Good evening.

I will now call the Thursday, June 11th, twenty twenty-six meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order Commissioner Brodsky.

May we please have a roll call.

Commissioner Darr.

Here.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Here.

Commissioner Graybaugh is absent.

Commissioner Gray.

Here.

Commissioner Stanton.

Here.

Commissioner Walters.

Here.

And I am here.

We have a quorum of six.

Thank you.

We all received a copy of the May seventh, twenty twenty-six regular meeting minutes.

We will receive copies of the June fourth minutes at our next session.

Are there any changes or adjustments to the May seventh minutes?

And thank you to all of my fellow commissioners for getting those sent in to staff.

We appreciate it.

Move to approve the minutes as amended.

Moved by Commissioner Gray, seconded by Commissioner Stanton.

From A agricultural to PD plan development to approve a plan development plan, serving as a preliminary plat to be known as the retreat at Columbia and approved as an associated statement of intent.

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

Public notice was distributed for this on the 6th of April for public information postcards of which they were 14 notification letters were sent to property owners, occupants, and tenants on the 20th of April, as well as the 18th of May re-advertising for the originally date certain tabled June 4 meeting.

An ad was placed in the Tribune on the 19th of May as well as the 21st for the same reasons.

So some background information.

So first uh first step for this development is ultimately going to be that a track split is required in order for the portion of the land that is to be developed, should this be approved, um, to be legally transferred to the uh developer to then build.

Um so this will require track split.

That is something that is administratively approved.

Um we are in the process of reviewing it still, um, but it just needs to be approved uh before uh this gets introduced to city council.

Um here is uh imagery from the county parcel viewer uh roughly of what the site kind of looks like.

You can see there is the stream that runs on the eastern portion of the site.

Uh it is north of the terminus of Grindstrone Plaza Drive, and it is directly to the west of Reback Road accessing Rock Quarry.

And again, here's the surrounding zoning.

Um, every parcel that this abuts directly that's not a roadway, um, is zoned agriculturally and across the street.

Um there is uh some multifamily zoning that is currently not developed, um, and then a single family subdivision off of Reback Road.

Um to the south here we have the the Walmart PD and then the um MC zoned property uh for the grindstone commercial um center that uh was approved last year, if I'm not mistaken.

Um so here's kind of a rough image of what the site plan uh for this proposed development ends up looking like.

Um as you can see, extension of Grindstone Plaza Drive from the south up to intersect with retreat way, which would be a street that is constructed particularly for this development, um, and that would have access that is uh more or less aligned with Reback Road on the east side of Rock Quarry.

Um as uh just a note, um, all of the dwellings here are located outside of the uh required 83-foot half width for preservation within the scenic roadway overlay, although the scenic roadway overlay extends for 220 feet, but only development and uh I guess land disturbance generally can't occur within the 83 feet of the half width.

So it's currently an undeveloped agriculturally zoned parcel, and they are requesting a rezoning to plan development as well as the PD plan itself.

Um so again, it abuts a zone property in every direction, um, and the PD plan would include 194 dwelling units.

Uh the statement of intent notes 204 units at a maximum and that multifamily residential and accessory structures for multifamily development would be permissible uses should it be adopted.

Uh the landscaping on the plan is 15%, but the SOI notes a minimum of 10% and kind of justification for this, although it is on the plan, and the plan would be what they're required to do.

Um 50% of the site is to be maintained in open space or landscaping.

Approximately two and a half acres of the site is climax forest.

Um there's also a type two stream buffer that encumbers the site on the eastern portion, um, kind of separating what is the bulk of the development and the three duplexes that are closer to the actual roadway itself.

Um the setbacks uh for this property would be consistent or in excess of the residential multifamily standards and height for structures is not to exceed 35 feet, which is also typical for the residential multifamily zoning district.

Um the site is compliantly parked and also not in excess of the 200% maximum, but it is above the minimum that is required for typical multifamily development within the city's code.

Um the plan again does require an approved track split prior to PD introduction at council, and the track split is necessary for the legal transfer of the portion of a larger plot of land.

Um taking what is, I believe, two parcels right now, um, turning it into three tracks, one of which will be sold to accommodate this development.

Um track split uh is also to include all the land that would be necessary for right-of-way dedications for the extension of Grindstone Plaza Drive as well as retreat way.

Um, and off-site utility easements uh will need to be dedicated 10 feet on each side of the roadway, um, also with the track split in order to accommodate utility extension that would be necessary for this site and to provide future um utility access to other users should the rest of that land be developed at some point.

Um this has connections uh particularly to Grindstone Plaza Drive, Grey Oak, and Rock Quarry Road.

So the site lies along the scenic roadway overlay of Rock Quarry, which requires preservation of existing vegetation, 83 feet of both sides of the center line of this SRO.

So the area that's kind of in hatched red is the area where you cannot develop anything, and you need to preserve the existing landscape.

And in this context, the applicant is enhancing it by adding some trees along the roadway.

There's also some other development regulations that exist for all 220 feet of what would be the scenic roadway overlay on this side, which includes that utilities must be placed underground.

You cannot have monument signs.

And you know, conformance with all of these standards for the scenic roadway overlay are to be evaluated and confirmed with the submission of civil and site plans.

But what has been provided in this PD plan illustrates compliance as far as we would note at this point.

Again, all the structures are located outside of this 83-foot buffer, and additional trees are being planted within the scenic roadway overlay.

So the site has access to all utilities that it would need, and all of which would be provided by the city.

Sewer exists in the northwest corner of the site.

Water exists for access off Rock Quarry as well as Gray Oak.

Electric can be extended from Gray Oak and standard 10-foot utility easements.

A budding right-of-way are to be dedicated with final plating of the site to facilitate utility extension.

So some background information, more just the TIS that was performed was the large part of the public comment that occurred during the May 7th public hearing for this case.

The original TIS that was submitted on May 7th did not identify decreases in level of service substantial enough to warrant uh or require off-site roadway improvements, although there was a drop in a letter in some circumstances.

But if I'm not mistaken, the delay that was caused by this drop in level of service was about six seconds.

So it was not deemed to be enough to warrant off-site improvements due to the traffic from this development.

Intersection control will be required for the three-way intersection that will be created at Grindstone Plaza Drive and Gray Oak, but this does not need to be documented to the development agreement.

It's understood by the applicant that this needs to incur occur and will happen with the extension of Grindstone Plaza Drive.

Again, TIS was large part of the public comment during the May 7th public hearing.

And the principal concerns were whether Rot Quarry has the capacity in the first place for additional traffic as well as safety concerns about the existing conditions on the street and whether the selected peak hours in the TIS were would accurately reflect what truly peak hours may be, as well as the intersections that were selected for analysis through the TIS.

So the applicant provided a supplemental memo after the 5-7 public hearing that staff had the opportunity to review and the it mostly dealt with these five items, which was justification for the identified peak hours, comparisons for trip generation for multifamily development from what this could be to a property to the east that has been developed for multifamily purposes.

It also provided existing traffic volumes and prospective traffic volumes that are at the stadium and rot quarry intersection during peak PM hour for this development.

And it provided a little bit of a narrative around crass history on Rot Quarry Road and had some potential safety improvements, mostly related to signage for Rot Quarry Road.

Excuse me.

So just some notes about the TIS, just some comments that were made in the past that I think are worth addressing here.

So it was noted that Rot Quarry has less right-of-way and paving width than what would typically be expected for a major collector, but this is more of a functional classification of the street, insofar this is a north-south connection that goes from a major arterial to an expressway.

And that is ultimately how the classification for that street has been derived.

It is not necessarily that it's always going to comport with appendix A of the Unified Development Code, which would be standards for the construction of streets.

And then the applicant utilized land use code 225 from the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation manual, which is low rise off-campus student apartments that are greater than a half mile from campus.

And low rise actually would result in in more traffic for the same number of dwelling units than a mid-rise would.

So a low rise, even though these technically would maybe be more akin to mid-rise, is going to provide a more conservative analysis in terms of what trip generation would be based off this land use.

So the TIS noted that the peak hours that were identified were between 11.45 a.m.

and 1245 PM for midday and 415 to 5.15 for the PM peak hours.

And the supplemental memo provides some justification for why the AM peak was not selected for this.

And it notes that trip generation during a weekday AM peak hour would actually be more than 100% lower, or sorry, 50% lower than trip generations at uh a week weekday midday and a weekday PM.

Um so these are the hours that there would be the most both combined flow in and flow out of traffic to this site based off of that land use code from the ITE manual.

So trip generation on route quarry particularly, um it notes that there'd be around 230 total trips at a midday peak.

This would be 110 outbound trips, of which around 50 would go on route quarry, so that's around 45% of them heading north on Rot Quarry out of this development.

Um and there'd be 120 inbound trips, so that's 55 trips heading south, likely from stadium because there's not a lot of other points where you can access route quarry if there's actually not any at all.

Um so they'd be heading from stadium down um south to get on to retreat way, and that's around 46% of all inbound trips.

Um around 105 total trips uh would be on route quarry, both inbound and outbound at a midday peak over an hour.

Um around 225 trips are anticipated at a peak hour, or modeled at least at a peak hour.

Uh this would be 110 outbound trips, 115 inbound trips of the outbound trips, 40 of them would be heading north on route quarry, around 35 percent.

And uh for the inbound trips, around 40 would be heading um south on route quarry to retreat way, which would be 35% of the inbound trips for this PM peak.

So at peak hours, um, it would be increasing the volume of northbound traffic on Route Quarry by around 16% during the midday peak and around 12% during the PM peaks.

Um this is based off of the build traffic volumes that have been included here in the graphic.

Um so 306, 328 devised right derived from that.

Um at peak hours, this would be increasing the volume of southbound traffic on route quarry by around 20% and around 8% during a PM peak.

Uh there's around 55 trips during midday and 40 trips during the PM peak.

Uh, these are heading south again from the intersection of stadium and route quarry.

Um the applicant or the supplemental memo that was provided by the applicant also uh looked at comparisons with Central House, which is the multifamily development that exists to the east of this site.

I've highlighted it in red here.

Um this is approximately the area where my mouse is hovering over right now where the proposed development would be built.

Um when they did traffic counts for this in February of this year, uh they noted that there were actually fewer generated trips than what the estimates would have been uh for the land use code that they selected within the ITE trip generation manual.

Um they noted that the ITE estimates that they had were around 163% uh of what the realized traffic was and around 133% of what the realized traffic was at a peak hour or PM peak hour, excuse me.

Um so the ITE manual typically does provide more conservative estimates for what trip generation would be as to not assume it will be less than it it should be.

Um in this case for Central House, um their counts indicated that it was less than the ITE trip estimates.

Um so if the same trip generation was applied to this proposal, it would be around a reduction of 90 um trips in the midday and 55 trips in the PM peak, respectively.

And again, land use code 225 likely overestimates traffic generation for development of this nature, just as uh a general note.

The stadium and rot quarry intersection was also analyzed for this.

Um the supplemental memo notes there's an approximate volume of 3,924 vehicles at this intersection during a weekday PM peak.

Um the proposal uh this development would add around 80 trips at total to this intersection at the PM peak, and that's 40 inbound, 40 outbound.

Um, so likely 40 heading north or turning in any direction, um, heading out or north on route quarry, uh, and around 40 trips that would be heading southbound on route quarry at a PM peak.

Um and it would add around 105 trips during the midday peak, although this um may not be the uh highest volumes that are experienced at this intersection in general.

Um, but that would potentially be uh when the highest number of trips would be generated at this intersection due to this development.

The volume of traffic that is attributable to this development is believed to have a minimal impact on the intersection operation and its level of service.

So regarding safety on Route Quarry, supplemental traffic memo notes that there are 41 crashes on Route Quarry within this segment that we're looking at for the TIS in a five-year period from 2020 to 2024, of which two were fatal and two were serious.

The majority of the crashes in general were out of control driving.

Both of the fatal crashes were out of control driving.

And a majority were also during dry conditions and during daytime, though not all three mutually.

And the estimates for what the number of crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled would be 181.

This is lower than the statewide crash rate for major collectors, which is around 217.13 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.

And MODOC crash rate for two-lane roadways particularly is 183 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.

So this is two crashes lower per 100 million vehicle miles traveled than what would be, or I guess what is experienced on Modot, or not on MODOT maintained, but on two-lane roadways according to data provided by MODOT.

So staff also just want to acknowledge that the roadway still certainly has dangerous conditions.

The fact that the crash rate is lower, is not necessarily an endorsement of us saying that everything's completely safe there.

There certainly can be dangerous conditions on Rot Quarry, especially due to its geometry, the width of paving, the lack of a shoulder in a lot of locations, and despite being under the statewide crash rates, just wanted to note that we're we're privy to these concerns.

And signage improvement, which has been recommended by the supplemental traffic memo, is completely at the discretion of a traffic engineer.

I do not believe it is something that the Planning and Zoning Commission nor City Council has discretion over.

Also wanted to uh discuss the Rot Quarry Special Area Plan, which was special area plan that was adopted in 2002.

The subject site here is roughly where I am hovering my mouse over right now.

Um and it was identified as being a low density residential area within this plan, which if I'm not mistaken was around uh three units per acre.

Um this density um that's being provided by this development is under seven, but naturally in excess of three.

Um it would be uh technically around what the minimum or the maximum R1 density would be if you had uh minimum lot sizes.

Uh but this, you know, there are encumbrances from environmental features that would probably inherently make it impossible for you to do seven units per acre, although dimensionally that's what the maximum would be in R1 zoning.

Um this increase in density is is believed to be reasonable when you're considering the surrounding development that has occurred post the adoption of this plan, uh particularly the commercial development that has extended more from this is around where the Walmart is presently, uh, and then this commercial corridor is continuing to develop as we speak, and there are roadway improvements that are being made to Grindstone Plaza Drive to accommodate induced traffic due to uh potential development on this site.

Um the special area plan also encourages the use of using a planned unit development zoning for new residential zoning rather than sticking to a base district to provide more control over what um would be built next to the sensitive scenic roadway overlay.

Um as it relates to the comprehensive plan, um staff believes that that this plan is ultimately aligned with the comp plan, uh, particularly because this area has been identified as a neighborhood district within the future land use management map, um or the future land use map, excuse me.

Um and it's also located in a tier one growth priority area in the urban service area.

Um and it does provide housing in a walking proximity to a commercial node, um, a little bit more than a quarter mile, um, but I don't think more than a half mile uh away from the Walmart that is to the south accessible through Grindstone Plaza Drive.

Um, um staff believes that this kind of development is supported by the housing study, particularly.

The housing study notes that the city development targets for multifamily units for rent are around 163 units per year for the next 25 years.

And again, this site lies within the urban service area, does not require extensive utility extension, increases connectivity to the existing road network, and particularly utility extension is um and generally infill-style development is something that is supported by the housing study.

And student housing, um, even if it is purpose-built, um, does count toward the provision of multifamily units in the city if it were a dormitory or housing that is provided specifically by an academic institution.

Uh it would not count at that point.

Um, but even even if it is marketed exclusively towards students, uh, this is considered a multifamily unit for rent within the city.

Um it would also be increasing the housing supply generally, um which can potentially reduce competition for the existing rental stock that may or may not already be available to the general public.

Um so providing more options uh in general can alleviate um some of the constraint on the supply, um, which in turn can um slow the rise of housing prices.

Uh I wouldn't say it would reduce it.

Um that wouldn't necessarily be true, but it can slow the rise in that scenario.

Um so UDC procedure for zoning map amendments, which this would be that we are supposed to look at whether or not this comports with the comprehensive plan and whether or not the infrastructure capacity um is adequate for development of this intensity.

Um again, as noted previously, uh staff believes that this is aligned with the comprehensive plan, insofar it's in a tier one growth area, it's near a commercial node.

Um it's identified in the same type of or for these uses within the future land use map, and it's in the urban service area.

Um and there were not concerns brought about by utility divisions within the city for the capacity for development of this intensity.

Um regarding public correspondence for this case, um I had one email that was um asked me to provide the TIS for the 5.7 meeting.

Um they followed up with me uh before the 611 meeting uh to receive the supplemental memo as well.

Uh had more email correspondence that was um asking questions uh about the supplemental memo and the nature of it today.

Uh there are two phone calls that I received, both of which were general inquiries, did not state anything uh in support or in denial.

Um and there were 14 letters sent, of which four went to homeowner and neighborhood associations and one that went to a council representative.

Um again, this was re-advertised for the 6-4 public hearing, not re-advertised for the 6-11 public hearing because we requested tabling that was published with the agenda.

Um and there were two emails written in support that were received after the agenda for this public hearing was received.

Those uh letters should have been printed for our commissioners to be made available.

So ultimately, um staff believes that the PD plan, which is serving as a preliminary plat, comports with the UDC standards for subdivision, uh is aligned with the comprehensive plan as well as the housing study and rezoning to PD in this particular area or scenario rather than residential multifamily uh is encouraged by the Rotquari Special Area Plan, uh ensures and illustrates conformance with the scenic roadway overlay by requiring an approved and binding site plan that is available during a public hearing.

This would not be the case if it were open zoned, it would just be uh an open zoned lot that if it became a legal lot could be developed within the uh restrictions of our unified development code.

So ultimately, staff's recommendation is to approve the proposed rezoning from A to P D and also to approve the proposed PD plan, associated statement of intent, um, which serves as a preliminary plat to be known as the retreat at Columbia, and this is subject to an approved track split prior to introduction at City Council.

Um if the commission has any questions about this case, I would be happy to answer them now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Before we go to questions for staff, it was brought to my attention that I skipped over approval of the agenda.

So we're going to do that real quick like.

That's a good idea.

Thanks.

Uh are there any changes to the order of the agenda tonight, Mr.

Coon?

There are not.

Thank you.

Is there a motion to approve?

I move to approve the agenda.

Motion by Commissioner Gray, seconded by Commissioner Darr, thumbs up approval of the agenda.

Yes.

Thank you.

Apologies.

Um then, before we go to questions for staff on case number 124-2026, if any of my fellow commissioners have had contacts with parties to this case outside of a public hearing, please disclose so now.

Seeing none, are there questions for staff?

Commissioner Gray.

Hi, thank you.

Um I'm wondering if you could illuminate for me.

I understand how the kind of housing study fits into or is in service with uh the comprehensive plan.

I I don't quite understand um the Rockware special area plan as it pertains to the criteria that are before us.

Uh I guess what what particular what criteria are.

I mean so uh does it comport with the comprehensive plan, the UDC.

I'm curious about like what role this plays in making a land use decision.

The special area plan?

Yes.

Uh understood.

Um I think uh this special area plan is part of what um led to the creation of the scenic roadway overlay, if I'm not mistaken.

Um and it also, since it does recommend that PD zoning be pursued for residential development that is stated within the residential objectives and policies of that plan.

Um that was part of the consideration also for why PD rezoning was a pursued rather than residential multifamily.

Um, yeah, does that adequately answer it?

It doesn't look like it.

So it does it kind of go into and maybe this is not a question for you, like uh neighborhood like compatibility.

No, it says that development should roughly follow what is illustrated on the development plan, which is here on this slide.

Okay.

Um and they did describe all of the tracks that were included in this, and they uh I don't know if they interviewed property owners or what have you, but they they asked if there was intent for development, things along those lines when the plan was adopted.

Um but ultimately, yeah, it says that uh development should occur uh as it's illustrated in the development plan.

Um our position would would be that that development around this area has kind of strayed away from that, particularly with the commercial corridor expansion of grindstone.

Um so it it may not be prudent to exclusively follow the development plan that was adopted in 2002.

And Commissioner Gray, if if uh I think we we are getting at uh the comprehensive plan, this 2002 study, anything that conflicts with that, of course, subsequently there's been the comprehensive plan.

So that would control.

I mean, if you if you anything conflicting in that 2002 report, the comp plan would be would be what you would uh consult and go by.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Uh Commissioner Bradsky?

Uh just as as a follow-up to that, did staff look if to see if there was anything in the comprehensive plan that conflicts with the special area plan that would override the special area plan?

I would say particularly the wanting to encourage residential density around commercial nodes is potentially something that's at conflict with this.

Um part of that is also because the area that's been identified as mixed use being between Rock Quarry and uh Green Meadows, if I'm not mistaken, um, has uh turned into exclusively commercial development in nature.

Um I would yeah, I I would say um the comprehensive plan does encourage more density in areas around this than what was initially considered with the 2002 special area plan.

Commissioner Walters?

I may have missed this when you were discussing the um traffic impact study in in terms of relationship to the uh intersection with uh stadium.

Did you mention or uh discuss you talked about P PMP, but did was there any discussion about the AM peak?

Uh they did not include the what the counts would be for the midday peak in the supplemental traffic memo, but it is informed by the number of outbound and inbound trips.

Um if you're heading north uh out of retreat way towards stadium, or if you're heading um west onto retreat way, those would be all of the trips that are going from that intersection to this development or vice versa, and that would end up being 105 trips during the midday peak.

But that information was not included in the supplemental traffic memo.

That's midday peak.

Midday peak, they did not do um uh there was no graphic that illustrated what traffic distribution would be during the AM peak, if I'm not mistaken.

So it would I would not be able to derive it.

All right, thank you.

Yeah.

Any other questions first staff?

Um I have one question just generally about our policies.

We aren't including housing where there is a criteria in the lease that you are a student in the definition of student housing.

Like we're including that as general multifamily.

Uh per the housing study, it does not distinguish between purpose-built student housing as not being multifamily units for rent.

Um I I did reach out to the author of the study to confirm this was the case.

Um those are uh households in the community that would be counted as households per census.

I'm a little bit concerned about that because of the fact that our universities are no longer really providing dormitories in the way that they did when I many, many moons ago was in college.

Um that is interesting to me because we have forced the students off campus essentially.

We have created a marketplace of purpose-built and criterize, not just marketed to, but you can't live here unless housing, and we're including that in our definition of general multifamily need.

So just not for anything for you to do, because you didn't write the study, but just so it's on the record, it concerns me that we're including them in our definition of of what's meeting our multifamily need generally.

Any other questions for staff?

Seeing none, we will open the floor to public comment.

Please come forward.

We've got a lot of folks here tonight, so I'm going to be strict on the time.

We will give six minutes for the applicant and representatives of the group, three minutes for staff.

Please state your name and address for the record and get comfortable with that microphone.

Madam Chair, I'll request my three minutes if you don't mind.

I'll reserve the six minutes for our traffic engineer tonight.

Again, with me tonight is Caleb Colbert, uh Brian rinsing with uh CBB and Chase Powell and Madison Whitaker with uh landmark properties.

Uh quick little overview.

I think we've talked about this before.

Most of my presentation was given at the last planning zoning meeting that this was uh presented at.

Um, sorry, sorry.

Um so uh again, I think that our density is around, I think our density is about six.

It depends if we use net or gross acreage uh based on our density calculations.

So if we look at how PDs are calculated, I believe we would use the right-of-way, which include uh a little bit of extra property, which make it around six units per acre, which uh is not a high density residential uh density uh in my in my view.

Again, you've seen the location, you've seen the PD plan.

Uh the open and green space that was calculated here, yes, it does have 10 percent landscaping, but the question that we've always had is is what is considered landscaping and open space?

And I think that's kind of an open-ended question.

Uh more importantly, here is about 65 percent of the entire piece of property is going to be green space, whether it's preserved, whether it's uh manicured yard, whether it's landscaping, uh, whether it's tree preservation, climax forest, stream buffer.

About 65 percent of the site is going to remain uh as seen.

Uh as noted before, uh, the darker green is a stream buffer that's not going to be touched, and then the hatched areas are our two tree preservation areas on the site.

And so uh if you look notice how that's uh kind of laid out, the whole point was is we want to screen the bulk of the development away from Rock Hori Road.

Uh that was that is by design.

Just a few of the units on the far east side are adjacent to it.

Again, the traffic report, uh, we had supplemental information.

Brian is here to talk specifically about that, and I'll let him cover that.

Uh utilities, again, important part of the development is you know what are utilities and can are they there and can they serve the development?

Yes, they are, and yes, they can.

Uh Columbia Imagined.

I mean, again, I don't want to be uh beat this uh too much, but the track is identified as neighborhood district and land use plan located inside the urban service area.

It's identified as a tier one growth priority area.

Um we think all those are important items uh to consider when we're looking at this, uh looking at this development.

In 2002, when the study was done, the City of Columbia had a different view of what density was.

Uh now that we've grown over the past nearly 25 years, we have a different look and a different, you know, uh different outlook on what density is and how we need to uh increase density in in our city core.

Uh so in conclusion, again, the requesting PD zoning over RMF is for protection purposes.

That's part of the area plan.

Uh we've talked to city staff about that, and that's what we're proposing.

Um it's not because we're trying to ask for anything that we normally wouldn't be allowed in RMF, it's because it gives everyone the city and the neighbors the assurances of what we're proposing.

We comply with the SRO overlay district.

Uh we're enhancing the landscaping along Rock Hori Road.

Um, and so we're doing more there at time.

That's your three.

Yep.

Okay.

And uh with that, I will turn it over to Brian.

Thank you.

My red lights not connected.

People in the magic room.

Uh sorry, are you our traffic engineer?

Yep.

You'll get your six minutes.

Thank you.

My name's Brian Rensing.

I'm a traffic engineer with CBB.

Uh I have 24 years of experience.

I'm a licensed professional engineer, uh certified professional traffic operations engineer as well as uh road safety professional level two with emphasis on infrastructure.

Um over my 24 years, I've done hundreds of traffic impact studies.

Briefly go over what a traffic impact study is.

Traffic impact study assumes whatever is being proposed will be built, be successful, and generate more traffic.

Basically, the traffic study looks at that additional traffic, identifies the impact that it has on the adjacent roadways and intersections, determines whether uh improvements are needed.

Through our process, uh we did engage with the city, and so that we uh our traffic impact study meets the needs of what the city desires.

Uh so through that we identified study area with uh the appropriate intersections, the appropriate time frames, uh, any sort of um additional scenarios that they wanted.

Uh so we did provide a technical memorandum that summarized all of our base assumptions.

They reviewed it, accepted it, and then we completed the traffic impact study.

After completing the traffic impact study, we submit it to the city again for their review.

Uh the city staff agreed with the conclusions and the recommendations uh made in the traffic impact study.

We provided supplemental uh memo to provide an additional information and they reviewed that, did a good job summarizing uh a lot of that data here as well and agreed with that.

So we're gonna I'm gonna kind of quickly go over the supplemental uh traffic information in my time allowed.

Uh typically we do look at AM and the PM peak hour uh when we evaluate traffic.

However, based on the land use, the midday peak hour and the PM peak hour are much heavier than the AM peak hour.

Uh I don't know about you, but when I was in college, I didn't want to get up for an 8 a.m.

class, so it kind of really you know makes it a little more uh comprehensible on why the AM peak hours lower.

So uh looking at the PM, the midday and PM peak hour, that's nearly double.

So staff agreed uh along with us that uh evaluating the midday peak hour and the PM peak hour would in fact evaluate the worst case scenario trip generation estimates uh based on local data.

So we uh looked at the kind of the driveways for the central house across the road.

We summarized those trips in the midday and PM peak hour, looked at it per bed ratio, then basically increased uh and applied that ratio to the number of beds that are proposed, uh, and then generated some some trip generation based on local data.

So for that, we have uh 140 total trips in the midday peak hour and 170 trips in the PM peak hour.

So if you compare that back to the previous slide with the ITE trip generation, uh it's uh about 63 or 100 the ITE trip generation is about 163 percent higher during the midday and 163% higher during the PM peak hour.

So our traffic impact study looked at the worst case scenario uh when we look at local data.

Uh trip distribution uh as part of the trip generation, then we assigned it to the roadways based on the uh existing travel patterns.

Uh we looked at trip generation for all the different routes that go there.

So uh you know, we looked at uh 35-45% using Rock Quarry with the school and everything up there, but we also considered all the other land uses around.

You know, during the midday students are gonna want to go shopping, they're gonna go out to lunch, they're gonna go visit friends, go to jobs, whatever.

So they're not all gonna go to Rot Quarry Road.

So we had a 25% uh to third or 20 to 30 percent also using uh Gray Oak Drive, possibly going to shopping or green meadows into the west there.

So city staff didn't request uh to look at Stadium and Rock Quarry Road, uh so that was not included in our initial uh traffic impact study.

However, they did supply a traffic study from 2025 that looked at this intersection during AM and PM peak hour, so that's why we only looked at the PM peak hour here.

When we add our traffic in there, we got basically 40 uh per uh additional traffic uh per direction there.

So that's about a two percent increase in the overall intersection traffic volume.

So if you think about that, uh it you know, how long you're sitting there to cycle, that's about two vehicles every cycle.

So really you're not gonna notice the additional traffic uh for this development with two vehicles every cycle.

We uh also looked at the crash history here over the last five years.

Uh there was 41 crashes uh from south of stadium to north of grindstone.

That relates to about eight crashes per year on average.

When you calculate that into a crash rate for the whole segment, that's 181 crashes per 100 million miles traveled.

Uh we also compared that to the statewide average to see if it was uh way out of line and uh it's actually lower than the statewide average for both major collector as well as two land roadways.

So that was a quick summary of our supplemental uh traffic memo.

I can answer any questions.

Almost perfect on time.

Any questions for the speaker?

Commissioner Gray?

Thank you so much for showing your homework for us.

Um just a point of clarification because I am not a traffic engineer.

When you talk about um the trips generated in the number of vehicles, is that the same number?

Correct.

Okay.

Um second point of clarification.

Um the more conservative estimate is based on the manual, and then you have another point of comparison, which is uh the other the central what central house.

Um these estimates um in this supplemental memo, how does that compare in terms of seconds of delay that was mentioned in the uh traffic impact study?

Is it different?

No, the the seconds of delay are the same because we didn't uh you know reassign all the traffic based on our that lower um local trip generation rate.

So uh we didn't change any of that just to be conservative, again, extra conservative, 30 percent higher uh you know, in in both uh peak hours there.

Thank you.

Commissioner Walters?

Yes, I had a couple of questions.

Do do uh when you do these traffic studies, particularly with developments that have a lot of students, um, and some of these developments often have shuttle buses.

Did you was that taken to account?

I don't know if they have proposed shuttle buses.

But would a traffic count would differ if the development relied on uh shuttle buses, I would assume.

So the uh central house has uh buses, uh shuttles, and then it's my understanding that this development would too.

And in doing so, would would that affect the how you the data that we that you've come up with?

Uh it it's include it would be included with the local data, right?

Because it's currently running uh with and has that impact included in it.

Uh the ITE's land use for uh the student housing doesn't specifically say it includes, so uh it's unknown in the data set that's um available through ITE.

It doesn't tell you each in particular study uh whether shuttles were included or not.

Okay, thank you.

It's a worst case scenario looking at ITE.

Other questions for this Commissioner Brodsky?

Just have one question.

Um for me at least, I'm not necessarily terribly concerned about the peak hour travel.

I'm I'm more concerned about the additional average daily trips on Rock Quarry uh between Stadium and Grindstone.

Uh and I I'm not a traffic engineer, but I've registered study in in detail.

Um what is your estimate of the percentage increase uh of trips that will be uh on that road because of this development?

So currently uh there's about uh 833, I think it was uh vehicles per day on on Rock Quarry Road.

Um if we assume 40 percent over the course of the day to the development would go there, uh it would add about um 1,150 uh total daily trips uh and then cumulatively for the existing adding the existing plus uh the development traffic, you're at 9,485.

So uh you know, well below the capacity of a two-lane roadway.

So a 15% increase, but um roughly Yeah, a little less than that.

What is it?

Let's see here.

Yeah, around there.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Darr.

I have a couple.

Um just uh not specific order, I guess.

Uh what sort of delay at an intersection would necessitate in your opinion, an off-site improvement, like these delays are increased by six seconds at most, but what what kind of delay does necessitate something to be done?

Um so in the particular case of the northbound uh approach of Rock Quarry at grindstone, uh we're adding five trips to the whole northbound approach and during the PM peak hour, and it increases it uh I think it was like two seconds.

Uh and during the midday peak hour, uh we do increase it a little bit more.

Um again, our estimate is adding five vehicles.

So that's one vehicle every what, 12 minutes.

So uh you know, the additional delay according, you know, based on the additional traffic is very low.

The intersection still operated acceptable levels of service.

So you know that's why we didn't recommend any roadway improvements there.

Uh and I wasn't saying that I think there should be any improvements.

It was more that it was showing such a small increase, but if you look at the first slide he put up that there was three tracks of equal size, you could presume that they could come forward next year, the following year with another 720 and then another 720, and then you just tripled the increase of your delay.

And we kind of are we not setting a precedent for this kind of housing with on this road right here.

So that's why I was asking about what kind of additional delay would necessitate an improvement and off-site improvement.

Uh it's my understanding you would require traffic impact study for those other developments, and those developments then would be required to do a traffic impact study to see if those those developments uh need.

Okay.

Um, I I did like how you uh did the study and compared it to some objective criteria, the MODOT crashes per 100 million miles.

Uh not using that criteria, just using your professional judgment.

Do you think Rockquarry Road is on par safety-wise with other two-lane roads of similar nature?

It's a roadway that's two lanes, has curves, vertical, horizontal.

Um, you know, go through all the out the state, any you know, lettered route, two-lane lettered route is very similar, uh, somewhere between you know 22 to 24 feet.

Um is one of those roads where you gotta go 30 miles per hour.

So let's keep our comments to ourselves for so that uh yeah, uh it is what it is, kind of you're saying, but I would also mention that your objective criteria just looks backwards and it doesn't look forwards as far as applying the additional traffic.

I don't know if there's a linear relationship between the traffic volume and the number of crashes, but you add another 720.

You just said it was like 10 percent increase of average daily traffic on that road.

Is there going to be a 10 percent increase in crashes?

Do you think?

We didn't do a specific evaluation, but it's generally not a linear relationship uh for uh crash predictions.

Uh it's more uh it's it's heavily based on volume, but it's not a direct linear relationship.

So you think I mean I know you're not having crunched the numbers, but does that take you up to from 181 to 185?

Or is that like in like at what number do you get into a realm of oh maybe this is an issue, maybe we need to start looking at making improvements on this road.

Um that I I don't I haven't crunched the numbers on there, so I I don't really know what that would go to, or can't speculate on what that would go to.

Yeah.

Okay, that's I think those are all the questions I have for right now.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Next speaker on this case, please come forward.

I don't have a list up here, folks.

Whoever wants to go needs to come.

My name is Anthony Davis, Tony Davis.

I live at uh on Rockwarry Road.

4655 South Rock Warry Road.

Uh first of all, I want to address the Rockquarry Road special area plan.

We really that this came from uh a concern of the neighborhood, not only there but across the City of Columbia too, because of the sensitivity of this particular area, but in particular the the condition of Rockwarry Road, and that was 23 years ago.

And in that plan, uh the goals, and this was put together by the city planning department and was adopted by the city council.

And it said that this was to prepare land use for the area and appropriate level for residential density and predicts the um residential character of the neighborhood.

And that's really what we felt at the time and what everyone still feels.

It says provide for safe and orderly flow of vehicular traffic through the area while maintaining scenic quality of life, and that's what when we a number of us work for the Rockwarry Road to be a scenic roadway.

Um at the time uh when the the city council was addressing this, the community interest was very strong.

It still is, and we still have the same concerns about the importance of keeping Rockquarry Road as a scenic roadway.

And I think the planned unit development is a good planned development.

And it it and it has the infrastructure that would also apply to residential development and keeping something more in keeping with what we wanted 23 years ago, as did the city planning, as did the city council.

And we see it drifting away from that.

Even though it's a good planned unit development, Rockquarry Road simply cannot sustain it.

And I can mention a few things and it will be addressed even in more detail.

But the comparative study with central, the apartments across the street, that was done, I think in one day, one time, and was kind of a at what was coming and going.

It's also a projection of what 720 parking spots and cars can be coming and going out of this proposed development.

We just really don't know.

And some of the comparisons that are being used for MoDOT and some of the other studies, they're within one half mile of a campus.

And that's really a walkable community.

And for those of you who've probably been in other camp, you see residential areas that are within walking distance.

And this certainly is not.

It's more like a mile and a half from campus and all it leads toward all of the uh various campuses that are there that would be using this roadway.

And I think the question that's been brought up, what about evenings and other times and the unknowns that we have about that, it still seems to be the most important thing right now is safety and concerns with Rock Quarry Road.

Thank you.

I bet I'm close to time.

That's it exactly.

Any questions?

Questions for this speaker.

Seeing none.

Thank you very much for being here tonight.

Thank you.

Next speaker on this case, please come forward.

Um David Wilson, I reside at 1810 Reback Road, right across from this development.

Um I think you all are asking all the right questions.

I have a few others I'd like to add.

Um obviously I know they won't get answered in the moment, but maybe you all can ask them later.

Um in the traffic study, the IT guidelines, I'm curious if they have were using purpose built guidelines for student housing.

Um you've correctly identified this as student housing in name and deed.

Um there are studies out there, um, notably from uh the Journal of Urban Planning and Development that show a multiplier for student purpose-built housing over multifamily high-density housing in terms of number trips a day.

So if those data, if that data is not being adjusted for that, then we're seeing far too low numbers.

Um who drives that road every morning, um, I think most of these students aren't skipping their morning classes.

And in fact, are uh actually going to school.

Um it's especially busy right before 8 a.m.

Um ultimately for me, this is a development that we will all live with for the next 50 years, maybe.

Um it doesn't seem too much to ask.

I I appreciate what's been cobbled together by staff and the developers in terms of the traffic study, but a specific traffic study dedicated to this conducted for this development when students are in town for a very large development, three large developments as you point out, um, doesn't seem too much to ask.

Um we're making a lot of guessw on these numbers.

Um I did the crash data, which is obviously at the heart the most important thing that we're saving lives here, was done between 20 and 2020 and 2024.

Um notably those years, we saw a huge reduction in driving because of COVID.

Um I'd be really curious what the crash data was like for say the previous five years that for of that um and why those five years were picked.

Um I guess at the uh at the end of the day for me, um, you know, it's fine to say it only goes up by 15 percent, although as pointed out, it goes up by 15 percent every time they add one more.

Um we all end up feeling like the frog in the boiling water.

Um and the reality is a picture that's full, if you add 15 percent to that picture, it just overflows, whether you add 10 percent or 15 percent or 20 percent.

Um it's the road's not ready for this development.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Gray?

Welcome back.

Thanks.

Um I I asked you a not dissimilar question, I think, last time.

Um if the data uh were not cobbled together, as you say, and uh was in support of your thesis that maybe these um estimates were not uh or not accounting for students in the way that we'd hoped.

Um again, I'm curious about the threshold for what is an acceptable level to you given that uh we're pro-housing and we're looking to add more housing.

Absolutely.

And I should say, like I'm I'm also I'm a resident, I'm also a landlord.

Um uh the my neighborhood is made up of students, it's made up of working folks, it's made up of retirees, it's a mix of people who are all you know contributing to Columbia in different ways.

Um I respectfully disagree with staff that the uh that an indirect benefit of student housing is that you free up other housing.

I think we should be looking for direct benefits in housing.

Um families don't use housing the same way students use housing.

Housing built for families is more likely, I think, to transition to housing for other families in the future.

Um I think housing built for students is more likely to transition to cheaper, poorer quality housing for other students in the future.

So I think if this was be was being brought to us as a multi a true multifamily development, um I think you would find the neighborhood a lot more amenable.

It doesn't mean we'd love access onto rock quarry, doesn't mean we'd love everything about it, but at least for me personally, I'm I'm more open to that.

So just to clarify, if it were another kind of multifamily housing, you would be okay with this 10% increase.

On the road.

I guess I would like to see less increase on the road because what we've been told is that that's going to create more accidents.

Um but I think that I'd be more open to exploring things like, you know, whether the rock quarry access can be emergency only or other options.

There's plenty of access south of here.

No one's disputing that.

Um I would dispute the idea that that what when we create a scenic roadway, something that is not that scenic roadway isn't about shouldn't sort of reflect on the scenic roadway, right?

Like there's a yes, there's a Walmart near here.

It doesn't mean that we should then start building Walmarts all the way up the west side of Rock Quarry.

That's not what the scenic roadway is overlay is for.

So we do have to draw a line.

That line was drawn at the corner of Grindstone Parkway and Rock Quarry.

Um so I think we should be thinking very, very carefully about things that impact that scenic roadway.

I think that's a is part of a uh a gem of Columbia.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any other questions?

I think to follow up with what Commissioner Gray was saying.

If this were a different kind of housing, do you think you would be as concerned about everybody trying to get down town in the morning?

Do you think that would change your perspective if it people are going multiple places instead of everyone trying to get to campus?

This is being built here, to be clear by out-of-town developers to access the university, right?

Yeah.

If it's a different kind of housing, hey, maybe somebody works over at that Walmart.

Maybe they work southwest of there.

Maybe they have to head over 63 for their work.

There's a lot more traffic patterns, I think, that would arise in multifamily housing than in student-built housing where everyone is going to the exact same place at the exact same time every day.

Thank you.

Any final questions?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you so much.

Next speaker on this case, please come forward.

And just as a show of hands, how many folks are here to speak on this case tonight?

Okay.

I'm just trying to gauge when we'll take a break.

Good evening.

My name is Joe Binboidle.

I live at uh 1701 East Gannes Road, which is at the intersection of Gannes Road and Rock Quarry Road.

I've lived there for too many decades to even mention.

I will try to be brief.

I I think I would implore um the commissioners to uh look at this plan and read it very, very carefully.

It is succinct.

Uh it is pressant, it is uh spot on, frankly, with respect to a lot of what's happened in our neighborhood.

The intense agri uh commercial development right along with the right.

Right along the intense commercial development right along what's called Route AC, it's now grindstone, but voila, that has happened.

And um if you look at the parameters and the densities it and and the uh and the considerations that were made in this plan, I I I think they all mitigate towards denying this particular development.

It's simply too dense, and the infrastructure, quite honestly, to to respectfully disagree, is not there.

The road infrastructure is not there.

My concern primarily is safety.

But I don't see anything that has happened in that area that is fundamentally inconsistent with this plan.

I think it should be given quite a bit of deference.

In terms of density, the the the the this particular uh 194 dwelling unit development is a tremendous amount of of increase over the density that's called for in this plan.

And this isn't some tree-hugging, no, you know, no uh not on planet earth sort of plan.

Th this calls for about 1,200 units as I as I read it uh in this area.

Um that's a lot of units.

This is this is not a uh a zero-sum game, this is not a no game, but adding this kind of density in this particular area when there's so much more of this area that needs to be developed is simply unjust.

But my fundamental comment uh is about is about the crash history uh and the and the and the concept of road safety.

Um I I fundamentally believe that the the crashes per 100 million uh miles traveled is not an appropriate standard.

The appropriate standard is how many serious accidents have happened.

The fender benders, all state can take care of that, State Farm can take care of that, we'll take care of that.

But the fatal crashes and the serious injury crashes.

There's been there's been uh two fatal and two serious injury crashes in the last five years, and as David pointed out, the the study is during uh COVID years.

So those those probably are going to be increased, not just with the increase of of the traffic since COVID, but also this development and the development that's going to come in this area.

But I I took the liberty of asking city staff this afternoon: are there any other roadways in Colombia that have had two serious accidents and two fatalities in the last five years?

And it was not a comprehensive detailed study.

It was a it was a quick look.

Uh, and the answer was none.

The answer was none.

This is the most dangerous section of Columbia Roadway we have.

Thank you.

Shouldn't be adding to it.

And I would any questions for this speaker?

I would simply implore also just one thing that this not be placed on the consent agenda for the council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none, thank you very much.

Next speaker on this case.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Oh, good evening.

Um Martin Reback, uh 1711 Reback Road.

Um I'm retired now, up to 11 years ago.

I owned uh one of the biggest plumbing supply houses in uh in Missouri.

And uh of all the development on uh Rock Quarry Road, old 63 and grindstone of the student housing, reback supply, sold none.

The plumbers in Columbia were not employed.

The only time that we the plumbers got work was when they went in to repair what they called shoddy work that from that was put in very, very quickly by out outside contractors.

Uh I'm normally in favor of anything.

I'm sorry, can you back up just a little bit?

Yeah.

I'm normally in favor of anything that has running water and flush toilets.

But uh anything that does absolutely nothing for the economy of uh Colombia and doesn't give anybody any work, I I think is uh the wrong way to go.

And as the previous speakers have said, um having having single family or multi-family uh lighter multifamily development would probably uh be healthier for the economy of Colombia.

Thanks.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you, Mr.

Reback.

Next speaker on this case, please come forward.

You get a lot closer.

A lot closer, okay.

We'll find it in the middle somehow, I promise.

Well, you chased the last speaker away from the microphone, so I'm being a little cautious.

I'm Alan Luger.

I'm live at 2105 Rock Quarry Road.

Uh two or three days ago, there was a serious crash at the foot of our driveway, which uh made it impossible for us to get in and out of our driveway for an hour or so while they cleaned up the mess.

Rock Quarry Road, for any any of you who have actually driven on it, is a curvy two-lane road, narrow lanes, double yellow line the whole way.

Uh I've been passed by motorcycles and cars across the double yellow line.

I have driven 30 miles an hour.

I have I confess 32 or 33 miles an hour on a 30 mile an hour road, and six, eight, ten cars line up behind me, waiting anxiously for me to go faster than the speed limit.

The plan shows the entrance and exit onto Rock Quarry Road.

There are there's a four-lane to the south.

There's access to another road to the west.

Uh why is it we have to have the entrance and exit on a two-lane double yellow line road?

If there was any other way to to gain entrance and exit, it would certainly ease the issue that this development is going to cause on a curvy two-lane double yellow line road.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Hello again, Rick Shanker, six ward.

I wanted to know how old is Columbia Imagined?

How old is that?

I'm sorry, Mr.

Shanker.

Could you do your name and address again?

Uh Rick Shanker, Cliff Drive, 6 Ward.

How old is Columbia?

Columbia Imagined, I believe.

I believe the last full uh rewrite was 2013 with updates of two or three years ago.

Thanks.

I'm concerned also about the traffic uh in the uh AM because I travel that road too, and maybe some of the people are sleeping, but there's a lot of traffic in the morning.

Number two is you provided uh questions about track two and threat three are going to add to this problem.

And I was curious to know why there is not an exit to the West, as the last speaker said.

Lastly, um I was curious to know, as some of you said, how in the world multifamily housing is in enclosed with uh student housing.

Uh one more thing is we might consider a moratorium on development on Rock Quarry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for Mr.

Schenker?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Next speaker on this case, please come forward.

Going once.

There we go.

Hello, my name is Shane Lowe's, 1660 High Ridge Circle over in the fourth ward.

Um I think there's a couple of things that I would like to point out with this.

I agree that this is a site that's a little bit more complicated due to Rock Quarry Road and such.

And I think that's part of the reason why PD zoning is something to deeply consider here.

Um we have existing utilities here.

This is a pretty central part of town still.

Uh, and I would really love to see us get the value of acre uh that we could get out of this with a more dense development.

Part of the reason why uh I'm gonna advocate for a dense development is because that's essential if we're going to have this be a reliable transit node someday in the future.

Uh and we need that if we're going to meet our climate adaptation plan, and we're going to need that if we really want to be able to uh utilize Rock Quarry Road for getting the most amount of people down it without having to put huge amounts of money into it to expand and uh develop that roadway in a fashion that would likely also be inconsistent with the scenic nature of the road.

I think PD is really important here because it allows us a little bit more use, a little bit more control over talking about, hey, how can we develop this area in such a fashion that we don't create induced demand with the parking?

The current development has like 3.75 parking stalls per dwelling unit as far as I'm aware.

I'm a little bit concerned that that might encourage a little bit of overuse uh of vehicles.

However, you know, like that's part of the thing with the PD, we get the opportunity to discuss these things.

Um if that leads to parking overflow, there's other means outside of zoning we can do to deal with that.

Uh to address uh one of the questions earlier as far as if we add additional traffic here, is that going to increase accidents and such?

And I think again, we should look at, hey, as far as per the amount of people traveling down, how is that impact?

And in many roads, when you have higher traffic roads, we actually have less serious injuries per passenger mile because traffic slows down speeds, slower speeds save lives.

Um I know the Rock Quarry Road access was originally there as part of fire code.

Is there's concerns about that?

I would just be curious if that's something we might be able to put like temporary barriers.

So, for example, I know that some places have done the little flexible fiberglass posts that in an emergency a fire truck can run down if it needs access to a property, uh, but nevertheless block vehicles uh for undesired use of um an entrance or exit to a road.

How are we taking any questions?

And that's all I had for now.

Thank you.

Any questions for the speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you so much.

Next speaker on this case.

Please come forward.

Uh Mr.

Colbert, in all fairness, there was one more person from the neighborhood.

I thought maybe he was waiting for all of you to go, ma'am.

Did I guess correctly, Caleb?

Yes.

Okay.

Please continue.

Gail Sweitzer at 1601 Cunningham Road.

And I'm actually in favor of the project.

I think it will be an asset to the South part of town.

I think they've taken a lot of care.

I'm sorry, could you pull this forward?

I think they've taken a lot of care to try to uh address the concerns of the neighbors, and I think they are taking a lot of care in preserving the green space.

Sorry, I'm nervous.

You're fine.

Um I just think it will be a positive influence.

There's not going to be, I think it's going to be more than just student housing.

And I I have lived in Columbia for 58 years.

I don't go up and down Rock Quarry Road.

I think people will go other routes, you know, because it'll be safer and accessible to downtown.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you, ma'am, for being here tonight.

Anyone else to speak on this case?

Mr.

Colbert.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission, Caleb Colbert, uh attorney at 1203 West Broadway.

Uh just wanted to call follow up on a couple of points.

Um, uh as to the question on um leasing this exclusively to students, landmark does not have a provision in their lease that requires uh their tenants to be um enrolled at an institution.

Approximately 10 percent of their tenants across the country are not students, so that would be uh uh would be open to non-students.

Additionally, they do run shuttles seven days a week uh during the week, those shuttles uh leave every 30 minutes, so they do provide transportation directly to campus.

As to uh the gentleman that spoke to the relationship between student housing and demand for general market housing, I do think there's a connection, and I'll use you know my experience here as a student at Mizzou in undergrad and law school and my wife's experience.

When my wife went through undergrad, she rented an apartment at courtyard apartments.

That was an apartment that would have been available to non-students, but as a student she needed a place to live.

As she moved through the university, our undergraduate system, she rented a single family home on Audubon Drive, which again would have been housing stock available to non-students, but then there was no student housing.

So she got together with a lot of her friends and rented that house.

So I respectfully believe there is a connection between the supply of student housing versus supply for the general market.

Um I also want to briefly touch on this Rock Quarry Special Area Plan.

It was adopted in 2002 as part of the Metro 2020 Comprehensive Plan.

The Metro 2020 comprehensive plan was replaced by Columbia Imagined in 2013.

And when you look at the ordinance that adopted Columbia Imagined, it's that all parts of Metro 2020 have been repealed.

Going forward, we're going to refer to Columbia Imagined.

I've not been able to find any place where the Rock Quarry Special Area Plan was incorporated and carried forward.

But if we're going to use it as a guidepost, I want to point out a couple of things.

On page three, if we follow the land or the development plan that's proposed in the Rock Quarry plan, there should be up to 1,200 dwelling units in this area.

We have a fraction of that.

So there's plenty of capacity of dwelling units in the study area if we're going to follow the plan.

Additionally, and that's on page three.

If we turn to page four, Rock Quarry in 2020 was predic predicted to accommodate 18,944 trips per day.

We're half of that.

So again, if we're going to follow this plan, we need to look at the prediction that there are going to be 19,000 vehicles using this road every day.

Finally, uh if we look at page six, transportation.

Every tract of record will be allowed a driveway access onto Rock Quarry Road.

That's number two on page six.

There will there can be a driveway every 220 feet of frontage.

This project checks all of those boxes.

So if we're going to treat the Rock Quarry plan as being the gospel, having the force of law, we're entitled to the driveway access on Rock Quarry.

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

Thank you.

Any questions?

Commissioner Walters?

Was the 19,000 trips that you decided?

What what what year was that predicted?

So that was part of the special area plan adopted in 2002.

They predicted that as of 2020.

As of 2020.

Okay.

So obviously that has not come to fruition.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Seeing none, thank you very much.

All right.

Last call.

Anyone else to speak on this case this evening?

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

Any Commissioner comments?

Anyone at all?

Commissioner Brodsky.

Somebody's got to start.

Lots of comments.

This these aren't necessarily in any order of importance.

Appreciate the traffic engineer, the 15% increase was actually the number that I came to as well.

I just wanted to verify that and get that on the record from you as the professional.

So I will commend them on that.

Commissioner Darr, I think you bring up a great point.

And I also want to point out, and this is perhaps a little bit not as direct as those two other tracts of land, but uh we do have a very large piece of land on the Lowry's property to the south of this that is going to probably be developed in in the I don't want to say near future, but um you know I don't think we're looking at 30, 40 years uh before that gets developed.

Uh so I I do think all of that should be uh considered.

Um as far as comparisons, uh and I I appreciate the uh tracking down the the traffic uh uh incidents on the roadway.

I actually did some of that myself speaking with the fire department and uh and joint communications.

Um I uh I think old 63 between stadium or excuse me, yeah, stadium and grindstone uh would be a better comparison uh in in the community here.

Um and I think Mr.

Wilson brought up an excellent point that the 2020 to 2025 time period that was looked at, you know, those were our heavy COVID years where traffic was was certainly reduced.

Um I don't necessarily agree with staff's assessment that this area has changed tremendously uh from the original special area plan.

Um we the one portion that was gonna be mixed use, it sounds like that is going to be coming to us as strictly commercial.

Uh but I don't necessarily see that as being a reason to to then say this should be multifamily instead of uh single family as it was was discussed.

Um this was brought up before, but I just want to reiterate it.

The the central house comparison, you know, just one day at one development seems a little too anecdotal for me to really make a direct comparison.

Um last thing I want to point out is is just the the timeline of improving Rock Quarry Road and the discussions in the past about when that's gonna happen.

Uh so in 2010 uh on the city's uh capital improvement plan, it was a three to five year project.

It was gonna cost nine hundred uh nine and a half million dollars.

In 2014, it showed up again on the CIP plan as a six to ten year project.

Uh that would be costs around 10 million.

Uh in 2023, it was included in the capital improvement sales tax uh tenure, 10-year renewal as a listed project, and it was listed in importance as number five out of 18 on roadways.

2025, it's on the Catso long-term plan at 13.4 million, and on the CATSO documents, a long-term plan is some a plan or a uh improvement that is gonna happen sometime between 2030 and 2054.

Uh so it just seems like this project just keeps getting the can just keeps getting kicked down the road.

Um I do like the idea of at least mitigating to some degree what can um the access to Rock Quarry.

Um I understand that's a fire um fire department requirement.

But I I I kind of like the idea of having that just be a an emergency.

So with that, I I would do want to hear what everyone else has to say.

Commissioner Gray?

Can I ask follow-up questions of my fellow commissioner?

Sure.

Okay.

This kind of like denial and deferral of improvements, but I am uh a little cautious about how we have squirrely definitions of adequate infrastructure.

And so if that is a criteria that is uh maybe impacting your decision significantly, I'm curious about like specific improvements to infrastructure that you may feel are necessary in order to move forward with development on this site.

Um I will say I have not looked at specifically what was um what was proposed in terms of improving that roadway, but uh my memory serves me correctly.

It was taking some of the sharpness out of the curves, uh a shoulder.

Uh I believe those would be probably be the two main things.

Um and I I apologize if if you don't mind if I might make one last comment.

Uh I I forgot to make this, but um earlier this year we had that develop the triplex development off of WW.

And that was denied by we approved it as a commission, but it was denied by City Council and it was denied because of roadway infrastructure concerns uh on a roadway that had no safety issues but was more of a subjective, the neighbors didn't like it.

Uh so you know comparing those two, it just seems a little bit disjointed, but sorry to take over.

Commissioner Gray, anything else?

Um yeah, I uh I am deeply appreciative of the supplemental information.

I uh want to trust what is put before me.

I am not an expert in these fields, and it is not my role to attempt to undermine the data given uh how it's being presented.

Uh I want to trust that it is being presented in a way that is truthful and in service to the larger goals, which uh to me is uh accounted for in the comprehensive plan.

Um I appreciate the clarification from staff um about uh the kind of order of the criteria uh and I understand that uh when these documents are looking into the future, they potentially account for a level of change that uh may make people uncomfortable.

However, I am not compelled by this argument that we uh uh necessarily need to distinguish between student housing and uh other types of residential multifamily housing.

I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

Um but I did go through the housing study because it keeps coming up.

Uh and the idea that we have temporary residents uh does not mean that they don't need housing or they don't need consideration.

The fact is that students are an unprotected class of people, and that we uh legally can discriminate against them in a lot of ways that we can't in other scenarios.

Um I understand uh there are a lot of big feelings about generally um, and I don't say that dismissively, um student housing and uh rooms that are leased uh or leases that account for different rooms.

I don't know how to say that.

Um but the end goal is housing.

And I suspect that given what has been presented to me, what has been accounted for in terms of how it aligns with the comprehensive plan, um the infrastructure, um, and the uh looking at what the thresholds are for mitigation.

I am troubled by some things about these developments, but I am willing to support it.

Anyone else?

Commissioner Darrell.

Um although it seemed like the traffic report seemed to suggest that no off site improvements needed to be made.

I did really appreciate CBB suggesting the curve study and making some recommendations on the improvements to the road that could um increase safety uh up to 18 percent, which is seems like a substantial increase for a minimal cost.

So I think city should really look into that.

And I mean, I believe we're a vision zero community, so I mean an average roadway shouldn't be our standard, should be better than that.

But um also uh a little troubling to me is the is the kind of the precedent, which I know it's not a precedent.

You know, we're evaluating this as a PD plan as a standalone thing with the criteria for PD plans or PD zoning.

Um but I just know the other two tracks are going to be developed in the future, and sure, they're gonna have to do traffic impact studies, and it may or may not say off-site improvements have to be made.

Eventually, somebody's got to say there's going to be off-site improvements need to be made because it's just uh to me, it's obvious that it's a substandard road and it will need to improvements eventually, uh, which you're kind of just kicking the can for these improvements down the road later and they're not getting done up front where you might be able to better plan something.

I'm kind of thinking about it as for example, Grandstone Plaza.

I think the traffic study relied on the improvements that are being made by another developer on the uh west side of Grandstone Plaza to increase to to make uh improvements to that intersections.

Uh, you know, and I don't believe they contributed any to those improvements, but you know, they're being able to use them in their study as if they're there.

So um kind of just some random thoughts.

But I think ultimately uh I definitely don't have any problem with the development, the the housing or you know, the location uh you know I I think the density is good.

I think we our goals have definitely changed since the 2002 rocks uh Rotquarry um scenic overlay where you know showed low density housing in this area.

I think this is a great area for high density.

I just wish we could, as a city make this higher priority to increase the functionality of this road and the safety of this road.

So I I probably will vote to recommend to approve this, but uh I do have some concerns on Rock Quarry, and I hope the city takes those seriously.

Commissioner Stanton.

All my commissioners have brought up great points, and definitely in particular Rock Quarry.

There's not much improvement you can do there.

It's gonna be a curvy.

I would call like a professional driver's road, if you know what I mean.

Uh I used to have a Mustang and I would only drive it on Rock Quarry to test my suspension and my you know I mean, it's the it's not a road I take to get to and from.

It's a driving experience.

I'll put it like that.

Um you can unsharpen a curve, it's not gonna matter.

There's it's called rockway for a reason.

You can't really put a shoulder there without causing more damage on the other side where you put the shoulder at.

It's not much you can do to improve that road.

Um I do like the development, but like my fellow commissioner, Mr.

Darr said, those once this goes, those are the two are going to be developed.

And the only way that we're going to have to come up with an alternative is more accidents are going to have to happen.

I just say like that.

The pressure on that road is gonna have to happen.

Um to improve it.

Only through the usage is there gonna be an alternative way to address the traffic there.

Um is sad to say.

That's the reality, but I do want to say this for the record because I didn't actually hear from the developer of this property.

Um Mr.

Rybbeck brought up a very good point.

And since they didn't come up, I'm gonna say this for City Council to ask.

If you're gonna make money in our town, use local labor and materials, and I want City Council to ask that of the developer and the owner of this property.

Again, if you're gonna make money in our town, use our local labor material.

And I want City Council to ask that question their cycle.

Thank you.

Next, Commissioner Walters.

Yeah, I have some loose comments.

I don't know if they make much of a point.

But I developed real estate here in town from 1985 through the around 2015 was involved in numerous residential projects.

And in many of those cases, we had to give money to the city to help facilitate off-site improvements.

And I'm talking about single family low density developments.

And where we had to pay for additional right-of-way, we had to pay for additional paving.

We had to pay for major improvements to intersection of intersections.

So anyway, um, and those costs have to be absorbed and passed on to the consumer, which I realize is a big, big problem right now.

But when we when I was doing it, I think we were uh we were developing in advance of the infrastructure that we had.

And I think this is an example of a development, an intense development that overtaxing the available infrastructure.

And uh so I have concerns about that.

Guess that just leaves me.

Um lives in the housing.

My concern is its suitability for multiple types of people to live within it.

And while they say that there isn't a requirement any longer that you be a student to live there, only 10 percent of the housing is desirable to non-students.

Um if these were one, two, three bedroom apartments, I wouldn't care if they were going to students.

I would be concerned about the Rock Quarry Road because I do think it matters that everybody is going to the same place at roughly the same time.

Um if this were a traditional multifamily house housing development, I wouldn't have as many concerns with it because you don't have everybody leaving on the same schedule going to the same place.

And you don't have a limitation on who in our community could find a place to live there.

So for those two reasons, I'm really I I don't think this is the right place for this.

Um I really don't.

I I think that it is exacerbating a problem that I drive through every morning.

I don't go on Rock Quarry Road, but I drive through Rock Quarry and Stadium every morning between 7.30 and 830.

And you cannot convince me that having more folks, like 10 percent more, two more cars per light is a huge deal in that intersection.

Um I mean, I just I think that because everything is concentrated with folks going to the same place at initi at essentially the same time because classes are on set schedules is what causes my concerns about the traffic problem more so than it would if it were a you know more marketable one, two, three-bedroom apartment complex, um, if that makes sense.

And and maybe it doesn't, but hey, it's a PD plan, and um I get a vote same as the other five of you.

So with that, would anyone like to make a motion for everyone's knowledge?

All motions must be made in the affirmative, even if the motion maker may not support the project.

Would anyone like to make a motion?

Commissioner Stanton.

As it relates to case 124-2026, the retreat at Columbia rezoning PD plan and preliminary plat.

I move to approve the proposed rezoning from A to P D.

I also approve move to approve the proposed PD plan and associated statement of intent serving as as a preliminary plat known as the retreat at Columbia and all subject to a track split prior to induction introduction to City Council.

Is there a second?

Motion made by Commissioner Stanton seconded by Commissioner Dar.

Is there any further discussion on the motion?

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commissioner Gower Jones.

No.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

No.

And my vote is no.

Thank you.

That by my count is a tie vote, which means no recommendation to City Council.

What that also means is that it will not be on the consent agenda.

So it will have two hearings before City Council.

Any further business on that case from staff?

Seeing none, we will move on to our next case.

As soon as we get Commissioner Brodsky back at the dais, we can start.

Commissioner Brodsky.

I don't either.

David Brodsky, please return to the dais.

I was looking.

Staff when you're ready?

Like what it what is the first thing?

All right.

We will return to order.

Uh eight fifty-two PM.

We were almost exactly five minutes.

Good job, everyone.

All right, our next case for the evening, case number one six two dash twenty twenty-six, a request by Crockett Engineering Agent on behalf of James and Leah Beth Johnson, LTS dash one LLC, East Meets West LLC, Momentum Builders LLC, and B V S H S S F Columbia LLC owners and Theory S Theory Sterling Mazoo developer for approval to rezone approximately two point nine one acres from the RMF multifamily dwelling district to the PD plan development district.

Um here is an illustration of the zoning around this area.

Um to the northwest uh of here, you can see the more green shaded area.

That's the core height overlay district within the city, um, and that permits development up to 10 stories in the MDT district.

Um, and all of the non-shaded parcels are actually MDT zoned for some reason.

Our our zoning map isn't illustrating that with its typical uh maroon color, I'll say.

Uh but around this site, it's entirely surrounded by residential multifamily zoning.

Um, but to the west is a university parking garage, and to the south is the uh university of Missouri itself.

Um, so the zoning and the uses uh don't inherently have I guess what conventionally would be assumed uh in the surrounding uses, but it is all zone surrounded by RMF zoning.

Um on the left is the illustration of what uh the structure would end up looking like.

Um so as we'll note later, um, there's 10 foot setbacks around the property.

Uh this is necessary to accommodate the uh required utility easements, uh, 10 feet on each side of right-of-way, um and in this case on only the side of right of way that's involved with this plating action.

Um, and the map on the right shows topography as well as existing utilities and the nature of development that exists on this site presently.

Um you can see uh more smaller um multifamily structures that may appear more like uh homes, but I believe R rented out uh multifamily use.

Um I believe it was the former TEAK house down to the south, and then uh university uh place apartments is the principal structure on this site, illustrated as uh structure B on the map to the right.

Um, some background again.

This is seven different parcels that contain seven different types of dwelling structures, uh, but much more than seven dwelling units comprehensively.

Um the plan illustrates there being 305 dwelling units, and the statement of intent illustration notes that there would be a maximum of 320.

Um, but whatever is approved with the plan is what would be permitted for development should it be approved.

Um this is inclusive of 970 beds throughout the 305 dwelling units.

Um there's also an optional um uh development route that has been outlined where there may be up to 1,300 square feet for personal service general uses in the if I'm not mistaken, and what would be the southwest corner of this development, uh which would be used to accommodate the existing barber shop uh that's uh in University Place apartment right now that actually had to receive a conditional use permit a year or two ago, if I'm not mistaken.

And again, this all would need to be replied into one lot in order to pursue this development.

Um this site would be accessed via Matthews Street as well as College Avenue, um, as you can see from the aprons that are illustrated on the plan.

Um College Avenue access uh is controlled by Modot, uh, but the their reduction in points of ingress and egress uh from four presently to one for the purpose of this development.

Um there would also be right-of-way dedications that would be necessary for PACWAN, it's uh relatively marginal a few feet.

Um for college, it's a little bit more substantial, uh, especially as you near the intersection with university.

Um the TIS indicates that midday and PM peak yields would be 215 and 205 trips respectively.

A majority of the traffic is anticipated to head either north or south on College Avenue.

Um, and there was a decrease in level of service letter for northbound and southbound traffic on Matthews Street.

However, it was fewer than a five-second delay, um, and ultimately there were not improvements that were recommended by the TIS, and this was accepted by the city's traffic engineer as being a reasonable conclusion.

Um the small image here, I I didn't scale it up uh too much because I had to fit more wonderful text on the slide, um, is an architectural rendering that has been provided by the applicant that they have noted that they are fine with being a binding illustration of what this development uh would end up looking like.

Um the north building uh is to be seven stories, so that's going to be closer and fronting on PAQI, whereas the southern uh building is to be eight stories and it would be fronting on university.

Uh dwelling units are to be centered around the perimeter of the structure with the central portion of the property principally being used for parking as well as courtyard amenities uh to support the residential users or the residents.

Yeah, not really a residential user.

Anyway, development is to be conforming to the illustrated architectural plan.

Um and here I have a more expanded version of what the applicant intends uh to develop this to.

Uh so a little bit of background on this site.

Um a portion of this site was zoned R4 prior to the adoption of the unified development code in 2017.

I have illustrated what the zoning is in the map to the left.

Um so University Place apartments was developed under R4 regulations, uh, which did not have a maximum height if you provide an elevator, and also if all of the units were at least 350 square feet in total area.

Um if you do not have an elevator or if the units are fewer than 350 square feet, my understanding is that you were not able to exceed 45 feet in total height despite still being an R4 potentially.

Um University Place was developed under R4 regulations and it's 65 feet in height, and now it would be considered a legal non-conforming structure because it exceeds the maximum height limit for the residential multifamilies uh zoning district.

Um rest of the property was all zoned uh R3, um, but all of these uh parcels were uh rezoned to residential multifamily upon UDC adoption in 2017.

There's uh four design exceptions that are being requested for this PD plan, which uh deviate from typical requirements of section 294 of the unified development code.

Um and these are for excuse me.

Building setbacks, building height, parking requirements, as well as landscape requirements.

Uh so first we'll discuss setbacks.

Um again, as I noted earlier, the building is to be set back 10 feet from all sides of the perimeter of the property.

Um RMF would typically require uh 25 foot in your front yard and your rear yard, not year yard, excuse me, um, and 15 feet uh for all your side yards uh since they do have street frontage.

Uh the 10 foot setback does still allow for all of the necessary utility easements to be dedicated along the street frontage.

Um this reduction in setback is is believed to be reasonable due to the proximity of this site to downtown uh in a more urban development pattern uh that kind of exists around the site.

Um also allows for uh a desired um and helpful density uh around a particular uh you know high high value location uh in terms of desirability for for students who would be attending the University of Missouri or other academic institutions in the city.

Um and reduced setbacks can also, you know, as a as a planning note, a reduced setback can be means to create a more pedestrian oriented feel with buildings being closer to the streets and sidewalks as one approaches MDT, although this does not have uh first floor retail, which would be a requirement in an MDT and could enhance that pedestrian-oriented feel more, uh, but we still think that's accomplished uh with the residential uh structure that's being illustrated here.

Uh other design exception would be for a building height, um, of which the applicant is requesting a maximum of 85 feet.

Uh RMF zoning district would allow a maximum of 45 feet if you increase your side yard setbacks by 10 feet, if I'm not mistaken, from what they would principally be or normally be.

Um so that would be a 25 foot setback, and then you could go up to 45 feet from all sides of the property.

Um excess of even that.

Uh an 80-foot-5 uh multifamily development, 85-foot tall multifamily development would only be allowed in the uh mixed-use downtown core height overlay, um, which is why I referenced that before.

Uh, but mixed-use downtown zoning could could not be uh adopted uh for this site because it does not have frontage on a street that has been classified within the MDT regulation plan.

And if I'm not mistaken, that would require other property owners uh to also be involved with uh request to expand the MDT area and get those streets in the regulating plan, um, but they're too far away from MDT to have that happen without collaboration of many other property owners who are not related to this development.

Um again, 85 feet in height would have been okay in the R4 zoning district, um, provided they had an elevator.

Um, and 85 feet is approximately 20 feet taller than the uh presently developed university place apartments, um, and it is a little bit more than half of the height of Pacquin Towers, which is directly to the northwest of this site, which stands at around 162 feet tall.

Uh so part of the concerns uh particularly with height uh are uh where shadows would be casted by structures and how this would affect adjacent property.

Um the applicant has provided a uh shadow study for what shadows would look like uh during the kind of beginning of the summer period uh as well as a little bit into the winter period.

So in the winter periods, you can see that north of PACWIN, those developments will receive fair amount of shade from noon until around four.

And then the shade or the shadows, excuse me, move a little bit more to the east across College Avenue to the developments that exist on the east side of College Avenue.

It does not appear to be too intrusive or invasive, particularly in summer months, however, and the shadows, the structures that are would be in the shadows in these winter months, it is still believed to have a minimal impact, at least from what's illustrated with this shadow study.

And the requested height is consistent with the pre-UDC designation for a portion of this site.

I think that's a just a note I want to hammer home.

And allowing increased height allows greater density in a walkable portion of town near the University of Missouri and other downtown services that are desirable.

Another design exception that's being requested is reduced parking requirement.

So the applicant is providing 570 parking spaces.

And it would be required to provide 718 parking spaces if this were under the typical multifamily development standard.

So that would be short by around 148 parking spaces, or about 20% under parked of what our minimum would be.

Whereas if it were in mixed use downtown, it would only require half a space per bed, which would result in if this parking were provided and this were zoned MTE, which again it cannot be zoned to MDT.

It would be parked 20% in excess of the MDT requirements.

So that's kind of believed to be a reasonable middle ground kind of between what typical RMS standards would be and MDT when you're in this relatively transitional period into intensity of development away from the downtown area.

So more information regarding the reduced parking requirement.

Parking comps were provided by the applicant.

They looked both at student housing in the city of Columbia as well as comparable comparable developments that they have been involved with in other communities to analyze what the parking ratio was in terms of spaces per bed, as well as what the utilization rate of the existing parking is.

So Todd and U Center are PD zoned and district flats and Rhizon 9th are both in MDT zoning, if I'm not mistaken.

So those two that are not highlighted have a parking ratio that is 0.190.24.

That's well under what is being provided here.

They have around 100% utilization rate.

Todd has uh parking ratio of 0.43 spaces per bed that has a hundred percent utilization rate as well.

But the U Center on Turner has 0.76 uh uh parking space to bed ratio uh and is only seeing utilization rates at around 63%.

Um the applicant and what they are proposing would be uh somewhere in between the the ratio of parking that's provided for both the Todd development and the U Center on Turner development and naturally or not naturally, I suppose, but you can observe that there's a drop in utilization as that parking ratio uh increases, um at least for the selected developments uh that they've illustrated here.

Um they also provided again comps from other cities where um either their developments have already been completed or uh being proposed or in the process of being developed at this time if I'm not mistaken.

Um I believe the most comparable cities uh that they provided for these comparisons were Gainesville, Florida and Syracuse, New York.

Um development in Gainesville is parked at a 0.65 space to bed ratio.

Uh again, their proposal is 0.6, um, and Gainesville had around 85% utilization rate for their parking, whereas Syracuse was parked at 0.43 spaces per bed ratio and had a utilization rate around 95%.

Um so it is observed that there is at least a 10% decrease in utilization rate as the parking has increased by a ratio of approximately 0.22 space per bed for these two developments, uh, and this would be closer to Gainesville than it would be to Syracuse, at least in terms of the ratio that's provided.

Uh so if this development is similar, uh 0.6 space bed ratio is believed to be adequate for accommodating the on-site parking based off the provided utilization rates from these other developments.

Um also the site is conducive for students to potentially live without cars due to the proximity of this to the academic institutions as well as commercial services that uh are necessary for living and enjoying the city.

Um last design exception is a landscaping requirement.

Uh typically we require 15% of the site to be landscaped.

Uh the applicant is providing 10% here.

Basically, all portions of the site that are not in structure appear to be landscaped, which can include graphs that you maintain and install on the perimeter of your structure, and that could be within the utility easements that are being dedicated.

Only around 13.8% of the site would be pervious area.

So it is really not feasible for a 15% landscaping requirement to be reached with this particular proposal.

And it's not believablely unreasonable to request this reduction in landscaping when considering the other requested design exceptions as well as the context of the site in terms of proximity to downtown, which is more dense, and there's building that's required to the required building line in mixed-use downtown that results in uh less than 15% landscaping on many developments in that area.

Uh so requiring 15% landscaping would result in increased height if the same number of units were desired, or would result in fewer number of units in an ideal location for more defense dense development.

It's also not believed to be out of character with the impervious coverage of developments as one years downtown generally.

So, in terms of comprehensive plan alignment, this site has been identified within the neighborhood district in the future land use map.

It's also in a tier one growth priority area and encouraged by policy three of the comprehensive plan, which is prioritizing infill development.

It also encourages density near the city's core, which is goal three of land use management outlined in the comprehensive plan.

As it relates to the housing study, as we've kind of discussed this previously, but it is to provide 305 multifamily units, uh, even if it is just for students.

Our understanding is that provision of those units still count toward toward our multifamily goals.

Um again, the goal for multifamily units for rent would be around 163 units per year for the next 25 years.

This is infill development.

Uh it does not require utility extension.

It will require some utility improvement, um, which I will discuss in future slide.

Um, and conflicts um uh the the only uh area where this really conflicts with the housing study is it states that purpose-built complexes should be avoided in downtown areas to the degree possible, uh, and this is both senior and students to the degree possible is a little bit um of a of a nebulous uh I guess phrase to use there.

Um but uh the the idea behind avoiding that is is one that there is a preference for uh people of of all kinds who live in the city uh to live downtown, and it could be encumbering downtown with purpose-built housing, and that's fewer immediate options for non-students.

Um then also it's um provision of amenities within particular apartment complexes uh may not be supported if it's uh only available to tenants of it.

Uh rather, uh the housing study positive that um it would be better to make utilization of of uh commercial services, uh things of that nature uh to the general public rather than having it contained entirely within a housing development.

Uh and also a majority of the beds on site in the university place, at least um, appear to be marketed heavily to students, um, if not rented exclusively to students.

I don't know entirely if that's the nature, but it is on the University of Missouri's off-campus housing list.

Um, so the there is believed to be a minimal loss to non-student housing uh in this particular area.

Uh if this weren't the case, it would maybe be a little bit harder to get over the idea that this is a purpose-built housing student housing complex uh in downtown area, but provided what it's it's replacing a lot of what is student housing with more student housing, there's a little bit less consternation.

Um regarding UDC procedure um for developments uh or for rezonings rather.

Um staff would note that the proposed PD comports with the comprehensive plan, particularly for uh it being a tier one growth area.

Uh its designation within the future land use map.

It is prioritizing infill development, um, and it is encouraging density near the city's core.

Um infrastructure improvements will need to be approved if the plan is approved prior to introduction of a final plat.

Um so there is some sewer on Packwind that needs to be improved with the development of this site and development of this proposal would require final plating, um, and the city will put a final plat on hold until sewer plans are approved, uh, and then uh building permits or occupancy permits would be put on hold until those improvements are made in order to support the use.

Um public correspondence for this case.

I received one email.

Uh this person also called me.

improved uh with the development of this site uh and development of this proposal would require final platting um and the city will put a final plat on hold until sewer plans are approved uh and then uh building permits or occupancy permits um would be put on hold until those improvements are made in order to support the use um yeah regarding public correspondence for this case I received one email uh this person also called me uh their question was about uh plan for uh potential displacement of those living within university place apartments um I believe the applicant uh should be able to respond to those questions um and I also received one phone call after this report was published um they noted that they were generally opposed and their principal concern was also displacement of tenants of university place apartment uh 305 letters were sent three of which went to neighborhood associations and homeowners associations and one went to the council representative so ultimately staff would conclude the PD plan serving as a preliminary plat does comport with UDC standards uh for subdivision uh and is aligned with the comprehensive plan uh and uh certainly portions of the housing study uh albeit or I guess excluding the uh target of not over concentrating downtown with uh purpose built housing although I would argue this isn't necessarily uh an over concentration for this one development particularly um design exceptions are also believed to be appropriate with the surrounding context um if this were in a more on the periphery portion of town it would be a much harder sell uh provided it's context near the mixed use downtown area it's not believed to be inappropriate um so staff's recommendation would be to approve the proposed rezoning from residential multifamily to PD and to approve the proposed PD plan inclusive of design exceptions and the statement intent serving as a preliminary plates theory Sterling Mizzou uh this is subject to technical corrections um just need to get confirmation first from surveying for one particular comment uh as well as subject to adherence to the attached architectural renderings in the agenda uh if the commission has any questions happy to answer them thank you thank you before we go to questions for staff if any of my fellow commissioners have had contact with parties to this case outside of a public hearing please disclose so now seeing none other questions for staff.

Commissioner Gray Hi thank you um okay I have a little bit of a list.

So uh to clarify the sewer improvements you said that the plat the final plat would be on hold until uh that was a proved not improved.

Correct A approved so they would submit their plans to improve the infrastructure and we would know that those are ready to be made should a final plat be approved and then the improvements themselves would be made before issuance of a building permit if I'm not mistaken it may also be a certificate of occupancy.

Okay.

Thank you.

And kind of a follow-up to that are these sewer improvements that would need to be made already like regardless of whether this was rezoned or developed I do not know if I have the capacity to answer that particularly I apologize.

I think if I'm not mistaken um the improvements have something to do with the pitch of the the main so there needs to be adjustment to increase uh flow for sanitary sewer to lead to uh a wider main that is uh if I'm not mistaken on Elm Street.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

You're welcome um the you said that the um uh much of the surrounding area is RMF and are those largely legal nonconformities with the setbacks being less than what was it 25 feet?

Uh it's kind of hard I I haven't done an exact inventory of it.

I would imagine some of them are legal nonconforming uses with the University of Missouri situation.

It's a little bit different insofar they uh need not necessarily meet the dimensional standards of our code for development.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'm I'm trying to categorize the uh how it is congruent with the uh surrounding yeah um and then again maybe a question that you don't have an answer to the current landscaping uh do we know like roughly what that percentage is it comparable to what is being suggested I do not know what the existing landscaping is um it's the structure I I do believe is more than then 10 feet set back when I measured it um I do not know what the exact landscaping percentage of this site comprehensively is though.

Thank you.

And I this is my first time seeing a shadow study and I would appreciate a little bit more context about how I'm taking that in consideration whether it's like the impact on neighbors like I I'm trying to figure out how to sort this data.

The way we looked at it was mostly to see the periods of time in which it would be most impactful, as well as the extent of the shadows that are created.

And also using that perhaps in comparison with Paclan Towers, which is also a structure that's well over what our height requirements would be to see what adjacent property uh it would be impacting.

Okay.

Got it.

Everything the light touches.

My last question.

Um I am a little bit unclear about how to um understand the comparisons, and maybe this is a question uh for the applicant uh regarding the parking because it seems like there is a hundred percent not uh in the in-town comparisons, thank you.

Um a hundred percent utilization without with one exception.

So uh I'm curious about uh how that is uh this uh comparison is being offered.

Uh like just interpretation of it or kind of yeah.

Um so there's a few factors uh that uh certainly I considered when I was looking at what the parking ratios are and how it relates to utilization rate.

Um of the initial thoughts is uh potentially is you center discoupling uh parking spaces from rent.

So you don't inherently have to have a parking space if you're also renting a bed.

Um however, with still only being at 63% utilization rate um at a at a .76 ratio.

Um it didn't seem, I mean, if there are 200 spaces undersold and they have 546, that's 346 parking spaces uh for 714 beds.

Uh that's closer to a 0.5 ratio in if you think of actual occupied spaces per bed, if that makes sense, which would still be underparked for or uh a lower parking ratio than what's being provided here.

Um but yeah, mostly just looking at what the ratio is, what the utilization rate is and uh kind of seeing where this is proposed to fall uh and what expectations for utilization of parking may be because of that.

That is super helpful.

Thank you so much.

No, it's perfect.

Is that it, Commissioner Bray?

Yes.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean that to come off snotty.

Just making sure before I moved on, Commissioner Brodsky.

Um real quick follow-up question to Commissioner Gray's um question.

On you you said the U Center on Turner, they decouple I don't know.

I th I that my theories for why it may be that they have such a lower utilization rate for their parking.

Okay.

Yeah.

That answers my question.

Thank you.

Yep.

Any other questions for staff?

I have a question for legal.

Um I'm not saying we do want to do this.

I just want to ask now before we get too far into the hearing, because it may inform my decision making.

Um the 1,300 square feet for the barbershop and spa, that's optional on the current PD plan.

Do we have the authority to amend the PD plan to make it mandatory?

I don't believe so.

I uh No, I I don't know.

I'm trying to reach and see what how we could.

I mean, we we could place other people, but I don't think we can I I know we can place conditions on the PD plan approval.

Conditions are usually to bring uh the uh up the application up to uh compliance with the code or with UDC in general.

So usually it's conditioning with health safety or welfare, or if there's something deficient, the condition is to bring it into uh compliance with with the code.

That might be a little too far afield.

Okay.

So we could theoretically say since you're basically copying MDT, the entire first floor has to be retail, but couldn't say 1,300 square feet, or would that also be too far?

I I mean like I said, you can try and negotiate with the applicable.

I don't know how the we would enforce make that uh that condition.

I'm hearing a no.

Pretty much, yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um any other questions for staff?

Seeing none, we will open the floor to public comment.

Please come forward.

Name and address for the record, six minutes for the applicant in a group, three minutes for individuals.

Slide.

There we go.

With me tonight uh uh is the architect uh Jonathan DeCabre, uh Todd Gaines is one of the uh one of the applicants as well as Jeff Guitens.

Uh they will be speaking behind me tonight, and also with us tonight is Caleb Colbert and of course the traffic engineer uh Brian Rensing, who's with CBB, uh does not have a presentation but can answer any traffic questions that you may have.

Uh I believe that uh Michigan did a very good job in his overview and a staff report.

So uh pretty much my overview covers everything that he kind of talked about.

Again, let's talk about the uh the location of this site.

Uh this is in a unique location in town uh in my opinion.

Uh you see it here, you can see what's around us.

Uh you take the MDT district, uh, the boundaries of the MDT encroach in the northwest of us coming in.

Then you take the University of Missouri and Stevens College to the south and to the north of us, and then add into that uh College Avenue.

And we have this little pocket of ground that kind of sits in there between University and Stevens, bound on the west side of college and the MDT.

Much of it is zoned uh multifamily residential, uh multifamily residential.

Um really I don't think that uh the standard uh zoning classification for multifamily residential is suited for this particular location, this little pocket of area between uh all of these entities.

Um coming in here with a 35 foot maximum building height and large parking lots, um just doesn't seem that that's the right area, uh the right uh spot for uh for that type of development.

Again, you've seen the PD plan, you've seen this before uh with what's there versus what we're proposing.

Uh you've seen the uh the the rendering that they're coming up with, and this is what it looks like today.

Uh again, it's only about 20 foot taller, and I think Jonathan will go into that a little bit more detail.

Traffic study was done on that for the site.

So uh if you have any questions, Brian's here to answer any questions.

Again, this traffic study was approved by the City of Columbia and MODOT.

It was done uh with their complete input on the site.

Uh utilities, we do have utilities on the site uh to to serve this and and to answer one of your questions, Ms.

Gray.

Uh the sewer in question, there's a there's a run of sewer that the city has, and it's simply it's it's below state minimum.

So as it sits there today, um it flows, it functions, it's fine for what's there today.

Uh but for there to be additional capacity, we have to reconstruct it and steepen that grade to increase the capacity.

So we're working with the sewer department on that.

They brought that to our attention, told us what section it was, uh and they're looking for us to uh to make a proposal back to to fix that issue.

So that's uh that's the sewer in question.

The water line is there as well.

Uh we're gonna do some uh some some significant water line upgrades as well.

Uh they've got uh eight-inch water lines on two sides, a sixteen-inch water line, kind of caddy corner from us, and some four-inch lines that we're gonna upgrade uh through our development.

Uh again, the stormwater uh electric is there.

There's a lot of electric out there.

We're talking uh with water and lights trying to underground that electric.

So if you've driven down college, excuse me, if you've driven down Pacwin or you've driven down um uh university, there's substantial electric lines over overhead, and it's rather untightly.

And we're working with them to see if we can't underground those.

Um and Ms.

Gray, you also asked a question about the existing landscaping question.

Um I don't have that exact calculation, but I think it's pretty comparable.

And and um we may there may be a little bit more green space out there right now than what we'll have in the future, possibly, but we're going to have more green space along College Avenue.

And the reason for that is is if uh we have to grant additional right-of-way along College Avenue.

And that c and that green space, uh, unless something is done with it by Modot or the City of Columbia, is it gonna be basically green space or a sidewalk?

What's out there now is parking lot in that green space.

Um and so there's a large paved areas, there's buildings or closer, that kind of thing.

So um we believe that we're gonna have green space where it really matters.

Uh Columbia Imagine talks about uh or we talk about what Columbia imagined says about this site.

Again, neighborhood district, uh located inside of the urban series uh urban service area, obviously, and a tier one growth priority area.

Again, what does that mean?

It means that it utilities are available, it's in field development, encourages higher density housing, which is exactly what we're proposing.

Um, and it's a preferred area for the city to focus development in.

And of course, it's aligned with policy three of the comp plan.

And with that, uh I'm happy to turn it over to uh to the architect uh to talk about the the building a little bit.

Okay.

Good evening, members of uh the commission.

Um Cambry, I'm an architect uh with Gensler.

Uh Gensler is a global architecture firm uh with about sixty offices across the globe.

My role is a specialty in high density housing, in particular projects like this at uh major universities across across the globe, or actually across the nation.

When we began looking at this site, um our goal wasn't to simply introduce a new building.

Um it was uh to design a thoughtful contextual addition to uh the existing campus in Columbia's urban fabric.

Um in doing so we focused on you know four key pillars to ensure that the project respects its neighbors and uh delivered a meaningful uh public benefit.

Uh those were context, uh scale, architecture, and pedestrian activation, all which we feel are appropriate for a purpose-built student housing project such as this.

Um design framework was really deeply rooted in uh respecting Columbia's architectural heritage.

Uh we spent a great time, deal of time understanding the unique college, collegiate atmosphere here.

Um, our our our study around the Quad and the Greater Camp gave us a really good understanding of what this campus is like.

And our goal was to preserve and enhance that sense of place.

And because the site sits predominantly at a major transitional intersection, uh, it naturally serves as a gateway to the campus.

Um so our proposed design steps steps up to that responsibility uh by anchoring this primary corner with a distinct uh welcoming identity that defines this gateway without overwhelming the neighborhood.

Um we know density and height are always at the top um of mine for commissioners like yourself and the public.

Uh so we designed the massing of Theory Sterling with the understanding of the dramatic scale and the gap in the existing neighborhood.

Um as mentioned before, uh the current the site currently sits adjacent to the high-rise Pacquin Tower.

Uh that one's about 162, 170 feet tall, and a neighboring uh parking structure that sits about 40 feet tall, 45 feet tall.

Uh theory Sterling uh would step carefully from 75 to 85 feet.

Uh and we believe this is a highly effective mid-rise urban bridge between uh those two extremes.

To put that in perspective, at its highest point, uh this building would only sit 20 feet taller than the existing university place building.

Um we feel that this design provides a pretty balanced common sense transition for these building types.

Um, we when looking at this, we were really disciplined in trying to avoid a massive monolithic building uh creating a this uh wall effect along the streetscape.

So instead we intentionally broke down the scale of the facade uh using different types of material uh and varied material palette.

Um the facade uh as you can see has a uh characteristic characteristic of several distinct buildings instead of one.

And by breaking this into smaller components, uh we feel it creates a highly pedestrian-friendly human-scale street age that softens the building's overall presence.

Um finally I want to emphasize how this project you know interacts with the public realm and complies with uh standard city standards that we see across the nation.

Um the design will ensure a smooth transition into the surrounding context.

Um we've utilized setback strategies to give the right of way to pedestrians along South College Avenue.

Um this is something that we heard from the neighborhood as a concern, uh, but this does create a significantly wider, safer, and more generous uh walkable environment for everyone.

Um at the ground level, the main entrance and primary student amenity spaces uh feature a highly transparent glass facade.

Uh this allows the internal energy of the building and the activity to visually interfere with the sidewalk uh breathing life in the streetscape.

And finally, this transparency at night would serve as a vital purpose for activating the interior zones and providing uh a safe, secure walking environment for students.

Um we believe this represents a balanced approach to urban infill and it respects Columbia's history, bridges a difficult scale gap, enhances the pedestrian experience on the university and South College Avenues, and contributes to a safer, uh more vibrant neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do you want us to stop for questions or are you gonna pass it off to the next person?

I'll pass it off to the next.

Okay.

Three minutes, sir.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Uh, my name is Todd Gaines.

Uh, live at 1705 Lake Cliff Hills Lane in Austin, Texas.

Um, appreciate you all having us here this evening.

Um want to introduce our company super quickly.

So we're we're one of the applicants.

Uh we're partnering with PeakMade uh Code of Library.

I'm sorry, a lot closer up to that mic maybe bend it up a little towards you.

Is this a little better?

Okay.

Um we are the applicants and the co-developers for this project.

Um our company, the Dennis Company is based in Houston, uh, has been developing properties since 1955.

We are a family-owned business.

Uh, we've been doing student housing for about 25 years now, uh, all purpose built off-campus student housing, as well as luxury multifamily housing.

We do about 50-50 of both of those.

Um I want to speak tonight about a question that we had received sort of prior to this, which is does the market really need more student housing right now?

Uh and I wanted to just give a brief overview on where the University of Missouri housing market is for students.

Um obviously I'm going to tell you the answer is yes, more housing is necessary.

Um's freshman class size has expanded 20 percent in the last three years.

Record growth every year for the last three years, which obviously starts with living at the university and then flows into off-campus student housing.

So you might imagine that total enrollment is also growing as well.

It's grown over 8 percent in the last three years.

There have been no new purpose-built off-campus student housing projects in the last eight years here.

And by the time that this project were to deliver in 2029, that would be 10 and a half or 11 years.

So purpose-built student housing is not keeping up with the growth that Missouri is experiencing right now.

How do we see that?

Well, you see that in rent growth.

Um rents are going up across the board, and in fact, they went up, got my number here, um 12 percent just in the last year for students.

Um that that is a ton of growth for rents, and it's it's not necessarily something that indicates a healthy market.

That's something that indicates that the market needs more student housing.

Um we've seen a couple of the competitor properties that exist sell out in 72 hours when they start leasing.

So again, it's extremely competitive right now.

So we would argue that yes, there more purpose-built student housing does need to be developed as a result of that.

Um you've got about 30 seconds.

Okay.

I'll hurry up.

Um what I wanted, and I'm sure you all cannot really read this, so I'll summarize this, but we provided uh a rent study of our competitors, and what I'd like to emphasize is that we're including uh a fairly high number of four-bedroom pro umits within our project because that provides the best value to students out of these.

So as you look, the more bedrooms you add, the lower the per bed prices.

Um I don't know how much more time I have, but I'll I'll finish there and see if there are any questions.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Go ahead and Commissioner Brodsky.

Um two quick questions.

Uh and overall, I'm in favor of this project.

Um the parking has me a little bit concerned, so I want to ask you a couple questions about that.

Um would would adding more parking make this um project financially unfeasible for you?

It could.

Uh also we've provided as much parking as we can without going even higher on this project.

Um, if you recall the design that we've included, we're screening our parking on all sides, right?

So we're trying to create sort of an attractive project.

We recognize that this is on the footsteps of campus, and so we would have to go even taller to include more parking here.

Thank you.

Any uh Commissioner Walters?

Uh will the will the parking be included or is it is it an option?

It's an option.

Commissioner Gray.

Thank you.

Um you said that uh you have been in student like purpose-built housing for about 25 years.

Our company has.

Okay.

You personally.

Oh no, no, I'd still be in high school at that point.

Oh, okay.

Love that for you.

Um I'm curious about what are the lessons that you've learned in these experiences or their takeaways.

Oh my gosh, how much time do you have?

About 30 seconds.

We well, we start if you look at what student housing looked like, even here 20 years ago, that's what we were building.

So very low density.

It looked very much like regular residential.

Uh it there was not bed bath parity.

And over time, we found that students could get more value out of leasing per bed.

Um we found that they appreciated amenities that were student focused, uh, for instance, study rooms versus you know, things that perhaps a multifamily community wouldn't have.

So we've learned a lot of different things, but I think one thing we always come back to is that putting students as close as we can to campus benefits those students and it benefits the university as well.

Having access to the campus is paramount.

It also actually, and I know again, parking is a question here.

I just want to say, and you'll probably hear it from the rest of us too.

It provides us an opportunity to actually offer uh living that is so close to campus that students have the option to not bring a car.

Many of them will.

We can argue about how many will, but I guarantee you that if this project is less dense, you encourage other projects with which are further away from campus, all of those students are going to be driving to campus.

Thank you.

I have follow-up questions for the architect, if that's okay.

We don't usually allow people to come back up, but we will since they did this whole trio act.

I had questions too.

Mr.

Architect, hey, yes, you know the rules.

No.

Okay.

I I maybe even I will allow each person to speak for three minutes.

Even though that means that the that you are all for the developer.

Um the architect, we'll allow the architect to come back.

Mr.

Architect, please come back.

State your name and address again for the record.

Mr.

Architect.

Hi.

I'm sorry.

No, Jonathan Del Cambre.

Thank you, Mr.

Dale Cameron.

Please go ahead.

Commissioner Gray.

I'm so sorry.

Um thank you for coming back up.

Um I I just had a uh kind of point of curiosity.

I think um, you know, uh it was mentioned that the last uh student proof that's built housing in this area was about eight years ago, and I'm not sure which uh unit that was, but I know uh generally concerns about um architectural design renderings, and I respect that you wanted to honor and um really uh signal an appreciation for Columbia's architectural um specificities.

I am curious about um how that those specific architectural features are uh not just like um sorry, the like not having a mass brick wall, um, but like what specifically are you drawing from that is uh particularly Columbia, Missourian.

Uh and additionally, that um sometimes when we combine different architectural features from different standards uh or uh signals to get kind of a postmodern uh cheesecake factory nightmare.

And so I want to see what you have to say in terms of what you drew inspiration for, and perhaps assuage some citizens that may um fear what is being presented.

Yeah, I mean we don't want to replicate the campus architecture.

There's some great Beaux-Arts architecture here, uh the use of the limestone and the red brick, you know.

Um it's very historical, but we don't want to recreate that.

So we want to take that and apply it in a contemporary language, which is what you've which we we've shown.

We'd have had hints of the lighter color material, uh hints of the reddish material uh expressed in the verticality, uh the punched openings, uh, kind of be reminiscent of some of the buildings on campus in the scale.

So I you know it's not hey, we want to uh replicate these types of details that were done in this into uh very expensive uh limestone, because this this won't be a limestone building, you know, and so trying to replicate that can be very difficult in a contemporary manner.

That makes sense.

Yes, thank you.

And quick follow-up.

Um in your expertise, these materials uh that you've chosen if so part of these designs are sustainable over time.

Yes, correct.

Thank you.

Since we've got you here, any other Commissioner Darr?

I believe I know we've been talking about MDT and you know we're really close to that.

Did you compare the form standards from MDT to what you're uh proposing?

How does that compare?

Yeah, so the MDT standards are quite a bit more dense in terms of height uh and setbacks.

Um the parking ratios are less.

So I was more talking about the facade articulations and dissimilar materials.

They have standards for those in the MDT.

Yeah, and they do, and uh it's activating the streetscape.

Uh I think there's requirements for retail activation and whatnot.

Um so we've applied some of those principles here.

Um obviously we're not proposing mixed use building, although it will have some small component of retail, we hope, with the barbershop.

We do believe it's a good blend between the MDT and a pocket that was pointed out that really is kind of sitting in no man's land and has really doesn't have a zoning for it that is applicable.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

Yep.

Next speaker on this case.

Excuse me.

Good evening, Commission.

Uh I'm Jeff Givens, Peak Made Real Estate, 2970 Claremont Road, Atlanta, Georgia.

We are partnered with uh the Dennerstein Company on this development.

I'm going to address two things, and I don't need slides to do so.

I want to talk about parking and then university place.

Um parking, and I want to answer some questions that I heard.

One, all of the comps that we showed existing here in the University of Missouri market, decouple parking from the residential rent.

So parking is an additional fee, and thus, you know, there's no property in the market right now that would do it any differently.

You pay your rent and you pay for a parking space.

The real relevance is University Center, which had a built parking ratio that was higher than what we are proposing.

However, is 100 percent occupied in its residences, but only occupied 48 percent of well, is parking ratio or occupied parking ratio is 48 percent.

And that's pretty telling.

And I'll give you other market context, which you may say, well, this is Columbia, this is not Gainesville, Florida.

In the last 10 years, the highest parking ratio, and we developed a lot of, I've been doing this over 20 years in multi and student, the highest parking ratio that we have built in the in the last 10 years has been a 0.65 ratio, and that was in Gainesville, Florida, with our utilization, the actual utilization was less than uh 0.6 ratio.

Parking demand, and this is true across the globe, is reducing every year with alternative modes of transportation, ride share, and in a pedestrian location, the need for parking is not what it is in a suburban location.

So we are we have a responsibility to ourselves, to our investors, to our partners, to our residents to make sure we get the parking ratio right.

And we feel, and we've done a lot of study of what we built before and what we have seen in this market, feel very confident that what we're building as a parking ratio is more than adequate.

I would almost argue we probably could have gotten by with less.

I would have thought a 0.5 ratio would have been more than adequate here, but we went up uh to be respectful of you know the difference in the zoning class and that we're kind of in a hybrid.

Uh but I feel very good about our parking.

As for university place, uh a related entity of ours is the owner of University Place.

When we bought this in 2018, we bought it because it was a tremendous location, tremendous market in university.

We always had um the vision of this being redeveloped into a higher and better use.

And it was just a matter of time.

The time is now, given the growth of the university, the growth in rates in this market, the sheer imbalance in supply and demand, and so we are really representing the owner of the property and wanting to improve upon that property.

I'm not coming in as a third-party developer wanting to develop something that I'm buying.

We're improving what we thought we would do from its infancy in 2018.

And this is a 60-year-old property.

Served its purpose great.

But you would argue I would argue that it's functional.

Thank you.

Yep.

So I'm gonna take privilege and ask my question first.

So what are you doing with the residents who live there now?

The residents that live there now that will start their lease term this coming August.

So the residents that are living there now, their leases will terminate at the end of July.

The residents that will move in who have already signed leases to move in in August, we will continue their residency through the spring semester of 2027.

And so the goal is to let that semester conclude, to let graduation conclude, which I think is May 17th of 2027, and give them a week until May 24th of 2027 before they need to vacate.

We have the right to do that in our lease, but we want to be we could, you know, we could vacate them more quickly than that.

We want to be fair to the student residents that we have in this building.

Let them get through the semester, let them plan for that and get through graduation and give them time to move.

No, they're not all students.

So what about the ones that aren't students and aren't on that schedule?

Uh everybody has a lease renewal.

It's a 12-month lease.

So, you know, they will be renewing with knowledge of this condition, and we will be communicating with them early in 27 of you know our plans to demolish the Trevor Burrus.

Allowing renewals, yes.

But not for 12 months.

We're allowing renewals for 12 months, given that this is still speculative.

We don't know how this is going to be approved.

We hope that it will.

Once it is known for certain, and this is a closed transaction, then we will notify our residents and work with them appropriately.

And we have done this on many other projects.

So you just said then we will notify our residents.

The ones whose leases expire next month, have you already been talking to them about the fact that their next lease won't be we have not in the residential residence.

Commercial residence is a different story or commercial tenants.

So the one that we likely will keep and we want to come back is the barbershop in Spa.

They've been in Columbia for 90 years in this location for 40 years.

They're an iconic provider of, you know, of haircuts and uh now manicures and pedicures and uh other services, and uh we think it would be a great um, you know, addition to the um merchandising of the new project to have them as as a tenant.

And I think they are open to that.

So you haven't told your residential tenants that you're doing this yet.

We haven't, because this is not definitive.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Uh I'm gonna go to Commissioner Brodsky and then Commissioner Gray.

Uh just a quick question on parking, uh, going back to that.

Uh you know, we have residents, of course, that we're uh primarily discussing.

What about visitor parking?

What we find in many markets is that the visitors to our residents or to our apartments are coming via other modes of transportation, certainly in a pedestrian setting.

Here I would expect most visitors to come by foot.

They might come by Uber, they might come by bicycle or scooter.

And so it's always a balance of trying to be mindful of a visitor coming into a building.

At the same time, you want to secure the parking for your own residents and access control into our residences, into our parking facilities are always something that we want to protect for the residence use predominantly.

There are instances where we provide visitor parking within a parking garage, but it has to be studied, and we want to make sure that it's safe for both the visitor and the residents.

We haven't decided here if there would be a visitor portion to the parking garage.

There may be.

Now there is parking on Matthew Street, and that's metered parking.

And so that's it's actually a luxury that you know a lot of our projects don't have is to have on-street parking that's available to the public, and then you have adjacent parking facilities.

So I think in our view, in the scheme of things that we have done, there's more opportunity for visitors to park if they choose to drive to visit you know our residents than there are in most cases.

Anyone else?

Commissioner Gray, sorry, you had already raised your hand.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I am appreciative of uh the different comparisons uh to parking in uh the context of Gainesville.

I don't live there, so I don't know.

Um but I am I'm curious about these points of comparison, um, given we see 100 percent utilization in the city uh in our permitted parking structures, and 100 percent in all of the other comparisons minus one.

And so uh yeah, can you help me understand that?

Well, uh utilization is meaningless without quantity or ratio.

So if you have a point to parking ratio and you're 100 percent utilized, then that okay, that that doesn't tell you a whole lot.

If you have a 0.78 parking ratio and your utilization is only 65 percent, that tells you that the demand for your parking is less than what you have built physically.

And that's that's my my strongest point, you know, is that the parking demand is relative to again take the residential occupancy.

If residences are full and you have parking that's not fully utilized, then that tells you your real utilization.

If you don't have enough parking, it's always going to be 100 percent.

But if you have more parking than actual demand, then you're gonna have a difference in utilization.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Thank you.

Okay.

Next speaker on this case, please come forward.

Good evening.

Peter Norgard, uh, Hinkson Avenue, third ward.

Um I think we've identified the problem here tonight.

I think we've identified the problem here tonight, uh, cars, uh parking in this case.

Um as a resident of the Benton Stevens neighborhood, um, this whole discussion sounds very uh familiar to me.

Uh you might recall if you've been here long enough that in 2012-ish, uh a large development was built at East Walnut and College with significantly too few parking spaces.

And we had free parking in our neighborhood right next door.

Guess what happened?

They parked up our neighborhood so much that we had more than 120 percent of our uh we we had parking in excess of 120 percent of available parking, and that persisted for about a year and a half until the developer was forced to build a uh garage.

Uh and then at that point in time, they still didn't use it because the developer charged too much for the parking.

So just because the parking exists doesn't mean it's going to be used.

So those utilization factors should be considered carefully.

I also want to point out that this is a plan development.

My understanding is that a plan development is a special concession that you all make to the developer.

They're asking for something, and in return, the city gets something.

Now, in that in this case, I think the argument is the city gets activated walking spaces, additional housing.

Um, but that would happen with almost any development.

So what are we getting in return?

They're asking for additional height, they're asking for reduced set uh green space, they're asking for reduced parking.

So what do we get?

Where's the win-win for this city?

And with that, I have nothing else.

Thank you, Mr.

Norgard.

Any question?

Seeing none next speaker on this case.

Hello again.

I'm Rick Shanker of Sixth Ward.

I'm an electrical contractor.

I'm also a member of the Buildings and Codes Commission, and I'm also a landlord.

Uh in regards to utilities, 99% of new buildings are underground.

And although we appreciate there won't be overhead wiring here, and therefore no more tennis shoes hanging from the lines.

Uh most of the new housing is underground electrical services.

As far as parking goes, buildings and codes commission, we always see requests for variances.

I think this parking request on their part is not at all acceptable.

If you ever go to East Campus, where a lot of us live, the parking does overflow.

So the parking uh requ request that they're making is not acceptable to me.

And also the landscaping request.

Thank you.

Any questions, Mr.

Schenker?

No.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please come forward.

Hi.

Uh Cindy Nagel, live on Cliff Drive in the sixth ward.

And I've lived in East Campus for uh 25 years, initially on Wilson and now on Cliff.

Um I think among all of the residents here tonight, you've probably got well over a hundred years of experience in dealing with the parking and traffic issues.

Um I want to we wanted to bring some context.

Oh, and I want to say um I'm speaking as the vice president of the East Campus Neighborhood Association, so could I have six minutes, please?

Did they take a vote?

Um we didn't, but our president.

Fine.

Yeah, fine.

Just going.

Thank you.

Okay.

So I want to talk specifically about traffic and traffic safety.

There are only three signalized access points in and out of the East Campus neighborhood.

The intersection at Broadway and William, the intersection at college and university, and the one at College and Rollins.

Both of the intersections on college see heavy use by pedestrians, many of whom are neighborhood residents, but many also are people who park in our neighborhood because it's free and there's unrestricted uh access to that.

So I appreciate the traffic study, but I do want to point out that's a traffic study about utilization and not safety.

And um, this the same firm that prepared this traffic study also prepared la um and presented last November of 2025, the street and intersection pedestrian safety study.

And this uh study was uh prepared in support of the Como to Zero Initiative, and that study found that 32 percent of fatal crashes in Columbia are pedestrian later, which are is well above the state and uh federal averages, national averages.

So additionally, the study found that uh the groups of in the age range 20 to 21 and 15 to 20 account for um more than 60 percent of all crashes involving pedestrians.

So the safety study also found that the number one and two most dangerous intersections in the City of Columbia are number one, college and university with 12 pedestrian accidents in 10 years.

And number two, College and Rollins, within which had six in 10 years.

And number five, which was tied with several others, was University in Matthews, which had three pedestrian accidents in 10 years.

So this project involves directly two of the most dangerous intersections for pedestrians in the city with a combined 1.5 pedestrian accidents per year on average.

So there are a number of reasons for this.

Primarily, there are too many competing interests trying to navigate that intersection.

There are pedestrians traveling both east and west across college on both the north and south side intersection points.

There are vehicles navigating from university to turn right to turn left and to go straight without protected turn signals and on the same signal cycles as the pedestrians.

And there are vehicles making U-turns to get around the traffic barrier that's on the south end of the street of college.

So I want to note that this traffic study doesn't include the intersection of Anthony and College.

It wouldn't because it's not really into the study, but that also creates some impact on this development.

Many people, many students who live in the neighborhood use Anthony to make a quick left turn across two lanes of traffic and then go right on to Pac One, crossing two more lanes of traffic on college.

So it creates a pretty dangerous situation.

So I suspect if we have an access point on college that's not too far away with people trying to turn to go north, we're gonna have people both competing for that middle median on a head at a kind of a head-on collision.

So related but secondary to safety is the amount of time spent waiting at the intersection at college and and university.

The traffic times are average times, but I think we can all tell you from years of experience navigating this intersection that you can wait a lot longer.

Very often only one car is able to make a left turn, and that's the car that pulls out into the middle of the intersection and very often turns right uh left on red.

So the times are um much longer when classes are about to begin, which is about from 15 till until the top of the hour, and then when classes have just let out, which is the top of the hour to 15 after the hour.

So a half hour of about every hour, um, you have some pretty severe traffic impacts.

So delays in making these left turns occur due to pedestrian traffic.

Uh the left turn vehicles have to wait for all of this traffic to clear pedestrian, then right turners, then go straighters.

Um it creates a backlog both on university going both ways.

So I I think this happens because there's no protected left turn lane uh go on university either way, because the right and straight lanes go straight lanes are shared on university, and that the shared lane, uh particularly on the west side of university is very short because there is parking on the south side of the street.

So the question I think is what improvements do we need to make this intersection safer for everyone, including the people who are going to be living in this development.

Um so ideally I'd love a pedestrian bridge, but I don't think that's probably gonna happen.

I've wanted that for years.

Um but I do think um increased setbacks would be helpful to improve the site lines.

Um I think we need to make sure that we prohibit moving and delivery vehicles from unloading on college and university streets and have a dedicated unloading zone either somewhere within or on Matthews.

Um we need to add a dedicated left turn lane to the college and university intersections.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

See none.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please come forward.

I live at 704 Hilltop Drive in the East Campus neighborhood.

I've lived there for 26 years.

I'm a bicycle commuter, and I've I know this um section.

I know this section of road very well because for 26 years I've gone through this intersection every weekday.

I got my calculator out.

I think it's nearly eight or nine thousand times I've been through this intersection.

So everything that Cindy said before me, I can corroborate with my actual experience.

Um I think that this is a great spot for a high density student complex.

I think they'll love living there.

I think it's a beautiful building.

I'm here to con comment on some of the details about this that do concern me.

Um the biggest thing I can tell you about is the safety of that intersection.

It is the number one most dangerous intersection in our town.

And I just to get through it, I have to carry a strobe light with me.

Otherwise the cars will not yield to me.

Okay, it's that bad.

The reason why they won't yield is they have to go through so many red light, green light cycles before they get their turn when they're finally up at the front spot, they do not want to wait for a pedestrian.

Um so I'm very concerned about this the setback thing.

If they build their building right up to the edge, 10 feet of that intersection, it's going to really restrict your opportunities to make that intersection safer if you need to add a lane or make a right hand turn channel.

Now here's a um a bigger um clo more close-up version of that intersection.

I don't know if you can see my cursor.

Can you see my cursor?

Okay.

So if I'm standing here wanting to cross into East Campus, as soon as I get my walk signal, I've got three groups of cars barreling toward me who also have a a green well, two groups have a green and one person's trying to do something illegal.

So as soon as I step into that street, all the people who have been lined up on University Avenue want to turn south on college avenue.

So they're jockey with me.

At the same time, the people from East Campus are trying to turn south onto college and they're trying to r uh to get around me too.

And then this is the people who are in the left-hand turn lane of college acting like they're going to turn left, but they're about ready to make a U-turn right into my body and kill me.

So I have to look all directions just to get through this intersection.

If we have a new student development there with 900 something beds and 600 something cars, I think it stands to reason that we are going to have to look at the safety of that intersection for pedestrians.

Okay, that's just a bigger version.

And there you see it again.

That's the intersection.

Notice that there's no right hand turn channels.

That's an image of what you missing canon.

Is that am I at three minutes?

You are.

Please ask me questions.

I actually have a couple more pictures.

If you have more questions, I might be able to illustrate it.

Do you uh these pictures are very helpful?

Do you have anything additional besides the the lack of uh curb cuts and right hand channels?

Loading and unloading.

Um it has it looks like this.

This is the intersection that Peter Norgaard talked about in his um presentation.

This is uh looking on walnut towards the east, oh towards the west, I'm sorry.

And this these are all the cars that are just sitting there with a loading and unloading.

Even though there is a sign that says no stopping, standing or parking, everybody does it, and you can't stop them, it seems.

Um these are all Google Maps views, by the way.

And this is what happens all the time.

You see, somebody lives in the apartment, they want their friend to come to the nearest door.

And by the way, this student complex that they're proposing has these student, has these doorways all th all throughout what would be um the University Avenue uh stretch of street?

And that they're gonna say, come to that door where I can meet you there.

So you see how the cars they just worried about the stopping and and they what things in the lanes too.

Yes.

They they'll stop there and then I I've experienced this by the way at that at that walnut intersection.

You have to get in the lane that's going the opposite direction in order to go around them.

So you guys might have to consider.

Do you want to make university avenue wider?

Do you want to make it littler so that nobody stops?

Do you want to add right hand channels?

I guess my question is are you um That's Broadway?

These are these are existing problems that you think will be exacerbated.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

And by the way, any other questions for Ms.

Concanen.

That's Broadway, by the way.

That's a right hand channel is what I was talking about that we might want to do.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Brodsky?

I guess I'll couch this as a question.

I I live right down the street from the picture that you showed on Walnut, so I see this often.

Particular when students are moving in and out at the beginning and end of semesters.

Is that something you have observed as well?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further questions?

Seeing none.

Thank you, Ms.

Kinkam.

Next speaker on this case, please come forward.

Good evening.

I'm Mark Cruz.

I represent Campus Lutheran Church at 304 South College Avenue.

It's diagonally across college from the development.

I don't really have any opposition to the development, but I I echo the concerns about the traffic flow in that area.

That uh, you know, if you're going to allow left turns into the developments and left turns out of the developments, that'll be a nightmare on college.

And just one other concern is, you know, to refute the uh parking being adequate.

If you look at Anthony Street, that's a mess.

That's all on street parking because there's not adequate parking in the area.

So it's definitely a concern to keep in mind.

And you know, once again, the church has no particular objection to this.

You know, a thousand students across the street.

What an opportunity for our ministry.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Next speaker on this case, please come forward.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

My name is Debbie Odor.

I live at 1820 Cliff Drive.

I've lived there for 12 years.

But my husband's family broke ground on this house in 1939.

The house has been occupied by family members ever since.

My husband grew up in East Campus neighborhood, and he held a very deep love for his neighbors and the community.

That's why he chose to retire here.

And I understand why now after I have moved here.

And I don't understand because College Avenue is a state road.

And it's under my understanding that the state requires a setback of 20 feet.

I don't know what's going on there.

During peak pedestrian traffic times, there's little space for pedestrians to stand with a 10-foot step setback.

They're really crowded.

And don't um another thing that just came to me tonight is that downtown you have 10-foot setbacks.

You also have a 20-mile an hour speed limit.

You have a 35-mile an hour speed limit on College Avenue.

Now we'll talk about the height of the structure.

I don't have any problem with the height of the structure if you have a 20-foot setback.

The sight lines for a tall structure are diminished.

And as dangerous as that intersection is, and with so much traffic, we can't have the 10-foot setback.

Now, as you already been told, there are cars, pedestrians, bicycles trying to cross or enter these streets.

And as you already know, it's very, very dangerous.

The only other comment I have to make is that I live in East Campus, and I can tell you from experience, parking East Campus is overparked.

And if these students are paying rent, they are going to opt to not pay for parking so that they can park somewhere like East Campus.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you very much, ma'am.

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

Hello, I'm Janet Hammond.

I live on Cliff Drive in the 6th ward.

And I've actually, I lived on Wilson Avenue for 33 years and well know what it's like to be a surrounded by students, which was fine.

And up where I am now for 16 years.

Per the developer, this plan provides for luxury student apartments that include 957 beds, 570 parking spaces.

If this were subject to RMF zoning, it would they would be required to have 718 parking spaces.

The applicants note that they are providing more than is than is required by the MDT.

But while this is close in proximity to downtown, it is not downtown.

Car trips will be needed to go to the grocery store and other shopping since none of these amenities are within walking distance.

The applicant and staff seem to believe that the 570 spaces will not be fully utilized by the 957 tenants living in the in the apartments.

But experience shows that this is wishful thinking.

The parking analysis provided with the materials indicated that parking is fully occupied for three of the four downtown apartment complexes listed.

However, the youth center on Turner is close enough to walk to a grocery store.

It is also possible that some tenants do not want to pay the price of parking charged by the landlord, so find other parking on the street in nearby parking lots and neighborhoods.

A parking study conducted in 2015 by the city concluded that among other neighborhoods, the East Campus neighborhood was already overutilized, with weekdays showing 40 percent more parking over capacity and 113 percent utilized on a normal weekend.

This study further noted that there was negative excess parking capacity in East Campus at all times during the parking audit.

Given the proximity of this proposed development to East Campus, it is likely that some of the tenants will choose the East Campus streets for parking rather than pay for on-site parking.

The study also noted that nearly all of the street park cars audited for turnover were parked for more than 12 hours.

In order not to further exacerbate over parking in East Campus, please require at least the minimum number of parking required for RMF, which would be 718 spaces according to the staff report.

And so deny this particular PD proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for Ms.

Hammond?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Next speaker, please come forward.

Hello, my name is Shane Lewis, 1660 Hyriage Circle.

I serve on the parking commission, but I'm not necessarily representing them tonight.

One of the things that I think is important to note with this is that there is wisdom in knowing uh the right tool for a job and knowing when you do not possess that tool.

Uh we've heard a lot about parking tonight.

Simply requiring more or less parking spaces, yes, is one tool to address that.

I don't think it's the right tool in this situation.

Uh, if you're not familiar with the work of a group called the parking reform network, I would suggest you check it out.

Um of the things they highlight that I think is really important is that there's a lot of ways we can address parking problems that don't involve just requiring more on-site parking or less or however we want to go about that.

Um those are tools that exist outside this room at the moment.

I would like to see uh the concerns about East Campus being overparked, about Benton Stevens being overparked, addressed more by metered parking and resident permits.

I think that's a far wiser solution to this.

Simply adding more parking spaces.

Like there's a cost to every parking space we require.

That's, you know, essentially a bedroom.

Uh and every extra parking space we require is an extra student who will not be downtown, who will not be patronizing the businesses downtown, who will not be providing uh sales tax that we desperately need to fund our firefighting, our police services and all the essential things that make uh this town a pleasant place to live in.

Um I just want to address that.

And yes, I agree like college and um university is a significant issue as a bike commuter, I feel that.

Um with that being said, I don't want this developer to have to pay for the sins of Modot.

I think that's another uh conversation there.

Um I think walkable dense development downtown is something that is a very good deal for us as a city as far as uh great boost to property tax, sales tax, that doesn't cost us too terrible much in terms of extra utility development and so forth.

Appreciate the time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Next, testing.

Hello.

My name is Rita Fleshman.

I live at 1602 Hinkson.

I've lived in uh Benton Stevens neighborhood for 40 years.

I love the neighborhood.

I love our I love my neighbors.

I've chosen to live there.

I'm not on a lease.

I live my life and I challenge everyone to stop each day and think about what we do.

It doesn't just affect me, it affects you.

It's not about money.

Money plays a part of life.

But it's what we do with our money, how we treat people.

Our actions, our decisions every day affects everybody.

Who you say hi to, who you're kind to, who you give your money to.

Let us pause every day, every minute, and think about how we live our life and how we affect people.

Your decision, our decision every day is our responsibility.

Money, our life, our kindness.

Give pause.

And be happy and live your life.

That's all I ask.

Any questions for me?

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

I don't answer for the I have no answers for the meaning of life.

42.

Um Thank you very much.

Have a good life.

Thank you.

Next speaker on this case, please come forward.

I'm uh David Mayer, 714 Ingleside Drive.

Um, and I'm, as I pointed out from the back, I'm the chair of the East Campus Neighborhood Association.

And obviously, there's considerable concern about this development in terms of traffic and parking in the East Campus area represented by the number of speakers.

I would suggest that I I love the fact that they have a beautiful design.

I totally agree with the idea that having housing that's available to students in walking distance with campus is great.

I am very concerned with their plans for entrance and exit on Matthew Street and college in terms of traffic safety and congestion.

Um I'm concerned about whether the parking spaces are adequate.

Um I think these are issues that need to be addressed in terms of their plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for the speaker?

I guess I have one kind of question, and I'm not trying to start a huge debate.

Just with this being on the other side of college.

Do you really realistically believe that people will park in East Campus and have to cross college, especially with the pedestrian barriers and all of that?

Well, if parking is charged and parking is free in the East Campus area, I suspect there will be at least some.

There will be, but I you know, I think that the big issue is has been mentioned that I'm particularly concerned about is there's already at various times of the day terrific traffic and pedestrian congestion at that intersection.

And adding a huge number of people and vehicles entering and exiting is only going to make that worse.

Well, and that gets to the other thought that's in my head, um, which is this puts a lot more student housing close to campus, but outside of East Campus.

But that relieves some of the pressure that we've been hearing about with student trying to move into houses on East Campus.

It's possible.

Um it's possible.

And actually I had that thought, although I suspect that the main effect might be on some of the more remote um student housing rather than on the close East Campus housing.

However, I I have no crystal ball.

Neither do I.

If I did, my life would be easier.

Any other questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

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

You can make it quick.

It is 1025.

And you've had five speakers, Mr.

Colbert.

I will make it very happy.

Um again, Caleb Colbert, attorney at 1203 West Broadway.

Uh just wanted to respond to a couple of things really quickly.

Um, on the setback, so that will be 10 feet from the new property line after we dedicate right-of-way.

The back of curb is gonna that separation is going to be closer to 40 feet.

The new building will actually be further away from College Avenue than the existing building.

So we are after we dedicate right-of-way, it will be moved in substantially.

Um additionally, there will be a loading and unloading zone on Matthews to provide an uh obviously a convenient location uh for folks.

You've got to stay next to the microphone, Caleb.

So there will be a loading and unloading area.

Um then finally, I also wanted to, as soon as the presentation switches over, you might want to just keep going.

Okay.

So I I think it's important to walk through the history of parking in the MDT district.

So a lot of the parking concerns that have been discussed, a lot of the developments that have been discussed were pre-unified development code.

So if we go back to the old C2 zoning, uh we appointed a parking and traffic management task force back in 2017.

They did a count, figured out that the parking ratio was roughly 0.26 spaces per bed downtown.

So as a result of that management task force, we hired a consultant.

And part of that consultant's job was to rewrite the zoning code.

Uh it's it's tiny there, but the zoning consultant's recommendation for downtown parking was 0.25 spaces per bid.

That recommendation was adopted by the parking task force that was part of the unified development code.

Again, quarter space per bid.

That recommendation came to this body uh as part of the unified development code.

And this body adopted a recommendation that was sent to City Council of a quarter space per bid in downtown.

Again, the idea being that we want a walkable pedestrian experience downtown.

We don't want to require people to have vehicles.

And we don't want to build excess parking.

So ultimately, we went to City Council with the Unified Development Code, and we heard a lot of the same concerns uh here in this very room that were discussed tonight about parking downtown.

And City Council's compromise was 0.5 spaces per bid.

So that is ultimately what was included in the unified development code when it was adopted.

And so here we're proposing 0.6 spaces per bid, which exceeds what we basically struck as a compromise back in 2017.

So we think we have addressed um essentially the parking situation.

And again, based on the utilization of other properties, we do think that we will have adequate parking.

I hear my timer, and it's getting late, so be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions for Mr.

Colbert?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here.

Anyone else to speak on this case?

Last call, we will close public comment and go to Commissioner comment.

Commissioner comments on this case.

Commissioner Darr?

I think the applicant did a good job of uh supporting their proposed parking what they're going to provide for parking.

So I don't really have any concerns with the parking.

Um I do I am inclined to agree with some of the speakers that the intersection of university and college is dangerous and could be improved.

Um of that stems from not having wide enough road, not having dedicated turn lines on University Avenue.

So I would ask staff had I don't see that the that they're proposing to dedicate additional right-of-way on university.

Has the staff feel confident they they have enough right-of-way to make improvements in the future.

Um if there were to be a dedicated turn lane, I I don't know exactly if there would be enough right-of-way.

Um, but for a local residential street, which if I'm not mistaken, that is classified as it would meet our our minimum widths for both paving and right-of-way dedications.

Um I guess consideration for particular improvements around that intersection um uh were not considered, and especially if it's on the south side of university, if you were to add a right turn lane there potentially, um, that wouldn't be part of the half-width they're dedicating.

Um but yes, I I do believe it has the right-of-way that meets our local residential standards.

Um but yeah, sorry, it's not a complete answer.

Yeah, um it's it seems like something that should have been evaluated, and specifically since we're reducing the setback, we have less, you know, for additional right-of-way, we have less room to go to the building if it gets built, because it's pretty much a hard line.

So um that being said, overall, I like it.

I think it will be an asset to Columbia, so I plan to support it.

Anyone else?

Commissioner Walters?

I'll say something.

I think it's similar to the previous one.

There this is kind of an instance where the city is not keeping up to step, not doing things which have been long over obviously uh have needs some to be addressed a long time ago.

I mean, uh the things we're pointing out about the intersection are pretty obvious.

And on the one hand, the city uh wants to accommodate development, what's to encourage development, yet it is not keeping up with addressing weak points, weak points within the within the development within the city.

So I plan to support this, but I would certainly encourage the City Council to be a strong consideration to prioritizing the intersection improvements that these people are have made very clear is a is a major problem tonight.

Commissioner Stanton.

I echo my colleague sediments.

Project is sound.

There's infrastructure issues that aren't necessarily the developer's problem.

I think there could have been a little more wheel room on the developer side, but I'm gonna say the same thing we said about Rock Quarry.

I like this project, it gets built, traffic is a problem, people get hurt, people get ran over, the developer is gone, you don't care, they're in Atlanta.

Oh well.

And that will be the catalyst to maybe something getting done.

Commissioner Brodsky.

Um, this the last case in this case, uh sounds like automobiles are our major problem.

Um, but I I want to uh echo uh Commissioner Walter's comments.

Just and I've noticed this on my first uh stint on the commission and and this stint on the commission that for whatever reason um it just seems that we have trouble keeping up with our infrastructure uh in Columbia, and maybe that's a universal problem and we're not unique uh as a community.

I'm I'm still a little concerned about the parking.

Um I know we have the one example of the uh development on Turner, but you know similar to the last case, one example, one anecdotal example uh where we have several that um are 100 percent occupied as is a little concerning to me.

I I do appreciate the developer's comment that you have to take that into context with the ratio with the bedrooms.

Um the height with this doesn't concern me at all.

Um I'm I I'd be okay with it honestly being even a little bit taller if that means getting more parking.

Um and then I do live downtown, uh just a few blocks away from here, uh very close to the uh Brookstone uh on Walnut, and I I see it all the time.

The students in particular, they you know, there's a yellow curb, they stop right in the travel lane to pick people up, drop people off, uh, particularly when they're moving in.

And I know the developers uh mentioned that there is a um unloading and off uh loading area on Matthews.

I just I don't see that on the plan.

Um and what I've noticed is if your apartment's on one side of the building and the drop-off area is on another, where are you gonna do your offloading?

You're gonna do it uh in the door closest to your apartment.

So I I'm generally supportive of the concept.

I I think it's the right spot.

I like the density.

Um I would be supportive of something taller if it got us a better parking ratio.

Um I I do think there needs to be some cons more consideration about offloading and and onloading.

So yeah, those are my comments.

Thanks.

Anyone else?

Commissioner Gray?

Getting considerably less eloquent as we move along.

Um I uh concur with many of my fellow commissioners and echo some of their sentiments and also some of the ones that we had in the previous case.

Um I agree that this is an appropriate area.

It is in service and comports with the comprehensive plan and goals uh toward housing.

Um I am a little bit uh and and that is the you know the criteria that I'm abiding by.

I'm not compelled um by this argument.

I understand that infrastructure uh is an issue, and I'm taking that in consideration, especially as it pertains to uh the sewer upgrades that are necessary.

Um I feel like placing the blame solely on the city and its inability to keep up with uh these developments in their needs offsets the responsibility that the university has outsourced its housing.

So just a point.

Um I think this is a movement in the right direction in terms of um density.

I I wish uh that it was maybe uh a different kind of housing that appealed to a wider variety of people, but that does not seem um consistent with how this area has been used and will likely continue to be used in the future.

So I plan on supporting this.

Yeah, I think that it's a good concept in the right location.

I think there's a lot of fine-tuning around the edges that could and should be done.

I am concerned.

Um that the setbacks mean that college and university will never have dedicated right-hand turn lanes.

Um but I think overall, although could end up eating my words and in 10 years every time I drive past this place gritting my teeth, um, the pros outweigh the cons.

But there are considerable cons.

So that's kind of where I'm at.

Yes, are you Mr.

Stanton?

Commissioner Stanton, please go ahead.

I just wanted to add one more statement, is something that we're running into often.

And we encourage this kind of design.

And when an architect or developer does it.

The infrastructure doesn't fit our forward thinking sometimes.

So instinctually, right here, right now, I would say shrink this because yes, it's a good idea, but the infrastructure isn't right.

I would shrink the whole thing, this to accommodate some of the other issues that would happen.

Not saying that's I'm just saying we're gonna keep bumping into this.

Somebody's gonna catch one.

I'm just saying there's gonna be a case where they're gonna have to we're gonna have to pick, you know, encourage or discourage what we ask them to do.

Um I plan to support this, but this is what we're running into where our forward thinking is catching up with our backward thinking on the infrastructure.

Would you care to make a motion?

I would.

My colleagues are done.

Go ahead, Commissioner Brodsky.

Sorry, one more quick comment.

Um the parking ratio as it relates to MDT uh as a resident of downtown.

Um I do want to say in the core downtown, there are a lot more parking options.

City-owned lots, um, parking structures.

I myself park uh at the uh bus station uh with a city permit uh directly behind my building.

Whereas here we don't have quite as much of that.

So I I did just want to make that comment.

Thank you.

Commissioner Stanton.

As it relates to case 162-2026.

I move to approve the proposed rezoning from RMF to PD, as well as the approval of the proposed PD plan.

In con inconclusive of design exact exceptions.

Exceptions, sorry.

Associated statement of intent is serving as a preliminary plat known as the Thai Sterling Mizoo.

Subject for technical corrections and subject to adherence to a test architectural renderings.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Stanton and seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any further discussion on the motion?

Seeing none.

Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call?

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commissioner Gowway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

My vote is yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

By show of hands, how many folks are here to speak about the short-term rental on Worley?

Okay.

Let's see if we can get it done before we need a bio break.

Is everyone okay with that?

All right.

Moving on.

Case number 166-2026.

A request by Tracy Busing agent for approval of a conditional use permit, C U P to allow 1309 West Whorley Street to be used as a short-term rental for a maximum of four transient guests up to 210 nights annually pursuant to Section 29-3.3 V B and Section 29-6.4M2 of the Unified Development Code.

The approximately 0.23 acre subject site is zoned in the R11 Family Dwelling District and is located around 80 feet east of the intersection of Pennant Street and West Worley Street and includes the address 1309 West Whirley Street.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may.

Thank you for the introduction.

Postcards were distributed for this on the 11th of May.

Public hearing letters were distributed to owners, occupants, and tenants on the 25th of May.

I wish there were 34.

An advertisement was placed in the Columbia Tribune in accordance with state statutes regarding public hearings on the 26th of May.

Here is some aerial imagery of the area.

Some uh pertinent uh nearby uh uses.

I would say principally is the Agan Street Park area uh accessed off Persian Road and obviously Agan Street.

Um here is how this site looks in the Boone County parcel viewer.

Um highly residential subdivision, long deep lots around this area.

Um north of Whirley is zoned R1 for the most part, if I'm not mistaken, um at least around this area, and south of Whirley is zoned R2 around this location.

Um here is uh a screenshot of the dwelling itself, um which will be referenced later to discuss the adequacy of parking for this site for the requested uh guest accommodations.

Um so the proposed zoning is R1, uh and it is the primary residence of the applicant.

Um it is a detached single family home with two bedrooms, um, and they are requesting four guests, four transient guests with this request, and that requires two parking spaces.

Um by my measurements, there's at least three.

Um one in the driveway on the side, one in front of the garage, you could maybe even fit two in front of the garage without requiring the garage be dedicated.

Um so that will not be a condition for requirement if this is recommended for approval.

Um property uh was previously offered as a short-term rental uh when the applicant was traveling out of the country, if I'm not mistaken.

Uh around 30 days back in 2022.

Um and staff could not identify any additional short-term rentals within 3,000 feet of this property.

Um, and at least three of the surrounding units appear to be owner-occupied.

Um this could be under-indexing uh if the addresses don't entirely match uh based off the information provided by the county uh assessor.

Uh designated agent for this site lives around 10 miles away from the property or approximately 10 minutes from the subject site.

Um they were cited for a legal short-term rental operation um on the 8th of April.

Do we need to stop with uh Commissioner Galway Jones?

No, I'm good.

Oh you're there okay sorry didn't I thought you walked away.

Or all good.

Um sorry um all other code cases related to this property have been resolved at this point.

Um I uh had one call um in response to the distributed notice for this request um they were concerned about the term transient guest um for the record this is uh frequently a concern we have um transient guest is the the term that is defined with our code um to classify someone who is uh not residing in uh one particular location for more than 30 consecutive days um the applicant also notified neighbors of this request and they received five signatures of acknowledgement of this request um if I'm not mistaken it it it said if you're signing this you're not necessarily saying you're in support or against it just you're acknowledging that I have made this request and I have spoken to you about it or at least given you something about it.

I failed to include this um with the agenda and I apologize to the applicant for this but it was physically distributed to the commissioners um so it should a copy should be available with the agenda packet they have uh in conclusion the the conditional use permit criteria uh analysis is supports approval uh in order to get a property in compliance uh especially after they have been identified and they applied before uh the requested deadline for compliance um and ultimately the short term rental regulations uh are meant to provide oversight and means to address impacts um with greater certainty uh provided they are a registered unit um and also approval uh of the short term rental conditional use permit um is generally supported by broad policy strategies and actions of the comprehensive plan uh therefore it's the recommendation of staff to reprove the requested short term rental conditional use permit uh subject to a macum maximum occupancy of four transient guests and a maximum of 210 nights of annual rental for the property um if you have any or if the commission has any questions happy to answer them thank you thank you before we go to questions for staff if any of my fellow commissioners have had contact with the parties outside of this public hearing please disclose so now seeing none questions for staff seeing none is anyone will go to public hearing is anyone here to speak on this case tonight please come forward I'm Tracy I'm the owner um could you state your address for the record 1399 West Whirley Street Columbia Missouri 65203.

And can we get your full name as well for the for the court reporter?

Yeah can you say your full name?

Tracy Beusing thank you Ms.

Bewsing please go ahead I don't really have much to say or don't know what I should say.

I do know with um the staffing report it did say in the letter that by signing below you're simply acknowledging that I have informed you and that you have no objections to me operating a short term rental.

So I do have those five five signed signatures saying there are no objections and they have been informed.

Most of the other properties around me from my personal experience are long-term rentals and are managed by management companies.

I can't remember the other one.

But if you have any questions for me I'm happy to answer them.

Any questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Stanton What took you so long they come to the light when you know that we had a deadline for applying for short term rentals and you basically had to get summons before you came before us what what was the problem?

I did not know there was a city ordinance and I got the letter and I responded I called the city within I think they gave me what 30 days to reply I called them within 15 days to see what needed to happen.

And I am on that phone call I asked them what I needed to do and they said to shut down the Airbnb which I did.

I did also state that I do have reservations already in the future which those are still in place at this moment.

So what you're telling me is that short term rentals has been a major subject in Colombia for like four years.

Like major, like outside of parking, short-term rentals like right there.

Okay.

So out of these four years, you were unaware of any development or any possibilities that there was going to be new laws relating to short-term rentals at all?

Uh honestly, no.

I got off of Internet, but social media, and I don't follow the news over two years ago.

So if anything was happening before that, I I didn't care remember.

And as soon as I learned I was doing something wrong, I'm here to fix it.

Okay.

Any other questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Anyone else to speak on this case?

Please come forward.

Mr.

Norgard?

Peter Norguard 1602 Hankson Avenue Third Ward.

Um I was looking at the presentation that staff gave and I saw a photograph from the street, and I as a member of the Board of Adjustment, I do not recall getting a variance request for a side parking lot that went all the way up to the property line.

So I'm wondering, maybe I missed that meeting, but could you I mean my recollection is that there's not supposed to be cars parked within five or six feet of a lot line, and so I'm curious if this parking is to maintain compliance with the CUP requirements, is did it get installed correctly?

Uh that's a good question without looking at the without being able to look up the records from the parcel.

I I don't know if there was a variance.

I um I don't want to speculate if I recall one or not.

Um, I'm just asking the question.

No, you're correct that it's uh um a five-foot uh setback from uh your your lot line for uh where parking should occur and where you're allowed to pave for driveways.

Yeah.

Thank you.

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

Hello, Shane Lowe's 1660 Harrich.

I'm sorry, just a quick uh procedural comment.

Um I know on a lot of these STRs and such, we've got the overhead uh aerial view that's kind of at an angle, and there's the little red line that outlines it.

I just wanted to bring up like I'm colorblind, regular and colorblind, and then I know quite a few folks are, and I cannot see that line at all.

Just bringing it up as kind of like an accessibility kind of thing, that a higher contrasting color or a thicker line weight or things like that could help a lot.

I know that's a small tiny little thing.

I'm sorry to thank you.

That's helpful.

Anyone else to speak on this case tonight?

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

Any commissioner comments?

Commissioner Stanton.

And Commissioner Dahl were looking at the same thing.

And you're in your analysis of this STR.

Did you verify that that was a properly installed additional parking spot?

Uh and yeah, was this used in the determination of approval or disapproval or support lack of support or support of this said property?

I uh again, I do not recall if a variance was issued for uh this paving or not.

Um if we would like to make it a condition that the garage be made available for transient guests, um, then they could park one vehicle in front of the garage and one in the garage and still fulfill their parking requirement.

Um but yeah, good question.

Okay.

So that that's great.

So what you're saying is we can stay with what they're asking for if they make the garage available.

Or how would they prove or disprove that this is a properly create a parking spot on the side of the house, a compliant bargain space?

Yeah, I mean I I would need someone to pull uh a board of adjustment uh level of approval that indicates that they got a variance uh for this potentially encroaching into uh uh the side yard exception for paving.

Um again, I I apologize for not having that on me at the moment.

If I may I'm not sure, and and I'm waiting for legal to get done with their conversation.

I'm not sure that weighs into our decision as such, because the four guests to parking space requirement, should that not be a legal parking space, the number of guests would just be reduced down on final inspection.

Is that right?

I bel I believe so, yes.

Um there is still licensing on the back end.

So that would be confirmed upon inspection of the licensing process during the licensing process.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton, go ahead.

Sorry, I just thought that he might have some.

I'm gonna be on the put them on the line, but I'm gonna have to disagree with Madam Chair and or counsel because it does have something to do with this, because reading reading what she what the applicant is looking for, they would have to provide the parking spaces.

At this point, they're going to use that side parking lot space as part of their solution, correct?

They would have to require two parking spaces on site, correct?

That would be one.

But if that one is compromised, like staff said, then she would have to allow the garage to be used as one, and then one behind the garage.

So that's the answer.

But she would have to prove or be disproved that that side parking spot is legal.

So it does have something to do with it.

The solution is she m opens up the garage, she can still move forward.

Or if she doesn't want to open a garage, then the side parking space has to be verified that it's legal.

We get on the same spot.

Yeah.

So the numbers don't change, but the parking requirements could be.

Correct.

My point is that that's done upon final inspection with the leasing or with the licensing.

So our can we go to the conclusion screen slide?

Yes, sorry.

So we used to have a sentence on here that said upon confirmation of parking.

Well, or they have a solution where they're going to allow you to use the park in the garage as part of that.

That's why I said what I said.

So can we add a condition?

Yeah, we need one one more page.

So there we go.

There we go.

Yeah, the commission could add the condition that the garage be utilized for parking, should the So do we want to say the garage, or do we want to say upon verification of two legal parking spaces available?

Can we not want to force her to use the garage if it turns out that the side lot or the side spot is legal?

Do we want to open it up public hearing for her to answer that?

Yeah.

I am just waiting to see if Jesse has anything before we do that.

Because he may tell me no.

No, I mean we could we could craft some languages in the event that um you know the side the side parking is unavailable garage shelf utilize.

So real quick.

I'm trying to work it out.

David looked it up.

It does appear that there was a BOA case.

It's unclear whether it was fully approved or not.

It's got conflicting statuses and two different locations.

So reopening a public hearing may be a benefit to the conversation.

Ms.

Busing, could you come back up here, please?

Could can I ask a question of staff real quick to try to bring some clarity?

So my look when I look at the her picture of the exterior, it looks like she has three spots on the exterior, and then she also has the garage.

And maybe you can answer that as well.

But is that 40 feet deep to have two?

Yeah.

So there is a potential there.

But uh just you know, standard 25-foot front yard setback, it's probably safer to assume that it's not 40 feet.

Well, I I guess what I I see the spot on the far left that may or may not be legal.

And then two, it looks to me like you could easily fit two cars in front of the garage.

That's that's my point.

That's that's my point is that I don't think it's probably 40 feet, which it's side to side.

45.

But then from the But then you block the other one.

So that's kind of a judgment call in terms of using the flare out as a parking space.

Uh to me, I see one in the garage potentially, but then you have one beside the garage and probably one in the driveway.

Um, again, if that driveway were to be even 36 feet deep, we might be able to consider it, but we wouldn't allow you to block the sidewalk, so you have to take that in consideration.

Um again, the flare out is not going to be wide enough for another parking spot until probably at least halfway back.

So it again, you're probably running out of room.

Regardless, the two required spaces are accounted for with or without the side parking.

So the question of it being having a variance is uh really a separate issue.

The condition would be added that if this was not an approved parking space on the outside, then the garage has to be utilized to meet the parking requirement.

So you can add that condition if you like, but uh we can maybe get some confirmation from the property right here.

Um, because this is also her primary residence, how does that affect the parking requirement?

I don't believe it does.

It does not okay.

Yeah.

Sorry, Ms.

Vusing, this may be very confusing to you.

Can you start by giving us your name and address again for the record?

Tracy Viewsing, 1309 West Whirley Street, Como, Missouri.

Thank you.

Um I came for the uh meeting here for the variance for the other driveway.

And I believe I left it with all thumbs up.

I did not hear anything otherwise.

So that's all.

Okay.

Would you be okay with us putting in some language that says that should it turn out that's not a legal spot, you have to let them use the garage.

It would not make me super happy, but I mean I'm not going to tell you no.

Okay.

Okay.

Um other thoughts or things that we need from Ms.

Busing.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Point.

So ahead of the Mr.

Point of order, maybe that I I have the assessor's website and I use their measurement tool, which may or not be accurate.

And it so is it says it's 44 feet from the sidewalk to the garage.

I think that is the old structure.

Um she's built a new house.

I just thought this driveway is different.

If you look at uh Google maps, um, okay so we're we're unclear worry about that part.

Okay.

Um that will all be taken care of in licensing.

They will measure it and do the final inspections.

Do we want to require her or do we want to put some language in as a condition that if that's not a legal space, she has to allow parking in the garage.

Commissioner Stanton.

Adam Sherry, yes.

And the only reason is because it's been brought up publicly.

Imagine this happening again and someone just puts in a driveway.

I've already seen it happening.

So if people don't have the permits and the variances in place and people not saying this applicant did, but this is our the cat's already been laid out of the bag on this one.

So we have to address it or we set a president of I'll do it and ask for forgiveness later.

Attorney Craig, is there a way you want us to word this?

I don't know that I have, you know, uh silver bullet for for this situation.

Um can we get back to conclusion, please, David?

Yeah.

Sorry, David, do you have something?

Uh no, I am I am reviewing the minutes from the June 11, 2024 Board of Adjustment right now, and I am seeing that there was five votes, yes, um, for a variance to allow this driveway to encroach four feet into the side yard.

Are you satisfied, Commissioner Santon?

That's what we need.

So we don't have to come up with pretty language.

Staff showed me.

I'm from Missouri.

I love it.

Okay.

I love it.

The good news here is that Ms.

Viewsing has shown that she is doing everything the right way.

Okay.

Fair enough.

Would someone like to make a motion?

Commissioner Brodsky.

I just had one last comment.

I know, Commissioner Stanton, you've mentioned this at several of these STRs, and I I don't disagree with you that it does seem to us uh that are steeped in this stuff that it's um surprising that folks might not have heard about this.

But but I I do think that that is very plausible.

The the cases that bother me uh is when they know because they've received notice and then they continue to rent out as the STR.

Whereas in this scenario, you know, as far as we can tell, as soon as she was alerted to the situation, she ceased operations and and got on board with what she needed to do.

Any further comment or or Commissioner Gray, go ahead.

And sorry, I may have misheard that she had reservations in place.

She has them in the future, assuming this gets approved.

Okay.

I'd like to make a motion if we're done.

Please go ahead.

Okay.

Uh as it pertains to case number 166 2026, 1309 West Whirley Street, SDR conditional use permit.

I move to approve the request the requested SDRCUP, subject to maximum occupancy of four transient guests and maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Gray, seconded by Commissioner Walters.

Is there any further discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, Commissioner Brodsky.

May we have a roll call?

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Yes.

My vote is yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

We have one more case on the docket.

How many folks are here for case 169?

This is the short-term rental on Richardson.

Okay.

Perfect.

Shall we soldier on?

Let's do it.

Case number 169-2026, a request by Jessica Foote, agent on behalf of PG BJEM properties LLC owner for approval of a conditional use permit C UP to allow 1505 Richardson Street to be used as a short-term rental for a maximum of eight transient guests up to 210 nights annually, pursuant to Section 29-3.3 BB and Section 29-6.4 M2 of the Unified Development Code.

The approximately 0.27 acre subject site is zoned RMF multifamily dwelling and is located around 100 feet east of the intersection of Richardson Street and Ripley Street and includes the address 1505 Richardson.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, humilium.

Thank you for the introduction.

Thank you very much.

But yeah, it's right between Brighton and Richardson over here.

Have confirmation that it is on the east side of the property.

And there appears to be about 54 feet in length if you go one feet set back from the sidewalk to the gate to enter into the backyard right now.

That would be the exact minimum that would be required for three parking spaces.

And as it's been noted, the request is for eight transient guests, which would require four.

So should the commission recommend this for approval, um it would need to be subject to an additional compliant parking space being paved.

Um that has to be concrete asphalt or an approved alternative material with strong preference towards concrete or asphalt for the expansion of that.

So the property is zoned uh residential multifamily and is not the primary residence of the applicant.

It is a detached single family home with four bedrooms.

Um again, eight guests requires four parking spaces.

Um there are at a maximum three currently supported on the site and an additional parking space must be added to support transient eight transient guests.

Staff could not identify any additional uh registered short-term rentals within 300 feet of this property.

Um the information from the county parcel viewer when we compare address with who owns property and what the property or the address property is itself.

Um there were no matches, so it does not appear that any of the uh uh units within a hundred and eighty-five foot radius of this property are owner occupied.

Uh so the applicant has noted this has previously been offered as a short-term rental for approximately 120 nights in 2025.

Um there was an illegal short-term rental code case for this property.

They were referred to the prosecutor uh and they pled guilty uh to operating an illegal short-term rental in March of 2026.

I have pasted the code um uh for case net here, um, should anyone look to get more details about it.

Um notices were sent to the operator uh on the 24th of June 2025 and the 30th of July in 2025, um, alerting BJEM properties of illegal operation, and then complaint and notice of violation referring the owner to the prosecutor was distributed on the 5th of September.

And excuse me, then a notice of court date was sent on the 11th of September in 2025.

Um the applicant at this point has paid the fine for legal operation and now they are seeking registration.

Um it is perhaps not ideal that compliance wasn't sought earlier than this point, um, but we are glad it is attempting to be rectified now.

Designated agent lives in Columbia, around two miles or approximately eight minutes from the subject site.

Um and there were three pieces of correspondence related to this uh request.

Um these were physically distributed with to the commissioners.

Um again, I forgot to copy this over to the planning and zoning commission folder, uh, and I apologize for that.

But to those who wrote me about this, um your comments have been physically given to the commissioners here with their agenda today.

Um there were noted concerns, particularly of adequacy of the existing parking and off-street parking that is occurring on local residential streets around this area, uh, as well as just general opposition to the use of the property as a short-term rental.

Um so ultimately the the conditional use permit uh analysis uh does support approval uh for the purpose of receiving compliance at this point.

Um we do ask people if they have ever had their short-term rental license revoked uh for the CUP criteria.

Uh in this case, it was never revoked, it was never received in the first place.

Um so it's a little bit of a difficult situation.

Um it's our opinion uh that having someone be compliant and going through these avenues to get compliance is is better than uh continuing to operate underground.

Um this is at least a step in the right direction.

Uh and it's not necessarily uh means for denial, at least from the conditional use permit criteria.

Uh short-term rental regulations also provide additional oversight and means to address impacts that could be a result of the property being used as a short-term rental and generally uh approval of short-term rental uh usage does support broad policy strategies and actions of the comprehensive plan.

Um so staff's ultimate recommendation is to approve the requested short-term rental conditional use permit, subject to a maximum uh maximum occupancy of eight transient guests and a maximum 210 nights of annual rental usage if they pave an additional parking space to create four parking spaces on site to accommodate the requested eight transient guests.

If the commission has any questions about this, be happy to answer them now.

Thank you.

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

Seeing none, are there questions for staff?

Commissioner Darr.

Have you received any um drawings or plans that would show how they would fit an additional space on this property?

Uh not any drawings, but I believe the applicant has stated that it would be to um pave behind these doors, which can open and then they would be left open for additional parking.

So it'll be four tandem parking spaces.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Any other questions for staff?

Actually, Jesse.

We can reduce the number of guests, right?

Uh yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um other questions for staff?

Seeing none.

If anyone would like to speak on this case, please come forward.

Hi.

I'm Jessica Foot and I live at 20 Anderson.

I'm really happy you're still here because I was worried I was going to wait all night and then get delayed.

As far as the parking goes, when I bought the house, it was not fenced, and the parking or the driveway went back behind it was in the backyard.

So actually they were driving through Richardson to Brighton, the people who lived there.

But I put in the fence and then I shortened the driveway and put in a double gate in case sometimes people would stay there and they'd have a I don't know, extra cars or trailer or something.

They'd open it and they can park back there.

It's gravel, have like a fire pit there now, so it could easily be parking again.

Cool.

Any questions for the applicant?

Commissioner Stanton.

You already know where I'm going with it.

I'm ready.

So I've got two questions.

Okay.

Do you plan to pursue the additional paving?

And if so, how do you plan to do it?

And do you have plans and estimates, all that stuff ready already?

Um I mean, if I'm told it needs to be paved, then uh I will look into paving it.

I wasn't aware that it needed to be a I needed I had to have a concrete driveway for the short-term rental.

So uh that's uh whoever I spoke to on the phone said the yeah, you have you have plenty of parking.

So this is the first time hearing that, so no, I don't have an estimate for a paved driveway.

That would change things.

That's but I mean, how would I do that?

I guess I would call a concrete company.

Okay, so I guess so you're open for us reducing the number of occupants due to the parking.

You're okay with that, or do you want us to vote as it's proposed right here?

Um you want me to say if I would rather pave it or reduce the number of guests?

I mean, I would rather pave it.

So I don't have a plan at right at this moment, but I think that would be a good one.

For you to get a win tonight.

Yeah.

You may not get eight occupants.

Are you okay with that?

Uh I mean, if that's the only way it's gonna happen, I'd rather have less occupants than get a no, but why?

You already know the question I'm gonna ask you.

Obviously, you weren't living under a rock.

You knew about the STR situation.

You continue or you ignore the deadlines the city have for all of this.

What took you so long to get on board?

And why?

I think in hindsight, that was definitely a mistake, and I should have applied the day it came out.

I think I was receiving a lot of conflicting information from everywhere.

Um I'm a real estate agent, and all of the other agents and people I knew who had short-term rentals were saying, no, they're gonna change.

I heard they're gonna do this, and they're gonna change the rules again and just wait, and they'll be less stringent.

And um obviously that didn't seem to work in my favor.

So I would say now I regret that.

I mean, I wish I weren't here at 11 p.m.

Right now and already had it.

Okay, and my last question.

Okay.

Stuff hits the fan, and someone needs to be called to address an issue with a guest the house or whatever.

Who is it and how long is it gonna take for them to get there?

I mean, that's me, and I live right on the other side of downtown.

So that's what I've had been doing, and I mean I'm not running it now, but whenever I bought the house in 2021, I've been the only person running it the whole time.

So I mean, if I go out of town, I either block off the calendar or I appoint someone to do it, but I mean, I am answering the phone at like midnight, whatever, you know, people are calling me like I'm locked out.

How do I get the world series?

Whatever it is.

I mean, I'm yeah, I'm always doing it.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Gray?

Um just to clarify, you said you have friends that are realtors that did not let you know about the ordinance.

Um I didn't say I had friends that didn't let me know about the ordinance.

I think what it was was like everyone was saying they heard from someone who heard from it was like I guess you would say rumors, but it's not like I didn't know about it.

It's more like the advice I was receiving was they're going to change the ordinance in at the beginning of the year or something like that, you know, and it's like, oh, okay.

And it's easy to say now that was uh something that didn't happen, but at the time it's like I don't know.

That's the decision I made.

Yeah.

Uh and these people that also manage STRs.

I mean, I'm not gonna name a name of anyone who told me anything.

I'm just talking about like That's not the question.

Words of people around town, I guess.

Everyone I talked to had different had different information about what they thought was going on or what was going to happen.

And then I would look at the application and I was thinking, okay, this is really confusing.

Even when I finally applied I was conf I didn't even know where I came up here drop it off.

They're telling me, no, we're not taking it.

And then it would and then they told me if I completed the entire thing wrong.

I mean, yeah, the whole thing was confusing to me.

So you brought your application here and they refused to accept it?

I mean, that was kind of a side note, but yeah.

It's a critical part of the story for me here.

Um okay they said they don't take paper applications.

So which I get that.

I mean, I when I get paper, you know, who knows where it's gonna go.

Okay.

Um and uh since your um municipal violation, have you continued to operate at all?

No.

It's just I mean, my house has been sitting there, I have other projects I've been working on.

It's been it was actually kind of been nice because I have so many like it was I was so busy with it, I never really had time to do maintenance stuff, so now I have time to do that and like painting and you know whatever else.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the speaker?

Um, I have a couple.

So do you know the folks that live around you at all?

Um I see, I mean, the to the east, there's two guys that live there.

I knew the guys who lived there before, and I had their number and I would tell them call me if there's ever an issue.

They never did.

I knew the people who lived to the southwest for a while, and her sister would stay at the house.

But currently I don't I think everyone has switched over, and I haven't even been there in months.

So I'm not really familiar with any of the neighbors right now.

And the neighbor who has the shared driveway access with you.

Have you ever gotten any complaints with them from them?

No.

Um, no, they are renters, and I have met the owner of that house actually.

He's been over there doing work and uh we've talked and stuff, and he's totally fine with it.

That's how it was when I bought it.

And um it's never been an issue.

I'm asking because somebody that lives in the neighborhood sent in an email to us saying that there are a lot of problems with parking and dropping drop blocking driveways.

And you know, not parking on both sides of the street, so cars can't you know, trucks can't get through and things like that.

Yeah.

What would you say to that?

Um say one of your neighbors is very unhappy with the fact that this is a short-term rental.

Oh, and they're saying it's very disruptive and is causing a lot of problems in the neighborhood.

I would I'm not sure what they're referring to.

Um I would say, gosh, it's hard for me to answer this because I don't think that's happening.

This is specifically about parking illegally and blocking neighbors' driveways.

Okay.

I'm not aware of that happening.

Um I know there was one.

I will say when I've been there because I'm the only person who cleans it, so after every time somebody has stayed there, I go there.

And every time I've been there and there are no guests there because I'm there cleaning it, there are cars parked illegally on that yellow curb.

And I've also noted that there's not a sign to say no parking.

So I think that it's hard to say that it's due to this one house.

Um I've actually taken photos of cars parked illegally there because somebody did say that it was my guest, and it's been multiple different times when I had no guests staying there, and I've advised people.

Yeah, if somebody's parked illegally, I don't know, call whoever you call to move illegally parked cars.

Like it's not my car.

Okay.

So I am also disturbed by the fact that you you said you're a realtor, correct?

Yes.

I'm very disturbed by the fact that you are a realtor in this town, knowing other people that run short-term rentals, and you did nothing to try to get compliant.

I think that maybe I've misrepresented what I was trying to say.

It was not misrepresenting what you were trying to say.

It's the fact that you did nothing to try to get compliant.

We had to send you a municipal, not just a letter of notice.

Yeah.

You went all the way to court.

Yeah.

Which means that you didn't go, oh, my bad, let me file my application.

You went, come get me.

I guess I can see how it looks that way.

Yeah.

I hired a lawyer, and that's what they told me to do.

Now I wish I had just obviously filed the thing.

But even before that, the realtors association in this city was incredibly involved.

I know they were sending notices out to folks.

It's not like you didn't.

In fact, you said you knew we passed it.

You just thought we would change it, so you were trying to wait it out.

Yeah, I think I got bad information and I acted irresponsibly on it.

Yeah.

Yeah, I agree.

I do regret that.

Okay.

Any other questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

Next speaker on this case.

Peter Norgard, 1602 Hinkson Avenue.

I do not live on this street, but I do live a street maybe a block away.

Uh just a comment on parking.

So back in 2015, the parking survey was completed.

This is part of the area that was encroached by all the brookside parking.

Um it used to be parking on both sides of the street, but the fire department came through and discovered that the road width is inadequate to support two-side parking to maintain fire safety.

Uh so that's why one side is no parking concern, is obviously we have several uh higher density homes.

There's a quadplex right under the RMF symbol on the south side of Richardson.

Um That is to say, there's always a lot of cars parked on this street, so I would be in support of anything to either require additional on-site parking or limit occupancy so that we don't have additional parking encroachment.

Thank you.

Any questions for Mr.

Norgard?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

Anyone else to speak on this case?

Please come forward.

Hi.

Um I live at 1602 Hinkson Avenue.

Um you guys feel like you're Judge Judy right now.

Um I just want to say at one point in time we stepped out on our front porch, and there were seven Airbnbs around us.

We no longer had a had a neighborhood.

We are very active in getting our neighborhood together.

And um making a community again.

We fight really hard, and we adhere to that.

Do you have any questions for me?

Questions for this speaker.

Please.

Not tonight, I'm sorry.

I know you guys are ready to go home.

Anyway, thank you for being here.

And thank you for your patience all the way around.

Bye.

Anyone else to speak on this case?

Please come forward.

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

So I'm just going to start off and say I'd be fine with four.

I'm not giving her eight.

Next comment.

What repeat?

What did you say?

I said I'd be okay with four, not eight.

Commissioner Dark?

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't support going to eight.

Um where she would have to pay I definitely would not support that.

But I would probably go for six, but if four is the consensus, I'm definitely happy with four too.

I'll support the Commissioner Gray.

Oh, sorry, I'll support four.

Commissioner Brodsky.

Um personally, I'm I'm kind of I think I'm a no vote on this uh regardless of the number of visitors.

Um, you know uh I did notice the applicant works at Russell Boyd um uh real estate firm, and we just consistently have had trouble with everyone every STR that we've seen that is represented by people from this real estate firm we've had issues with.

Uh almost almost everyone.

Um so I I just uh I find it a little disingenuous that um this has gotten to this point, and even after the prosecution, you know, we can't really see because the listing has been taken off the RBO, but that's very likely that this was rented after the prosecution, and we just can't see it.

So I I am a no vote on this one.

Well, I can be talked into that too.

Anyone else?

Commissioner Stanton?

So I like a win-win, and that's why I asked about the reduction and guest.

The questions that I ask are not only to understand why you're behind in compliance, but it also tells me on how you run your business.

I'm in concrete and construction.

I can't use the excuse of not knowing.

Oh, I didn't know I had to make it four inches thick, or oh, I didn't know I had to be uh, you know, five feet off the property line.

I can't use ignorance as a excuse.

And I kept asking questions to see the true business nature and the business model that's gonna be used to run this short-term rental.

And everything every answer I received, and I could be wrong on my companions can convince me otherwise.

Everything was off the cuff, everything was off the fly, off the hip.

Nothing to me said a clear solid answer.

And I'm have to disagree with staff.

Yes, it does matter if you're out of compliance and you catch up and you see the light.

Yes, that does have weight on the decision because that tells me off bat, do you respect the law or not?

And in any other legal situation.

Your past dealings with the law matter, doesn't it?

If that's right or wrong, I can't I can't open a daycare if I've got three child abuse cases.

I can't.

I mean that's gotta be considered.

So that's this has to be considered in the equation.

Not necessarily for the legal situation, but for the way I feel you're gonna run the business.

And I'm not convinced that this applicant is gonna run the business properly, being that she is in the real estate world and of anybody that was in the battlefield when we were dealing with these regulations.

It was the real estate world.

The way I look at this is she was like, yeah, catch me if you can.

They got too much other stuff going on.

I'm gonna get my money until they catch me, and then I'll deal with the familiar.

I'll hire a lawyer to pay the fines, and I'll keep doing what I gotta do, because I'm making big money on my short-term rental until they catch me.

Anyone else?

So do we want to vote on eight or four?

I make a motion.

Commissioner Walters regarding case number one six nine-2026.

A SDR conditional use permit for 1505 registering street.

I'd recommend approval of the requested SDR of CP subject to maximum occupation of four transient guests.

Maximum of 210 ninths of annual rental income.

And that's it.

Second motion made by Commissioner Walters for four transient guests and seconded by Commissioner Stanton.

Is there any further discussion on the motion?

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

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commissioner Gowway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

No.

Commissioner Stanton.

No.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

My vote is no.

Uh the motion fails.

Thank you.

No recommendation shall be sent to City Council on that.

That means that it will be off of the consent agenda and have two full hearings at uh City Council.

With that, we have concluded our cases for the evening.

And we will go to public comments.

If any member of the public wishes to come forward with a comment of a general nature, please do so now.

Seeing none.

Staff comments, Mr.

Coons.

Uh yeah.

So our next plan.

I'm sorry, is it I assumed it's you.

Yeah, I can do it.

Why not?

Um our next planning and zoning commission meeting will be on Thursday, July 23rd.

Um this is uh because there are improvements being made to the audio visual equipment for council chambers.

Um upcoming cases uh for the 23rd of July.

Um we have a permanent zoning case.

Um Mr.

Param Palmer will be handling this.

This is a R1 permanent zoning request.

Um and then there is case 170 26, which deals with the property address to 4200 Rotquarry Road, which is requesting a rezoning from agricultural to R1.

And uh case number 171-26 um is the parcel directly next to to the west of 4200 Route Courry Road, and they are requesting permanent zoning also to R1.

Uh case 1742 uh is also a permanent zoning.

Uh that will be managed by Mr.

Palmer, and this is for um MC zoning for a site that's currently county CG and has a light vehicle service and repair use on site.

Um just as a as a disclaimer, um our agenda could be more than this.

Uh it all depends on what is submitted uh by our June 15th deadline uh for the public hearing on the 23rd of July.

Um would hope it's not too much more, so we don't stay here until midnight again.

But um here's some maps of the cases.

Um, I think it's pretty straightforward.

Um otherwise that's uh that's all I have.

Thank you all.

Perfect.

Any commissioner comments for the evening?

Commissioner Stanton.

I'd like to thank you, Commission, for the support and my kind of time I need right now.

Thank you for your patience.

Keep running for me and I'll be back to my hundred percent sell here soon.

Good.

I'd like to entertain a motion, madam chair.

Please.