

Crocker, before you answer that, can you uh our court reporter can't hear the question if you use your mic so we can get it on the record.

Thank you.

Um do I need to re if you could re restate the question so we can get it on the on the record, yes, please.

So can you um identify the lot that we'll be using that you'll be using for the stormwater?

Yeah, it's don't it's noted, I believe noted as C1.

It's this lot right here.

So it's no it's noted it's noted as a C1, which is a common lot, which means that it's be owned owned by the homeowners association, and we've identified that for stormwater purposes.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else want to speak in favor of the application?

Anyone is one want to speak in opposition of the application.

I live right up just my name's Dave Forward.

Yeah, we need uh need to swear you in than name and address for the record.

Do you see?

I live at the street at 310 east old plant road.

I'm sorry, did we get your name and address as well?

David Forward 310 East Old Plants Road.

When the church was developing and the R2 was assigned, there was gonna be duplexes there, and I made my concerns at that point.

I my point was is that that's coming down a hill, and even though the posted speed limit is 35, people are not going that way.

The development off to the south.

There's it rises up this way, this hill comes down this way, and that drive that is gonna be coming up to this new development.

I have my concerns with that.

I haven't seen the plat.

I haven't seen any of that.

Um but my concerns back then was like my concerns when they developed the property right across from us, is that they said they were making parking for the duplexes that are up there, that everybody was gonna park in those parking lots, and there was there wasn't gonna be anybody on those roads parking on the side of the road.

So they only made it 26 feet wide.

You can't get a fire truck through there when you have two cars associated with that.

Now they said they had 28 feet wide, is that right?

Again, I don't know how this is all gonna be situated, but again, they said they're gonna have off parking and whatever.

I don't know if this is gonna be for students or anything else.

I don't know what it's gonna be used for.

It's just the traffic is gonna be on those roads and it's gonna be parked, and I don't know if a 28-foot wide road is gonna be big enough for a fire truck to get in there.

I don't again, I have not seen the plat.

I don't know if there's a 96-foot cul-de-sac.

Is there some my concerns were how you're gonna get something in there when the road narrows?

And wherever there's a fire hydrant, they're supposed to allow no one's supposed to park around that or anything else.

I don't know how often the fire hydrant is gonna be.

Um so that's my concerns.

The other thing is is the traffic.

I again, if somebody's slowing down to turn and they're coming off this hill, they don't really show the terrain very good on that plaid, but it comes down pretty quick.

I'm concerned with that.

The line of sight that I was concerned with that.

Oh I that's my concerns.

I I have a hard enough time trying to get to my mailbox.

Which is across the road from me.

I feel like it's I'm a froger, you know, because there's people zooming and they're not adhering to the 35 miles an hour.

So by putting more traffic on one side and more traffic on I just see a problems.

So that's my concerns.

Again, I have not seen the plat.

Sir, you'll have to speak into the mic.

We need to have you on the record.

I like the 96.

I don't know about the 28.

Like I said, when you put two cars on each side, will the 20-foot truck get through?

And that's my concern.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Pat Forward, Dave's wife, and I live at 310 East Oplank Road.

Um where we live.

That development is going to be right across the road here.

We already have the other subdivision that comes out right here.

We have had, we just had another wreck at our house.

Zooming down the road.

Somebody pulled out and he came up and he hit our utility pole in our front yard.

I mean, it is it's a bad place.

And as far as sidewalks, there's one.

And it's the one that Jehovah's Witness put in voluntarily.

That's the only sidewalk on Oplank Road.

There is school buses coming down from Rockbridge Elementary.

They stop at Mont.

They stop at Tony.

There's kids that get off and run down to Tessa, which is that this road, no sidewalk.

It's dangerous.

There, I have a daycare, and there's teachers.

I have teachers that go to Rockbridge and they talk all the time about those kids out on the road.

And the traffic is bad now.

It is, it's and it's fast, it's bad, there's nobody monitoring it.

They come out of, they pull out of the falls and make a right.

I mean, it's just like Dave said, you gotta just to get to our mailbox is dangerous.

And you have these kids on the road.

So sidewalks are a big concern mine.

Um there's so many kids that live on that road.

Something's gonna happen.

And 17 cars, you know, you're talking more like 34.

Everybody, I mean, there's gonna be, and to think they're gonna, like Dave said, when they come out, our mailbox sits here.

It's like this, right?

I have parents that have trouble getting up that little incline when it's I seat just to pull into our drive.

And and that is exactly where that road's gonna come out at.

It's I am I I hope everybody went out and looked at it.

I know you guys did, but it is it's I really was hoping it was gonna come off Bethel.

I hope there was gonna be some way that they could that road could come off Bethel, but it's you're just putting a whole bunch of in and off Oplank in a very small area.

It's concerns me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Staff comments.

So as Mr.

Crockett has pointed out, this is a request for optional development standards approval.

Uh the planning and zoning commission did consider the technical merits of the preliminary platforms.

Um when we consider a preliminary plat, it is reviewed uh for not only technical technical compliance uh with all of our development code standards.

Uh our city's traffic engineer is evaluating this.

Um, and at that time, should there be warranted a necessity for a traffic study uh that would address potential traffic or safety-related issues, uh, that would have been commissioned.

Uh, this is a 17-lot single family development.

It does not generate more than a hundred trips in the peak hour.

Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of the city's unified development code, it does not warrant a traffic study.

Um the distance in the spacing from intersections of surrounding streets uh will be verified.

Site distances from intersections will be verified as a part of the final planning process with the submission of actual construction drawings.

Um the proposed street within this development is compliant with a 50-foot wide road right-of-way for a residential street.

Standard residential street pavement width in all of our city streets is 28 feet.

As raised during the Planning and Zoning Commission, there is a concern as it relates to a 28-foot cross-section of paving and having two-sided street parking.

That is an issue that can be governed by our public works department to restrict parking to a single side of the street to ensure that the fire code minimum of a 20-foot ingress egress is maintained at all times.

That will be coordinated between our city's traffic engineer and our city's fire service as it relates to the specific impacts that this development creates upon build out.

As Mr.

Crockett made in a public record statement as it related to this preliminary plat, 28-foot streets exist within the city in almost every single subdivision.

Two-sided street parking has never impeded, generally, the fire service's ability to access historical subdivisions that we have.

In 2017, when we did adopt the Unified Development Code, we adopted new provisions in the International Fire Code, which increased cul-de-sac widths from 76 feet of paved surface to 96 feet.

This particular subdivision complies with that.

More recently, with our cottage standards, there have been certain instances in where restrictions to one-sided street parking on smaller streets, typically less than 28 feet, have been implemented.

The Planning Commission was made aware of this.

They were asked if they felt that that was an appropriate restriction with this subdivision plat.

They did not see that as an appropriate supplemental condition that would have been denoted on the document as a developer imposed restriction.

That does not mean, however, that should circumstances warrant it after construction, it cannot be imposed by the city's traffic engineer.

This is a city public street.

We control all traffic movement on it.

We control the location of driveway approaches.

We control all of the design of driveway approaches.

That's not only to the individual internal street, that is to the external street that will connect to East East Bethel or East Old Plank.

So I I understand and I'm sympathetic to the forward's concerns as it relates to the placement of an access driveway, it is centered in this property, which is more centered to their to the west of their western property line.

But that is going to be subject to ensuring that we have adequate site distances due to the vertical potential curvature that is here with this roadway.

And again, as much as it may not be solace to you as a board or to the forwards, that is an issue that is managed through our design, our very specific design review process for engineering plan approval.

If it doesn't meet it, it's not going to get approved.

And it could result in that stormwater feature needing to be moved further to the east on the property and the driveway being moved further the shared property line between the church's parking lot, which is where there is a driveway access today, and the subject site.

All of that will be determined at final design.

And so while what is proposed on the preliminary plat is just that, it is preliminary.

We will evaluate a variety of other factors to ensure that all public safety-related features, including the adequacy of the stormwater, the adequacy of the design of our connections to the sewer, water, electric, all of those are dealt with at the time of final plating of this property.

So this is a little bit of a different process because this property was already zoned.

So normally what we end up going through on most of our cottage developments is they are not zoned R2.

This particular property was not inside the city's corporate limits.

The Bethel Baptist Church was actually a agriculturally or RS owned parcel in the county until it became zoned and annexed R2 to the City of Columbia.

It has a deficient, noncompliant sanitary sewer connection that is being eliminated by this action.

That was a requirement of the connection agreement that Mr.

Crockett referenced.

And as such, the conditions that exist with the existing church property are existing.

We are not going to potentially exacerbate that through a future subdivision plat regardless.

The connectivity of sidewalk within this particular area as well as the upgrading of East and Old Plank Road, those are future capital projects that the city will have to take under advisement.

We have seen a lot of development off of the Old Plank corridor.

And we have, and we are aware as a city that we have pronounced traffic related concerns that have been expressed as each of these new developments have come along.

Functional classification of a roadway, what it may be labeled as, is not necessarily what it is presently designed for.

It is the functional classification of how many trips that road can handle, and the classification that a road is given is based upon what it is intended to become over time.

And so, as a collector, you would have a larger cross section of pavement.

Our standards do not require applicants unless mandated by a traffic study where there are warrants to improve existing substandard right of way, which is what we would consider old plank.

It does not have curb gutter, it does not have sidewalk, and it is potentially deficient in pavement width.

Those are all the curb gutter issue and sidewalk will be addressed as part of this development.

Pavement width will be addressed as a capital project that will come in the future that is a city obligation that is cost shared across the entire community.

That's why it is a capital project.

The developer, however, would be required to grant right of way, which is their contribution to ensuring that we have adequate right of way in which to place the appropriate sized road in this road cross section.

All of those factors have been taken into account as we've gone through the plating process of the property immediately to the south, that is the Bethel Falls duplex project, and then, of course, now with what is to the north, Tessaway, NICKI, the development that is off of Tony, all of that is in the county.

It is outside the city's control.

The Jehovah Witnesses site was not voluntarily installing sidewalk, they were required to do that as part of their annexation and construction of their new facility.

And that is a standard city requirement.

You place sidewalk one foot inside the public right-of-way, and you have met your obligation to obtain a building permit.

So that addresses some of the technical plating related issues, and that is not what is before the board.

The board's role here at this point is to not evaluate did the plat meet the technical requirements.

That is the Planning Commission's purview, and that is the City Council's purview.

The item before the board this evening is determining is the use of cottage development standards consistent with the three criteria that are outlined within 29-4.6.4J.

And what I would tell you is these site characteristics as described by Mr.

Crockett and as described within the staff report are accurate.

This is a mixed-use environment with mixed residential housing topologies.

The one housing topology that it is missing is totach single family in this immediate vicinity.

There is opportunity surrounding this property for that to occur, but it is yet to have happened.

The R2 zoning district allows a wide berth of residential product types, from single family detached on a 5,000 square foot lot to a single family detached on a 3,000 square foot cottage lot per this approval process.

It also allows 3,500 square foot lots for attached single family by right, and it allows a 7,000 square foot duplex.

What you have noted and what Mr.

Crockett outlined in his table is that the lots generally in the proposed development are going to be roughly a thousand square feet smaller than a standard single-family lot in the R2.

Ostensibly, what is being asked for here and why the cottage standards are requested is the reduction in the lot width.

And standard lot width in the R2 zoning district is a 60-foot-wide lot with 25-foot front, 25-foot rear, and six-foot side yard setbacks.

And so the cottage standard will allow a reduction in the rear yard, which Mr.

Crockett's proposal is not suggesting that they would like to take advantage of.

They are actually doubling the standard 10-foot rear yard setback, and they are accommodating a 20-foot front yard setback, which is not required if you will have a garage or is required when you have a garage.

If there was no garage associated with these structures, the structures could be 10 feet from the property line.

So what we are being assured of is there will be no structure, a garage, a portion of the home, in the required space that it's necessary to accommodate a parked vehicle.

And as a result of that, and as a result of the half a dozen, almost nine projects that we have seen developed or in development within the City of Columbia related to cottage style, you have adequate, compliant, code compliant parking for a single family residence.

Here is the honest and ugly truth.

For a duplex unit that is four bedrooms on either side of a commonly shared wall, you are only required to have two parking spaces by the Unified Development Code.

So when you have four renters that have four vehicles, you are wrought to have the possibility of having on-street parking, and that is what we see in other surrounding areas.

It is a different style of housing that is in these surrounding areas.

This is a single family product built on a smaller footprint, trying to potentially attract a different market segment.

We cannot guarantee that that market segment will not be a college student.

And we will never be able to guarantee that.

That is not within the purview of the zoning ordinance.

We can't restrict the availability of housing.

What we can tell you is this is a single-family home.

If a two-car garage is built, you're going to have your required two parking spaces.

And because you have a 20-foot front yard setback, you're going to be guaranteed to have two more.

And so if you have four people living in this R2 structure, which is what the maximum allowed unrelated occupancy is, you have enough parking on site to accommodate that.

Now, as has been brought up, a 28-foot paved section of street may or may not be restricted.

At this point, the Planning and Zoning Commission, in their review, did not require that to be an added criterion.

What I would suggest to the forwards is that they can go and they can, as a part of the council approval process, consideration of the preliminary plat, they could request that that be considered as a part of that approval.

When we deal with cottage-style housing, and why often these are sought is to reduce the infrastructure costs, allowing more lots to be created per linear foot of frontage, thereby reducing the individual cost that is often passed through to an end buyer.

Now, where Lake Bradley may choose to sell these properties, they may choose to retain them and rent them.

The idea is as you are reducing the cost.

The reduction in cost can at times be passed on to the end user, either a buyer or a tenant.

And so the concept behind using cottage style is really to try to create enhancements to the density, because we're allowing more homes along a particular 100-foot street segment, for example, as well as we are reducing the linear cost of infrastructure, water, sewer, electric roads, and you're getting more lots for that same linear footage versus a 60-foot-wide lot.

So you're probably gaining a lot to a lot and a half every 200 200 feet of road.

And so that's part of why you have cottage being sought.

It is consistent with our comprehensive plan.

It is consistent with the housing study that was completed in 2024.

So the style of development is not inconsistent with any of our adopted documents.

The idea of something that's more compact, that is maybe a slightly smaller footprint than what may be around it, and just the nature of it being different, but maybe similar to uses that are in the environment, I think is what we often see as concerns.

Again, not like any other subdivision that would be developed in the City of Columbia, this is required to meet all of the City of Columbia's development standards.

Part of the annexation process automatically mandated that.

That's not to mean, and that's not to imply that the city's development requirements are less strenuous.

We have more tools in the tool chest.

We have more means by which to address and to ensure that the needs and the safety of our residents are dealt with, but in sometimes more practical and pragmatic ways.

The county is very linear in its regulations, generally, dogmatic would be the term that I would use often.

They are becoming a little bit more flexible.

The applicant, the church understood that that was the challenge.

We spent almost six to nine months working this annexation process out.

All of the challenges that have been put forward tonight were understood.

The design engineer that actually processed the annexation request and the permanent zoning was not Crockett.

They were hired by the Lake Broadway LLC, or like Bradley LLC.

So when we look at the criteria for compliance, it's in a residential zoning district, fully compliant with our city's future land use plan, it is fully compliant with our housing studies objectives, uh, and the optional development standards are permitting a use that would basically be integrating into the immediate surroundings, actually, probably at a less intense land use than what is already out there.

And so this is viewed as something that is opening up an opportunity.

And while Mr.

Crockett didn't really chime on it within this presentation, but did make the comment during our planning and zoning commission, this property is within proximity of many amenities within the city, which again, when you take a project that often utilizes smaller lots, the outlet for families to be able to get to public parks to be able to have access to nearby schools and other facilities, this particular property checks a lot of those boxes.

We can go up to Bethel, uh Cosmo Bethel Park, you can get to Gentry Middle School, you can get to New Haven uh elementary, you can get to Rockbridge High School, and you have all of the facilities associated with that.

And while this area is growing, so is much of our southern portion and southern tier of the county.

And so we are having to deal with those growing pains.

Unfortunately, they are pains.

But we are aware and we are looking at ways of resolving them.

And we do, through the planning process, address them in accordance to our current regulations.

As it relates to our second criteria, authorization to utilize the optional development standards as stated in the staff report, doesn't relieve the applicant of meeting any of our applicable development standards.

They have to meet them just like any other residential subdivision that would be being developed with our standard dimensional requirements.

This is an option that comes before the board to be weighed.

Is it appropriate in this context?

And are you confident that based on where it is located, what it would be facilitating, it will succeed in meeting the goals and the objectives of our comprehensive land use plan and other community-wide goals and objectives.

And finally, is the authorization of the optional development standards, well, finally, the authorization of the optional development standards isn't any, isn't unlike any other development within this location.

Yes, it may increase the amount of traffic, but our traffic engineer through his assessment of the preliminary plat did not determine that it was going to exceed the capacities of the adjoining roadways.

Um a comprehensive review of that preliminary plat before it went to our planning and zoning commission, which is a six-week process across 13 different city departments, did not identify any issues associated with this property, not being otherwise compliant.

Mr.

Crockett has been on the receiving end of scathing comments, not scathing, but quite significant comments on development projects that he has submitted that just missed the mark.

We have to go back and we have to do traffic studies.

This was one of these projects that was remarkably, and based on its scale, based on what it is proposing, with very limited comments.

And that shows you that the issues that we would typically see with the development that may be in an environment of this nature were significantly less than what we would have, and that has a lot to do with the type of density and the type of land use that is being proposed.

If this was a multifamily project, I guarantee you we would have had different comments.

If this was a duplex project, we probably would have had more comments.

And there may have been triggers as it related to upgrades.

And I think at that point, many of the forwards' concerns may have been more adequately addressed.

This is this is ostensibly residential homes, seventeen of them.

There is going to be increase in traffic, but any development with this area will be an increase in traffic if it's R1 or if it's cottage.

The lot size really does not matter.

The lot size does control how many additional dwelling units, but when you look at the difference between what a typical R2 single-family detached product would produce, there's a 1,000 square foot difference, but there is a 22-foot difference in the lot width.

We go from a 60-foot-wide lot in R2 to a 38-foot-wide lot in the cottage.

And that 38-foot-wide lot allows a better yield than an R2 and a far better yield than the R1.

And in this particular environment, given the surrounding land use conditions, mostly of RMF or PUD development, this particular project is consistent with its surrounding land use context and would otherwise be supported by other applicable documents that we have adopted.

That is all I have to offer.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

I have a question with from Mr.

Crockett.

I'd like to a clarification, because I did go out and look at the property, and I was concerned about traffic on Old Planck Road.

But your retention pond is directly would be the west side of that is to the parking lot of the church, correct?

Crockett Engineering 1000 Western iPhone.

Okay, so I just want to the retention pond is connected to the church parking lot.

I mean the boundary there is on the adjacent to each other.

Yes.

Yes.

And then so and the lot number one is in the back of that side parking for the church.

Correct.

Lot number one.

Yeah, lot number one, sorry.

And so what I'm saying is then the church is connected to this side yard or this side parking.

And on the west side of the church is a stop sign on Old Planck Road.

Right next to the church.

Yes.

Okay.

So I I think you have addressed the within the subdivision itself, but to in my mind, I just wanted to make sure that I understood.

People have got to stop at that stop sign unless they are running it.

So if they're going up and down Old Planck Road unless they are racing.

I just wanted to point out it's within a block of the full stop.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I just wanted to make sure I think Mr.

Cocky, do you have anything additional to add or to address the forwards?

Yes.

Yeah, yeah.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

So as Mr.

Zinner indicated, when when the preliminary plat is submitted, and again, what is before this board tonight is the optional design standards, not the preliminary plat itself, but I would like to address a few, you know, a few comments there.

With regards to a fire access, uh Mr.

Zinner indicated, I believe there is 13 city departments that review a preliminary plat when we submit it.

And so one of those city departments is the fire marshal.

And so they look at it and say, can we meet the fire code?

Does this meet the standards?

Does it meet the fire code appendix D of the fire code?

Hence the reason for the large cul-de-sac bowl, but at the end of it, yes, it does.

Um it's fully compliant with the fire code.

They have reviewed it and they have approved it.

They understand it is 28-foot wide, they understand our lot widths, they understand uh the the width of the street uh that conforms to city standard, whether it is any other residential neighborhood, you're gonna have a 28-foot wide street.

As Mr.

as Mr.

Zinner indicated, um, should there be an issue out there at any time, the city can go out there and restrict parking on that street.

That's a public street.

So just because my client builds it and develops and builds the houses and they park on the street, doesn't mean that the city can't come in later and prohibit parking on that street if there is an issue with fire access.

Uh with regards to uh access coming in and site distance, uh, Mr.

Zenner is exactly right.

Uh our design plans will be submitted to the city.

Uh the city traffic engineer has reviewed this location and he feels that it is adequate.

Uh but we're also going to have to provide additional information at the time of final design uh to to illustrate that.

And so if it doesn't meet the city requirement, he is going to force us into it before they approve it.

So uh there's there there's checks and balances here.

Uh there's certainly ways that the city can enforce uh all these uh all these concerns, and there are additional sidewalks out here.

Um I know that the the Jehovah Witness has sidewalk, but then the large development that is immediately to the south of us has sidewalks as well.

So as development happens out here, this is how our sidewalk network, our sidewalk network gets built in Columbia is development at a time.

And so this project would be no different.

They will build the sidewalks that are adjacent to this uh uh to this roadway, um, and that's how it gets built.

Uh unfortunately they all don't get built at one time.

And so uh this will do its part.

So just were you saying that the Columbia townhome south, the the the the that's directly across from Old East Old Planck has a sidewalk.

The development, I think it's called uh Bethel Falls, if I'm not mistaken.

I can't recall.

Is that where Tessa Way is?

Uh no, I think I think that's I think that's the the I think I think that might be county further to the east.

Uh Mr.

Mitchell, I am referring to the one that is directly to the south, uh two plexes to the south of the townhome to the south uh that has sidewalk.

And so does the the uh you said the Jehovah's Witness put a sidewalk, put a there is a sidewalk there, I can see it.

Right.

And I believe there is also a sidewalk on the if I'm not mistaken, on the property that is straight south of us on the other side of uh of Old Plank.

And is there a sidewalk on the forward property?

I I would I'm I can't speak to that, but I would I would say probably not.

No sidewalk there.

Okay.

Sidewalks are pretty fragmented.

Right, yes, that they are.

Yeah.

I think that's uh that's just going to be a characteristic of that area right there, could say and we're going to get more as it develops through here.

And again, um, you know, so could you could you excuse you, could you answer another question just or theoretically, maybe uh ideally with what you are proposing to the cottage development or cottage usage.

Um ideally you would probably end up with less cars than if you put in all duplexes.

Correct.

Uh I would say on other cottage developments that we have done, we're seeing that the tenants or the buyers are young professionals, retirees, um, single parent households.

Um, you know, so we're seeing more of a you know less usage of of of no less cars being used in, say, as Mr.

Zinner indicated, a three or four-bedroom duplex that rents to three or four different individuals that all have a car.

Right.

We're not seeing that in most of our, or we're not seeing that any of our uh cottage developments.

Now I'm not saying you may not have one like that.

Sure.

But but by and large, what you are seeing is more family units, or you're seeing smaller families, or you're seeing you know, something along those lines, you know, uh uh a single uh young professional, something like that that has you know a need for a smaller home uh that's gonna use you know less vehicles.

Sure.

So and then the last question, um, and maybe you can't speak for the for the uh owners, but um if this doesn't get approved, if the if the variance isn't allowed for the cottage development, they're gonna use it, they're gonna develop this somehow.

My client owns the property.

And typically, and what I when I say that because many times I come before you because I represent a contract purchaser.

And part of their due diligence and part of their process is is I want to get my entitlements done before I close on the property, meaning I want to make sure I can do what I want to do.

If I can't, then I don't want to purchase the property.

In this case, my client owns the property.

I don't want to say what they are going to do or what they're not going to do with it, but if we can't get cottage development approved, it is zoned R2 for duplexes.

Right.

So that was my point, is that we're not dealing with if we say no to this, then it just stays we just keep mowing the grass and there's no.

Something will be done.

Yeah, they purchased it to be a good thing.

And I'm yes, I would assume that they will do something with it.

I don't want to take that as a I I could have mentioned that earlier.

I didn't want to mention that, but I I don't want to use that as a threat, because that's certainly not the case of the mind amount of rental property that's around that, because everything that backs up to that property right there everything backs up to it is already duplexes, older duplexes, and so we would fit in with that.

You would be uh creating some variety, if you will.

Right in the correct area of the city.

This is one thing that's not in this area is is cottage is cottage homes.

We have got R1, we have got duplexes, we have got townhouses, you have got apartments further north.

This is one of the different types of units that is just not uh not being provided in that area.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

Any more comments before we close the public hearing?

Just for the purposes of clarity as it relates to where our municipal boundary is and where the county boundary is.

Tessa Way is inside the City of Columbia, so the development on both sides of Tessa is city.

Once you get to Tony Street, which is immediately to the east of Tessa, that is all county jurisdiction, all the way out to South Providence 163.

And so this is a very spotty area where we do have city, county property, north and south of East Old Plank.

The forward's property is inside the county, and therefore the county does not have and has not had the same sidewalk standards that the City of Columbia has had with complete street construction and variety of other things.

But given the non-presence of sidewalk along the old plank frontage, uh as well as along, if I am not incorrect, Tessa itself, and then it turns into NICKI to the north, it is possible that that development either was developed in the county, then annexed into the city, or it was developed in the city before we required sidewalks.

It's unlikely, I think, that it was developed before we required sidewalks.

We have required sidewalks to my knowledge since 1964.

That development doesn't look that old, though some may differ in their opinion of that.

So I think that I would venture to suggest if it had to be placed on a position of was it county before it became city, it was likely county.

And it took on city responsibilities because they wanted sanitary sewer.

And so again, part of this particular area is a little bit confused, so to speak, as it relates to intergovernmental territorial agreements with sewer service.

I just wanted to point that out as a clarity.

So you have a very, very hopscotch pattern of inside city, outside city, and that's what makes this environment unique.

Without the county stepping in and requiring their development being required to do that, those gaps will exist until at some point the necessity to rebuild East Old Plank becomes a reality.

And again, that could be through a joint uh it could be through a capital project of the city alone, it could be through a joint uh reconstruction project of the city of the county.

So at this point, we don't have any estimate of when that would occur or if it is even uh necessarily in the pipeline for consideration.

It's not what I can tell you is not a current capital project.

Okay.

Any other comments before the public hearing is closed?

Public hearing is closed.

Comments from LICAL?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh two matters.

First, uh like to introduce the board's exhibits one, two, and three.

Exhibit one being sections uh Chapter 29, Section 1.11, definitions and rules of construction, Section 2.2A, residential zoning districts and accompanying Table 2.3.

Section 3.3A, use specific standards, uh Section 4.1 dimensional summary table, including Table 4.1-1, uh Section 6.1 C, Board of Adjustment, Section 6.3, standard regulatory procedures, and Section 6.4J, optional development standards.

Exhibit two uh will be staff report, locator maps, uh, application and correspondence, and exhibit three, uh public hearing advertisement, parties and interest notice, and the parties in interest list.

Um request and move to have those uh admitted into uh into the record.

Yes.

Thank you.

Uh as a second matter, uh as Mr.

Crockett uh pointed out earlier, this is not a variance request, instead this is in fact a request for an approval of optional development standard uh pursuant to Section 296.4 J.

And pursuant to that section, the Board may approve an application for an optional development standards if it determines that all of the following criteria have been met.

First, the use of optional development standards is consistent with the intended character of the area as sh as shown and described in the city's adopted comprehensive plan.

Two, the use of the optional development standard will provide adequate off-street parking for the permitted uses available in the zone district where the property is located and will not result in significant off-site parking on sections of local neighborhood streets other than those immediately fronting the applicant's property.

And finally, uh the use of the optional development standard will not create additional traffic congestions or risk to public health safety in the surrounding area.

And that is all.

Thank you.

Comments from the board?

I just think for clarity.

They're the last um three for the criteria the the use of optional development standards will not create additional traffic congestion.

Um the development is going to create additional traffic development.

The use of the optional development standard will not create additional.

So I think it meets that.

I just think that's worth clarifying because we talked about traffic and and um so.

So that's what's what I was unclear on, and I was going to ask for an understanding, a better understanding.

So my understanding is currently parts two and three not been established.

I am sorry if we could get you to use the microphone again.

So the remote.

And so I'm just hung up on those particular items based on what has been presented.

And also because it's going to take additional work to get to the final plan.

And for the city, I think Zinner said will establish whether or not there it would be an increase in traffic and so forth.

And so I have the understanding of that I think it's too premature for us to make a decision on Yay, yes, it actually satisfies all elements.

But I'm open to hearing.

I think as far as the traffic it's the optional, doing the optional uh cottage standards, uh does that uh does that make it worse than if you did the normal R2?

And it it's not going to make it worse.

It's in fact probably will improve it.

Is that correct?

Not to say that you have to.

So I think what Ms.

Gaines is asking is a chicken and an egg question.

The um and I hate to I I hate to try to simplify it that way, but in order for the applicant to proceed forward to be able to even have their development considered to use optional development standards, the board has to make a finding that the criteria that is outlined here in these three criteria are generally are met.

And I think to Mr.

Sharp's point, in what we would say is any development of this property from a field will generate traffic impacts.

Will those traffic impacts be greater as a part of the optional development standards versus what the zoning entitlement is on this property?

I would think Mr.

Sharp's assessment is correct.

This is the least impactful of all uses aside from single family residential in the R2 zoning district, and therefore the impact will be no greater than if this was developed as duplexes.

It will actually be less.

Any development of any parcel inside the City of Columbia that is vacant today will create an impact.

It's really what is the intensity of that impact.

If this were our one-zone property being sought to be rezoned, we would evaluate that at a part of the land use change decision.

And that would be evaluated against what is the capacity of East Old Plank Road today, given the geometry of that roadway, given the number of dwelling units that would be being proposed on that vacant tract of land.

R1, when you look at the residential spectrum, R1 would be the least impactful.

RMF, which is our multifamily zone, developed with multifamily development, would be the most intense and the most impactful.

This is sandwiched right in the middle.

And therefore, when you look at residential, single family detached residential to single family detached residential in both R2 and R1, R2 and RMF.

The variation in the lot size really doesn't add to the amount of impact.

It's all single family residential, which generates based on the ITE trip generation manual manual or Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual, generally the same impacts via traffic.

And so I do believe that particular provision is satisfactorily addressed.

We're not creating that.

Now, as far as for the if that is the second criterion, the third criterion, the third criterion is dealing with the traffic impacts.

The second criterion, if we if I can have that red to me, I can't remember it right now off the top of my head.

It's the second criterion, which again, it's a chicken in the neck sort of.

Yeah, the off-street parking.

And I would tell you with what we've looked at with what the lot area is, with what is stated in the applicant's correspondence.

The size of the lot, the proposal, the two on-site parking spaces are going to be required regardless of what type of residential development that's either single-family or two-family is provided.

That is the minimum code requirement.

Multifamily is calculated differently.

Multifamily isn't even allowed on this property.

So you're going to be providing based on the scale of that lot, based on the historical evaluation of our other cottage standards, uh projects that have come through, this is no different in its general lot area and its capacity by which to hold parking.

I would further state to you that retaining a 20-foot front yard setback, the dimensional standards that are listed in their table, are what this cottage standard authorization would be subject to.

So that is another aspect.

You are you are authorizing something that is a 38-foot-wide lot.

And this is a strategy that the board can use.

You can look at that last column of the table that is in the applicant's correspondence, and you can say you're going to have nothing but a 4,000 square foot lot, it's going to be no less than 38 feet wide, it's going to have a 20-foot front yard setback, it's going to have 20-foot rear yard setbacks, and it's going to have six-foot side yard setbacks.

Those are the dimensional standards that we expect to see adhere to on a submitted final plat.

I can tell you without reservation that when you have a 20-foot front setback on a property, you have accommodation for no less than two parking spaces.

So the parking is being addressed based on the land use.

And so at that point, all other factors being considered equal, it is left up to our city traffic engineer in coordination with our fire service to choose to restrict parking on a 28-foot wide street, which as we have discussed, is a standard residential street pavement width in almost all of our single-family subdivisions.

Pre-2017, which is the UDC adoption date, and we often see that very similarly in single-family subdivisions that aren't seeking cottage.

So, you know, that would be a conventional residential subdivision with a 25-foot front yard, a 7,000 square foot minimum lot size.

We don't seemingly, and this is really what is unique, and I think our design professionals in the community have expressed this, as we've gone through the Planning Commission platting process, rezoning and platting, they have expressed frustration.

Why is a 28-foot wide street acceptable in every other style of development in the City of Columbia by the fire department?

But all of a sudden, when we suggest we're going to do a cottage lot, which is narrower and slightly smaller, it all of a sudden has become a problem.

And so again, the fire department has to, they have authorizations within their code that they administer as a part of our overall development process.

They have means, internally within their section of our development responsibilities, to be able to give consideration to certain circumstances that either will mandate a minimum of a 20-foot clear span, generally 18 feet is what they will arrive at.

And what I will tell you is we have commercial parking lots if they are one way.

A commercial parking lot that you still have to get a fire engine down, can have as minimum as a 12-foot-wide drive aisle.

So to require a 20-foot-wide travel surface is to accommodate the full outrigg of a fire engine, to stabilize that fire engine if it has a ladder on it.

But when you are trying to get to something that is a quint, a smaller truck to try to get to be first responder on-site, you're not maybe fighting a fire.

Those are the types of things that the fire department has to take into account.

There's a lot of different variables.

And I think until you see something that is more evident in the majority of our residential developments that is causing them a moment of pause because they have not been able to get to something, we're going to continue to hit the band on this.

It's going to be, well, what was the fire marshal reviewer's coffee intake that day?

Did he have so much that he was on top of it?

Or was he was he not thinking as clearly because he didn't have enough coffee that day?

And I don't mean that with any disrespect to our fire marshals, but often it's who's reviewing and how nitpicky do we become, and who are you asking within the fire marshal's office?

Because again, there is this latitude that they are afforded.

And so what I would tell you, just based on the experience that I have in dealing with our fire marshal's office, dealing with our development process.

Cottage is the only one that has raised this issue.

Why isn't 28 feet enough for two-sided parking?

It is everywhere else, but all of a sudden, you're getting something that is less.

Now, what I will tell you is we do have developments that have come in.

They have asked for 22 feet of pavement.

They have asked for 24 feet of pavement in a 40-foot wide right of way.

It's at those points that yes.

And we have seen some cottage developments that have been approved that way.

And that is to address, and that is to mitigate the potential risks that are being assumed by our fire service.

In this particular instance, through the review process, fire service never identified it.

The design parameters associated with the lots that will be created clearly can accommodate the on-site parking needs, and then it really becomes how big a dwelling unit are you building and how many people do you think you're going to stuff in that dwelling unit?

That is a developer's responsibility to manage that.

And if they want a clean-looking development, they may choose that they are going to restrict on-site parking to one side.

They may restrict that they only want one car per dwelling unit.

You are 38 feet in a lot width.

You have to park in front of your home.

Well, you're going to have a 20-foot wide driveway.

So does that really leave a lot of on-site or on street parking space?

Not without bleeding over onto your neighbor's lot.

And so there's a lot of different things that I think the developer also has to address as to what is the appearance of a development.

And when you create a 20-foot deep parking space and you have the opportunity for a one or two-car garage, many of these developments for cost purposes will do a one-car garage, but you still have to have an approach.

And most people want to have a place where they don't have to jockey the car in the driveway, out of the way of the one in the garage, so they do put a second parking space in the front of the garage.

And that would be permitted with what is being proposed.

And that is why we would contend again, parking is addressed here, and the other possible external factors can be addressed through other means.

And the forwards at that point, if they start seeing a mounting of potential concerns, that is when they can reach out to our traffic engineer.

Our traffic engineer can come out and they can look at it.

They could bring a fire marshal out.

And it is at that point then that the discussion begins.

As a property owner across the street, they may be viewed a little bit oddly.

If they make the phone call and say, I really think there's a problem here, come out and look at it.

A resident in the neighborhood who may share the same concerns may get a little bit more time a day.

So I only offer that as just the reality of how we triage calls.

And again, I rely on our staff in their capacities individually as departments that do review.

We we vet these things thoroughly.

And so the plating process was approved with this as being a compliant subdivision.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

Discussion?

Motion?

I would make a motion to approve.

I will, if you would like me to proffer that motion for you, Mr.

Minshew.

Unless you would like to kind of try to make it yourself.

Do you want to?

Oh no, please.

Okay.

So a motion is being made by uh board member Minshew as it relates to case number 155-2026, 301 East Oak Plank Road, optional cottage development standards.

Move to approve the optional cottage development standard authorization, subject to the dimensional standards as outlined in the applicant's correspondence, which specifically stipulate that the minimum lot size of all lots within the proposed old plank cottages development should be no less than 4,000 square feet in area, have a minimum lot, width at the building line of 38 feet, have a minimum depth of front yard of 20 feet, minimum side yard of six feet, and a minimum rear yard depth of 20 feet with a maximum building height of 35 feet.

A second Mr.

Zinner, do you want to call roll on the motion?

Ms.

Rogers.

Yes.

Mr.

Sharp?

Yes.

Mr.

Minshew?

Yes.

Ms.

Olson?

Yes.

And Ms.

Gaines?

No.

Motion passes with four votes, so ordered by the board.

Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak?

You do have a meeting on uh July 14th.

There is a single appointment that is uh pending before City Council for uh Ms.

Hammond's uh vacant seat, which Mr.

Sharp was filling in for graciously tonight.

Um on the June 15th agenda.

Uh if that uh seat is filled, uh the newly appointed board member will assume her her role and is a female uh on uh the July 14th meeting.

If there are any members, uh regular members that uh know of an absence at this point, uh if you would please indicate that.

If not, when we do post the agenda, if you will please appropriately respond.

Uh at that point, uh we should not be requiring our alternates to be present.

We will be back up to five uh uh permanent members to the board.

Um I appreciate both Ms.

uh Olson's uh service this evening as well as Mr.

Sharp's.

Um that is all that we have to offer in the way of an upcoming agenda.

I I do need to point out that that July 14th meeting as we post on our agendas is tentative.

Um I I I state tentative because we are about to shut down uh our council chamber as well as conference rooms one A and one B, which are across the way, uh, for remodeling.

And that is anticipated to be completed by July 10th.

So I will have a better idea uh before we post the agenda, uh, if we actually will be having a board meeting.

Because if we for some odd reason run into an obstacle in the upgrades, our council does not need this space until if I am not incorrect, the 15th uh and there, I'm sorry, the thirteenth.

And there has been some scuttle uh within the halls of City Hall, uh, that meeting is a little bit shaky at this point.

And when I was told that, I was like, oh great.

But we will keep you abreast if we are going to have a meeting on the 14th.

Uh we do not at this point have uh any items for our August uh meeting, uh, which was an off meeting, as many of you probably have noted with the yellow line on our calendar.

Um so if we do have to move the July 14th meeting, it would be moved to the August 8th meeting, uh, and you would be free that evening.

But I will definitely let you know as soon as I know if we will be complete, uh, agendas for the 14th would be sent out on July 7th.

So uh that will be when you will have your next email installment from me.

Um other than that, I I thank our alternates again, and I I thank Ms.

Rogers for chairing in the absence of uh Mr.

Norgaard.

He did an excellent job.

Um, and we're in good hands should Peter decide he doesn't want to re-up himself at some point in the future.

Yeah, you just continue to convince him he needs to be here.

Motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second.

Okay.

We're done.