Get IT back out here, briefly.

Good evening.

I will now call the July twenty third, twenty twenty-six meeting of the planning and zoning commission to order.

Commissioner Stanton, may we have a roll call?

I have Commissioner Broski.

Here.

Commissioner Gregaugh?

Here.

Commissioner Gray.

Here.

Commissioner Lowe.

Here.

I'm here.

Commissioner Stockton.

Here.

Commissioner Waltish.

Here.

We have a quorum, ma'am.

Thank you.

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

Zinner?

No, there are not.

However.

Post meeting.

I would like to have the commission stay at the dais.

Video off.

Minutes ceased.

I have some announcements I would like to make to you personally.

Very good.

We will not run off.

Thank you.

Is there a motion to approve the agenda?

Move to approve the agenda.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Gray, seconded by Commissioner Grayball.

Is there a thumbs-up approval of the agenda?

Unanimous.

Thank you.

We all received a copy of the June 4th, 2026 regular meeting minutes.

Are there any changes or adjustments to those minutes?

Seeing none, is there a motion to approve?

So moved.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Graybaugh, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Thumbs up approval of the regular meeting minutes.

Unanimous with Commissioners Lowe and Stockton abstaining.

We also received a copy of the June 11th, 2026 regular meeting minutes.

Are there any changes or adjustments to those minutes?

Seeing none, is there a motion to approve?

Move to approve.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Gray, seconded by Commissioner Darr.

Thumbs up approval on those minutes.

Unanimous, which with Commissioners Graybaugh, Lowe and Stockton abstaining.

Moving on to our first case for the evening, case number 159, 2026, a request by all state consultants agent on behalf of Bluegill Land and Cattle LLC owner for approval to rezone 75.51 acres of property from the Boone County RS single family zoning district to the R1 one family dwelling district upon its annexation into Columbia's corporate limits.

The subject site is located southeast of the intersection of Brown School Road and Creasy Springs Road.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Can everybody hear me?

I couldn't hear myself, so I wanted to check.

So here is our aerial uh perspective, as you said in the intro.

It's uh southeast of the intersection of Creasy Springs and Brown School Road.

Um as you can see, kind of uh little more sparse development out here.

Um, but there is some pretty substantial R1, R2 uh types of development nearby.

Um really at the corners, uh the southeast and the northeast corners kind of match up with some existing neighborhoods there.

Um move on from there.

Uh so it is currently zoned RS, so that's the single family designation in the county.

Uh it's improved with three homes and a number of uh accessory buildings, basically uh uh it's a number of different kind of farmstead type of properties.

Uh so there's some uh barns and garages, things of that nature.

Um those will all be removed.

They are all currently served by on-site sewer systems that will also be removed.

Um as you said, uh there's the applicant is seeking R1 permanent zoning pursuant to the annexation of the property.

Um the annexation, I believe, will be introduced at the August 3rd council meeting for a public hearing on August 17th, and this will follow uh that.

Um so in terms of zoning context, uh there's a lot of uh Boone County single family uh to the west uh and the south, really on three sides of this property, and then the city uh is to the east generally, with uh mostly R1.

There is the A zoned uh parcel to the south.

Um little more uh uh visible here on this map.

Um I actually took the uh city zoning exhibit provided by the applicant and overlaid the county zoning and uh apologize they don't really line up too well, but uh the red line, of course, is the city limits, uh, and it just shows here that uh generally it's single family um for the most part, all around this parcel.

So um so R1 is uh consistent both with the uh zoning context and also the neighborhood district designation that um we find in Columbia Imagined.

Uh Brown School and Creasey Springs are both major collector roadways on the Catso Major Roadway Plan.

Uh and being placed at a significant traffic node like this gives this site ample access uh for the proposed development uh with single family homes.

Um the applicants have also submitted a preliminary plat that will come uh at our next meeting.

Um they're proposing uh around 147 lots, I believe.

Um the site will be served by all city utilities except electric, which will be Boone Electric.

And as I said, those on-site sewer systems will be removed and then they will connect to city sewer.

So uh so in conclusion on this case, uh the proposed R1 zoning is considered to be consistent with the comp plan uh and also the existing zoning comp context.

Um the site is contiguous to the city uh and then the roadway network is also supportive of uh this type of development.

Um so with that our recommendation would be to approve the requested R1 permanent zoning pursuant to annexation of the subject property.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

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

Seeing none, are there any questions for staff?

Seeing none, we'll open the floor to public hearing.

Would any member of the public who wishes to speak on this case, please come forward?

State your name and address for the record.

We allow six minutes for the applicant and representatives of a group, three minutes for individuals.

Please go ahead.

Thank you.

West Bolton, All State Consultants, 3312, Lamone Industrial Boulevard, Columbia, Missouri 65201.

Uh here on behalf of the applicant, just here to answer any questions you might have.

Are there any questions for this applicant?

Seeing none.

Thank you very much for being here tonight.

Excellent presentation.

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

Paul Boomer, 4756 Ring Road here in Columbia.

I live in an unincorporated Boone County, about half a mile west of the Broadway of I'm sorry, the Brown School and Creasy Springs intersection.

We usually use that Brown School, Creasy Springs, and the Remer Obermiller intersection to get in and out of the city of Columbia.

Now I understand tonight's request is for annexation and permanent R1 zoning, not approval of the proposed 147 lot.

But the staff reports, um the staff report supports this zoning by calling the location a significant traffic node with ample vehicular access.

That makes this the evidence behind that conclusion important tonight.

See, MODAS 2025 count stations nearest this intersection show about 5200 vehicles per day on Brown School Road and nearly 3,000 on Creasy Springs Road.

These roads also carry more than 250 single unit and combination trucks each day.

I provide the commission a handout via the online portal document portal.

Both roads are designated major collectors.

Yet this report lists no planned commit uh capital improvements, and it does not identify a traffic impact intersection or site distance study behind the conclusion that access is ample.

Brown School has hill and valley topography east of Creasy Springs.

I'll review the plat and see where entrance are entrances are proposed.

But I still believe a study is needed.

This is a narrow road with valleys on both sides, not just along the road.

And blind hills, you can't see over until you're on top of them.

In addition, there is currently near zero shoulder space.

It's already a nerve-wracking drive, knowing not knowing if there's a deer on the other end of that on the other side of the hill, or an oncoming car over the center line.

Adding development traffic to that without a single distance study is a real safety question.

It's not hypothetical.

I have two questions.

First, was a traffic impact and site distance study completed for this intersection?

And if so, what did it find?

Second, if those studies don't exist yet, why should permanent zoning be approved before they do?

I'm not asking you to reject growth, not at all.

I'm asking you to not rely on an unverified transportation assumption if there is no traffic report.

Please table this request until documented traffic intersection and site distance analyses are available.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

When we get to Oh, I'm sorry.

Sorry.

I I was gonna say uh when we get to the plating is when traffic studies are required.

Is that correct?

Yeah, the traffic studies somewhat more pertinent to the development itself, the the plating action.

Um but there was one performed here uh in Wes may need to back me up, but I believe the the um findings were that at most there would be a turn lane needed uh for uh left hand turns off of the two major roadways into the site.

Uh again, I would maybe ask West to verify that if we can, but uh that's my from my memory.

So that's incorrect, but I can see the study.

Yeah, I I think it was maybe even less than that.

We will we will see if the commission wants to bring West back up.

Thank you.

Any questions, Commissioner Stanton?

This is a point of clarification.

Uh we're voting on the zoning, not the annexation, correct?

This is just the zoning, not the annexation.

Appropriateness of the R1 zoning request, given the land use context.

Council will make the policy decision if this property should be brought in to the City of Columbia.

Correct.

This is not, we don't determine annexation, just zoning should it be annexed.

Any other questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Thank you.

Anyone else to speak on this case?

Please come forward.

Seeing none, would the commissioners like to hear from the applicant again?

I'm seeing nods.

Uh Mr.

Bolton, would you please come forward?

You'll have to state your name and address again for the record.

No problem.

Thank you.

West Bolton, All State Consultants, 3312 Lamone Industrial Boulevard, Columbia, Missouri, 65201.

Um yeah, this is a zoning hearing.

Um we did complete a traffic study.

We worked with the city on it.

Um it's sealed by me, accepted by the city.

We studied site distance, we studied traffic volumes and found that no improvements were needed to the road.

And the city accepted that study and agrees.

Thank you.

Other commissioner Stanton?

Sir.

You didn't specify the date and we said traffic study was done.

Specified the date.

Is that what you said?

When was it done?

Yeah, it was sealed on May 1st, 2026.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Walters.

I didn't hear you very clearly.

So you said part of your information is a site distance study as part of what you've completed.

Yes, absolutely.

It's a it's a very hilly road.

And so we were very specific about where we place the driveways so that they would have site distance.

And that information is included in our report.

And none of the uh well.

That's fine.

We're getting ahead of us.

I'm getting ahead, so sure.

Thank you.

Any further questions?

Last chance.

Commissioner Lowe, go ahead.

Yes, as far as um sewerage facilities, what are you anticipating to be necessary to service um the site should it be zoned R1?

Um sewer will be coming from an existing uh sewer on the southeast corner of the site.

We've been working with the city to make sure that connection works uh geometrically and it does.

So absolutely.

Is that do you foresee that being sufficient for gravity sewerage or will it have to be pumped?

Uh there's a pump station there, we will gravitate to the pump station.

Yep, absolutely.

It just barely works behind the dam, but we got it to work.

Any other questions?

Seeing none.

Thank you for coming back up.

Anyone else to speak from the public?

Last call.

You have to come forward, please.

Really have a point of clarification.

I really want to be, but it's more like sure.

Name and address for the record, please.

Uh Mike's wife Z W E I F E L 520 Sackett's Road, uh, Columbia.

Uh, my point of clarification was if the traffic study's been done, why wasn't it part of the online documentation then?

Because I would like to see that because I drive that road five days out of seven days a week.

And it's as the other speaker said, it is hilly, and I do not believe that it's it doesn't need improvements if you're putting this in.

So it will be part of the plating action.

Okay.

Yeah.

It's generally not provided as part of the zoning action.

Uh generally we see these on the same night.

There, my understanding is there was a bit of an issue, maybe uh, which is why they're divided, but it will be part of the plating action.

Okay.

So I can provide a copy of that too if I can get some contact from you later.

Okay, thank you.

So you have it beforehand.

Thank you.

Any questions before we let them get too far?

Okay.

Anyone else?

Last call.

Very good.

We will close public comment and go to commissioner comment before we get too far down the road, just for the record and for the edification of the public.

Planning and zoning does not vote on annexation.

We vote on what the zoning will be should the city council choose to annex this piece of property.

In the past, we have had to request the annexations be pulled from the consent agenda.

I believe that's now general practice that they do that, and we no longer have to do that.

But I generally make this comment so that people understand we do not make the decision on annexation.

Any further Commissioner comment?

Commissioner Gray.

I have a follow-up question for staff.

I think this is one of the first ones that I've seen that the electric is not being changed over.

And so I just want to make sure that in terms of like thinking about uh is there adequate infrastructure and access, Boone Electric counts.

Yeah, so um we have service areas that are set up uh kind of preemptively, so this is an area that's um you know for one reason or another is just better served by by Boone Electric.

Uh we see that a lot on the south side of town, um, and then just generally on on the outskirts of town also.

But um we also have uh similar situations with sewer, really more frequently, probably.

Um but yeah, this is just a place where they have infrastructure in the area, and they uh were earmarked years ago as being uh Boone Electric customers for the you know for perpetuity.

I can't speak now, but yeah.

Thank you.

Any further Commissioner comments Commissioner Stopman?

Sure.

I I think this seems like a logical use since we're abutting other R1 districts, some agriculture and general expansion.

So I don't see a lot of issue with it, and once it gets platted, we can address the traffic issues because I could see as it grows, yeah, that turnly might be necessary.

So I'm planning to vote in favor unless my colleagues convince me otherwise.

Anyone else?

Commissioner Stanton?

I would like to enter 10 motion, Madam Chair.

Into the microphone, please.

I'd like to entertain a motion, Madam Chair.

Please do.

Excuse me.

As it relates to case one five nine-2026, 180 West Brown School Row permanent zoning.

I move to approve the recommended R1 permanent zoning pursuant to annexation of subject property.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing no discussion.

Commissioner Stanton, when you're ready, may we have a roll call.

Commissioner Darr?

Yes.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Commissioner Graba.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Lowe.

Yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

We have eight yeses, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

The motion passes, and we will forward that recommendation to City Council.

Next up, case number 170-2026.

A request by Carolyn.

Carolyn Matthews owner for approval to rezone 1.98 acres of property from the A agricultural zoning district to the R1 family dwelling district.

The subject site is located around 400 feet south of the intersection of Rock Quarry Road and Scarborough Drive and includes the address 420 Rock Quarry.

May we please have a staff report?

You may, and thank you for the introduction.

Again, this is around 1.9 acres of total land, and it is being a rezone from the city agricultural zoning district to the city R1 One Family Dwelling Zoning District.

Postcards were sent out on the 20th of May as well, and then notification letters were sent out on the 6th of July, 19 of both of those, and then an ad was placed in the Tribune for the 7th of July.

Here is a little sliver illustrating most all of what is the subject property here.

Pertinent nearby intersections include Rock Quarry and Nyphong as well as Rock Quarry and Grindstone as you traverse north.

Here is the illustration of this from the Boone County parcel viewer.

There's a weird kind of vestigial piece in the southwest corner of this property that is on the other side of Rock Quarry, but it is all uh identified as being the same parcel ID.

And then another subject property that we will be discussing after this is directly to the east of this property.

It is not yet in the city.

It is also requesting R1 zoning.

So comprehensively four acres going to be or requesting rezoning to R1.

Here is this property illustrated from a city zoning map.

The gray to the north of here is a plan development zoned, and it contains principally single family dwellings or single family attached dwellings as well as duplexes.

Most of its condominium in condominium rather.

And the green outline you see along Rock Quarry that may be kind of faded out.

But that is a scenic roadway overlay, and it will be relevant for much of this site, but only prohibits development within the first 83 feet from the center line of Rock Quarry.

So again, this site is zone city A, and it has a one-family dwelling detached as well as an accessory structure currently on the site.

And it's seeking R1 zoning.

So it would not be eligible to receive a building permit with this rezoning.

Excuse me.

And it also is not large enough to be final platted as an A-zoned lot without creating nonconformance in terms of size, because an agriculturally zoned lot supposed to have a minimum of two and a half acres of size.

This does not have that.

So it if it were to remain an A zoning and to be replatted, the other parcel would also have to come in as A, and you could only create one lot for the comprehensive four acres to be compliant with our code.

So Rwood zoning in this scenario for this two-acre lot would permit a maximum of around 12 units, but it's likely that fewer units would be feasible just based off of various uh features, environmental features, particularly around the site.

So R1 zoning is considered consistent with the neighborhood district designation within Columbia imagined for this property.

Uh and rock quarry is identified as a major collector in this area, and it is a neighborhood collector actually south of GANs, which is farther south from here.

Um so if there were uh direct driveway access, it would be unlikely to be encouraged for a residential property unless there are no other practical options.

If it's just one home, it would probably make sense for them to have a driveway.

If this is subdivided into, let's say 10 separate lots, not that that is or is not the intent.

Um it would be unlikely that we would have 10 individual driveways all going off of Rot Quarry.

In fact, I will state I do not believe the city would encourage that at all.

Um so again, development of this site would also be subject to the Rot Quarry Scenic Roadway overlay.

Um and this site is intended to be served by all city utilities.

Um it'll require water main extension to serve the area as well as a sewer, um, which is on the site for the eastern of these two parcels, um, but not on this site presently.

And it's in the urban service area, and it's also within a tier one growth priority area per the comprehensive plan.

Uh so ultimately the proposed R1 zoning is believed to be consistent with the surrounding zoning and uses and the comprehensive plan.

Um everything around here is uh relatively medium to low density residential, especially on the east side of Rot Quarry here.

Um and furthermore, a lot could not be platted with its present configuration because it is fewer than two and a half acres.

So R1 introduces uh no new uses but greater density and more flexibility for the property owner here.

Um and infrastructure plans will be necessary before a final plat could go to council if developments pursued, uh, and those improvements must be made to serve the property prior to a certificate of occupancy permit.

Um so ultimately staff's recommendation for this rezoning is to approve the requested R1 rezoning, and if the commission has any questions, happy to answer them now.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Before we go to questions for staff of 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 Gray.

Thank you.

I think you may have answered my question.

Because I know uh we have talked about the loss of agricultural land or uh land designated as A.

And in this case, it doesn't seem like that's an issue because it is not it would not be a legal lot where anything could happen.

Yeah, I would say um since this could not be platted and could not be developed for any agricultural use without plating, and we wouldn't be able to support a plat presently, it would require the other parcel to also come in as agriculturally zoned, and then they could replait it all as one lot.

Um it doesn't necessarily seem like four acres of AG on this side of rock quarry is also the most compatible use when you consider what has been built around there, and um you know there's also more flexibility with R1 zoning that would be permitted.

Um I would say it's it's maybe not the ideal location for agricultural uses.

Um, and also the rear of the second lot, which we're going to talk about next.

Um steep topography uh environmental features that encumber it as well.

So uh I'm not sure how much development opportunity they may be on that lot anyway.

Great.

Um my second question, uh you mentioned that there would need to be uh a water main extension.

At what point uh would that happen?

Yeah, great.

Um that would be so we'd have to have plans for it to be extended, approved before a final plat can go to city council, and then such improvements would actually need to be made before a certificate of occupancy could be issued for whatever is developed on the site.

So it couldn't be inhabited until there is adequate infrastructure.

Great.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Are there any further questions for staff?

Seeing none, we will go to public comment.

Are there any members of the public to speak on this case?

Please come forward.

Name and address for the record.

We allow six minutes for the applicant and groups and three minutes for individuals.

Hello.

I am the owner.

I'm Carolyn Matthews, and the property is 420 Rock Quarry Road.

I don't reside there now.

I reside in the uh community of Lynn.

Do you need that address?

No.

No, I didn't think so.

Okay.

So bottom line, as you have heard, um, this property by itself is not ready for much of anything.

There's a lot of things that have to be done and a lot of obstacles.

However, I'm trying to sell both.

And so the next hearing will be on the second piece.

And um, it's clear to me that in trying to sell it, that any buyer uh or builder would want both of these parcels.

And um, therefore that would solve a lot of the problems, but I'm still leaving it up to the builder or buyer, it might be the same person, to do the plating and those additional things that have to be done later.

We're just trying to resolve the number one and number two issues, getting both of these uh to be uh R1 zoning and getting annexed to the part that's in the county.

So um is any if anyone has any questions for me, that's fine.

Are there any questions for the speaker?

Seeing none.

I was just doing quick math.

So we're just under four acres total.

Exactly.

3.95.

Yeah.

Very good.

Seeing no questions, thank you for being here.

Thank you.

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

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

Any commissioner comments?

Seeing none, Commissioner Stanton, did you have something?

Madam Chair, add in a 10 motion.

Please do.

As it relates to case 170-2026 4200 Rock Quarry Road rezoning.

I move to approve the requested R1 zoning from A.

We have a motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none.

Uh Commissioner Stanton, may we have a roll call.

Of course, Madam Chair.

Commissioner Dar, yes.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Commissioner Grewall.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Lowe.

Yes.

I'm a yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Yeah, maybe, Madam Chair.

Yes.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Moving on to the next case.

Case number 171 2026, a request by Carolyn Matthew Zoner for approval to permanently zone 1.97 acres of property from County A2 urban agriculture zoning to City R1, one family dwelling zoning upon annexation into the city limits.

The subject site is located around 400 feet south of the intersection of Rock Quarry Road and Scarborough Drive, directly east of the property, addressed 4200 Rock Quarry Road.

May we please have a staff report.

Yes, you may.

Yeah, so this is uh one hundredth of an acre smaller than the previously mentioned parcel.

Uh and the difference here is that we are requesting permanent zoning that is subject to annexation, not rezoning for a parcel that already exists within the city.

Uh notification was distributed on the same date, but with more this time because it is closer to development uh and the notification we send out is informed by proximity to other structures.

Um this is uh Google Aerial Imagery.

We're in the same place.

But anyway, this is not related to that, and it won't have access to that.

Here's how it looks from a parcel viewer perspective.

Again, this does not have direct vehicular access and is kind of this lone little parcel of two acres in in the middle of a bunch of land that is already in city limits.

And here is zoning map.

I uh just like my colleague uh Mr.

Palmer tried to uh overlay county and city zoning uh around here, but it didn't change from last time.

You can just see as you go farther down south, there's more county agricultural uses that exist farther down there and more RS, uh which is single family county residential, also to the south and on the west side of Rock Quarry.

Um this site is zoned county A2, uh, which is urban agriculture if I'm not mistaken, and that has the same size limitation for an agriculturally zoned lot in the city, so it also needs to be two and a half acres.

So even if this were platted in the county, would not have enough acreage uh in order to be platted.

Um they are also again seeking R1 zoning here, uh and again plating would be required before development could be pursued.

Um yeah, R2, R1 again here would permit a maximum of around 12 units, um, but likely even fewer than the previously discussed parcel um due to the topography and the stream that exists along the eastern edge of this property.

Uh this was also designated as neighborhood district in Columbia imagined, and the same comments uh regarding rock quarry or germane um as were previously noted.

Um site again uh is to be served by all city utilities, but um the technically nothing is being served at all there because nothing exists there.

Um and it is in a tier two growth priority area uh rather than tier one just because it requires annexation, but ironically it does have more direct access to utility than the previously discussed parcel.

Um so in conclusion, the proposed R1 uh zoning here is believed to be consistent with the surrounding uh zoning and land uses as well as the comprehensive plan.

Uh and again, a lot could not be platted here with its present configuration because it's fewer than two and a half acres, but uh if it's R1 zoned, um there's more flexibility for the property owner to uh create different lot configurations that are suitable um for maybe creating a small neighborhood around this area.

Um infrastructure plans uh again uh to Dr.

DeGray's question uh will be to be approved before a final plat gets introduced to city council, and then those improvements need to be made before a certificate of occupancy could be issued.

Um so ultimately staff's recommendation is to approve the requested R1 permanent zoning, not rezoning, excuse me, subject to annexation of the property.

And uh any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Seeing none.

Are there questions for staff?

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

Ms.

Matthews, would you like to come forward again?

Yes, so now you get a bigger picture.

This is Carolyn Matthews again.

And I'm sorry, you're gonna have to state the address 420 Rock Quarry Road, Clinton, Missouri.

And um Yeah, you can get a bigger better picture now from hearing about both of these.

And I would say that this property is primarily natural beauty.

The home is very old and will likely be demolished.

There's an old barn.

Some people like to renovate those, who knows?

But anyway, I I share the concern about agricultural land and natural land in the area.

But I should also point out north of it is Cambridge Place, and south of it is that development, I don't know what they call it, Zoe Lane and a bunch of other.

You can you can see it on your map.

Um so it is also consistent uh to be uh, you know, allow some housing, although my goal is to find a buyer.

We have a possible one now with smaller goals, one or two, three at most uh homes.

So um bottom line, yes, this one is the part that needs to be annexed into the city, and it needs to be permanently zoned first.

So that's the process we're in.

Uh we want to get the uh R1 going so that this process continu can continue efficiently.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms.

Matthews.

Any questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Gray.

Sorry.

Um I just have a quick question.

I was just curious because it seems like the previous property was annexed and zoned in 1969.

Is there any reason why there was uh it's a funny thing?

Um 69, I think it was actually uh some years later.

I I didn't get on the property till 91.

I bought it in 92, I believe that's correct.

And um there was an offer from the city some years later to annex some of the property in that area without supposedly as much red tape.

If I'd been really smart, I might have done that then.

But at the time, someone advised me oh, there's probably less regulations with the county.

Why don't you keep part of it as county and part of it a city?

Well, I'm living to regret that, but uh that's what happened.

So it's kind of like a little thumb sticking out, and the area around it is already annexed.

So thank you for the lore.

Money things happen.

Yes.

Any other questions?

Thank you very much, Ms.

Matthews.

Anyone else from the public to speak on this case?

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

Any commissioner comments?

Seeing oh, Commissioner Stopton.

I just I think you made this clear, David.

But is regarding access, hypothetically, if this were you know, switched into some sort of neighborhood development.

I see adjacent at the dead end of Scarborough Drive at the turnaround there.

It looks like one of the lots is extending and could extend into this property.

And you mentioned driveways off of Rock Quarry Road and with the theme of the season is traffic and congestion and safety.

So I mean I know we are talking about that, and that's not really our purview, but theoretically, would the access be from Scarborough Drive versus Rock Cory Road, or do you have any thoughts on that?

I believe it would have to be from Rockquarry Road.

I actually don't think there is feasible access from Scarborough Drive.

Um, and part of it's because the um I don't know how you describe this shape, the square that's not the rectangle slash hexagonal here.

Can I put a mouse on this?

Yeah, I think I see it between the property we're discussing.

Right here that I'm highlighting.

This is, if I'm not mistaken, a tree preservation lot.

So there would be no means to extend that private drive to access this property.

I would also, as a side note, say it may not be super feasible because there's a stream there, and so you'd have to build a bridge, and I'm not sure if that would be in anyone's interest.

Um if it to derive access for this, since they do have to plat before they could um get a building permit.

Um it depends on the number of lots that they intend to create.

Um either they would have one private driveway off of Rock Quarry very likely, or it would be uh uh a private street or a public street with a cul-de-sac type turnaround potentially, uh, but ultimately it's we couldn't really tell you.

Okay.

Okay.

That kind of clarifies.

I've seen similar situations.

So yeah.

Just curious.

Thank you.

Any other commissioner comment?

Commissioner Gray?

I would love to entertain a motion.

One moment.

No, okay.

You you can in just two seconds.

I will just make for the record in the public certification once again the comment that we do not vote on annexation.

We only vote on what zoning will be should City Council decide to annex it.

Commissioner Gray, did you have something?

A motion?

Please go ahead.

Um, as it pertains to case 171-2026, um uh East of 4D 200 Rock Cory Road.

I move to approve the requested R1 rezoning.

Permanent zoning, ma'am.

Permanent zoning.

Second.

Motion was made by Commissioner Gray, seconded by Commissioner Walters.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Madam Chair.

Yes, Commissioner Stack.

Is that amendment acceptable to the motion maker?

Yes, it is.

And the second?

Yes.

So amended.

Thank you very much.

Good looking out, Commissioner Stanton.

Any further discussion on the motion?

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

Commissioner Dar.

Yes.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Commissioner Grabo.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Lowe.

Yes.

I'm a yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Yeah, they yeses, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

The motion carries, and that recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Case number 174-2026, assignment and strump engineering agent on behalf of Judy Dothage trustee of the Dothage Family Trust owner seeking approval of the MC permanent zoning upon annexation of 3.78 acre parcel located at 7208.

I 70 Drive Southeast.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So real quick on public notice, we had postcards sent out on May 5th to 45 neighboring property owners.

And notification letters and the Tribune ad ran on the 7th of July.

This is our aerial perspective here.

But I was trying to get as much context as I could.

Route Z is the interchange you see towards the upper right off of I-70.

I mentioned in the description that this was uh roughly I think a mile or a quarter mile, whatever.

Um west of Trade Winds Parkway, that's the uh kind of brighter snaking road here.

Um and then, of course, uh you have St.

Charles in the lower left.

So uh so this property is the location of Mid-Missouri golf cars.

If you ever have the occasion to drive down I-70, you've probably seen it.

Uh it's uh longstanding.

Um I call it a light vehicle service or repair.

It might fall under uh kind of a similar category uh adjacent to that because it's golf cars and not actual vehicles, but that pretty much captures the spirit of the use.

Um seeking annexation to connect to city sewer.

Uh they actually have a county sewer line that runs right through the middle of their property, I believe east to or yeah, east to west.

Um, and they will actually be using that.

I'll describe that and show you that on the next slide, I believe.

Um so in terms of zoning, uh, this is the permanent zoning request.

Uh they're generally surrounded by RS, which is again that county single family zoning.

Um, except immediately west of the subject site is another CG parcel, uh, which I believe is vacant.

Uh it may have uh a house on it, but uh it doesn't actually have a commercial use on it at this point.

Um C is uh again what they're requesting, and that would be considered the equivalent in the city to the county uh CG zoning, uh which is also their general commercial.

Uh the Columbia Imagined uh Comprehensive Plan categorizes this as a residential district, and again, those are typically based on uh the existing zoning back in uh 2013 when that was created.

Um I believe this zoning is uh one of those outliers because this would have been in existence, the CG zoning would have been in existence before that, but also uh this is outside the city, so it would have been looked at slightly differently, I suppose.

Um C zoning is somewhat inconsistent with that residential district uh designation and the comp plan.

Uh but the MC would still permit residential specifically multifamily uses if the site were ever to be redeveloped in the event that the business were to vacate the property.

So uh we're not excluding residential uses by zoning it MC, but we are moving it up the scale towards the the densification uh uh the denser uses.

So here is the uh utilities map.

It does show that green uh Boone County sewer district uh sewer line that runs through their site.

Again, they will be connecting uh into that.

Uh and then as you can see, it runs to the north under I-70, taps into a city line that uh goes out to serve the Fabic uh caterpillar building.

Uh and then it actually ties back into another Boone County line uh and then further down the line back into the city system.

So this will actually be treated by the city.

Uh it is just not shown very well on this map, but uh it does show uh for all intents and purposes where we're where we're put in the sewer and how they'll be served.

So back to zoning real quick.

The um use uh the light vehicle service repair requires the MC zoning, or otherwise it would have to require a conditional use if we were to go with MN here.

Um so that is the uh uh the reason for the MC request.

Um it the use also currently meets all the use specific standards for light vehicle service and repair, and those are outlined there.

Um so all the operations of the business have to be within an enclosed building.

Um the MC uh does allow repairs like uh major transmission repairs and painting and body work, um, none of which are taking place on that site right now.

Um, but that does uh open up with the MC uh compared to the MN zoning.

Uh the other use specific standards that inoperable and damaged vehicles can't be visible from the public right-of-way, uh, so they have to be screened, and then also no salvage operations.

Again, they're not doing any of that.

Um they have excuse me.

I believe everything is inside the building currently.

They do have a couple uh carts typically out front uh display on display for sale.

Um that's really not what those use specific standards are are uh working against.

So they are fine on that front.

Excuse me.

Um we do have a letter from Boone County Sewer District uh giving us consent to serve them.

Again, their uh their infrastructure really is uh going to be tapped into, but uh ultimately the sewage will end up in our system for treatment.

So that's the reason for that connection.

Uh again, this is another instance like my first case uh where this will be served by Boone Electric Cooperative uh because again it's outside our normal service area.

So in conclusion, uh MC is consistent with the existing county zoning and is appropriate at this location.

This does have uh you know outer road highway frontage.

Uh this business has been in place uh for as long as I can remember, probably 25, 30 years or more.

Um and it has not created any negative impacts on those neighboring properties.

Um the site is contiguous to the city along its north side on that uh uh outer road frontage, the ISONE Drive frontage.

And so our recommendation would be to approve the proposed permanent MC zoning pursuant to annexation of the property.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

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

Seeing none, are there questions for staff?

Um I have a question.

The parcel that is to the east that runs between the two city boundary lines, is that CG as well?

I'm not seeing a label on it.

Sorry, immediately to the east here.

Yes.

Uh I believe it's RS.

It's all included in uh this label, so it and it is hard to read those those county zonings.

But um I'm assuming you're asking because it it's uh a different type of use on that site, is that right?

No, I'm just trying to this this property seems like an outlier to me.

And while it is a long-standing commercial use, it's also not taking up the bulk of the um property either.

And I'm I'm just a little bit hesitant with most of what's around it being residential, it being designated a residential district.

Um really the the other light commercial uses are also on residential properties, although in the county.

I'm I'm just curious as to how we got to the most intense commercial designation for this property outside of the current business would either need that or special permission.

I mean, I'm uh I'm evaluating the request that was submitted, of course, but um there's also some other examples along the corridor, which you don't see on this map.

But basically the I-70 drive corridor is uh a smattering of uses and zonings.

And you know my evaluation was really based on the fact more so that it's the existing zoning is consistent, but also just that um in both directions there are heavily intensive uses that probably wouldn't fit even into MC.

And so that generally the corridor is probably more appropriate for this type of use.

So you know, MC might be too much in this location, but overall I I think that that outer road, you know, in general is is appropriate for more intensive uses.

But the properties closest to this one are not that.

I mean, yeah, there's a mix of zoning there, obviously, but you know, if you're looking long term, you know, just generally the outer road is a place where we would see uh a corridor business district.

And a lot of residential uses off of it.

I I just I I'm okay.

Uh I'm just curious if there's anything other than the current use of the property as commercial that leads you to think this is appropriate for MC.

Yeah, like I said, I think the the corridor in general is is an appropriate place to put just general commercial uses, and it's it is somewhat incongruent with what is there now.

But if we're thinking long term, then I don't think it's out of the question that you know we're expanding the existing commercial uses into these types of areas.

Because the rest of the corridor is much heavier uses.

Well, but the either end of the corridor is not around here and isn't designated residential in Columbia imagined.

Well, and we've also talked about the kind of error in the ways of Columbia Imagine designations, and this is another scenario where you know the broader district was named a residential district, but this property was already zoned for general commercial in the county.

So I I think I see where you're thinking.

Any other questions for staff?

Commissioner Gray.

Um could you clarify the corridor that you're talking about is not uh imagined to be residential in Columbia Imagin.

What is that designation?

Well, so the Columbia Imagined based heavily their designations on the existing zoning at the time.

This is actually an outlier where it was zone commercial and it was called residential and Columbia Imagin.

Normally it would just have been called commercial, but because it is a bit of an outlier, I'm assuming it would have been removed from that and the broader residential district was laid on it.

So again, I'll just leave it there.

I I don't know where I was going.

So thank you.

I I would suggest, Dr.

Gray, that when you look at Sunrise Estates, which is to the south, or which is to the uh southeast, uh, that has been connected into the sewer line that will serve this property.

Um it was a pre-existing county residential subdivision.

Uh you look at the development that is off of North Webster Lane, uh Northeaster Lane, all of that is residential.

And so in the process of identifying future land use in 2013, we were looking at what the majority of that particular environment was.

That does not necessarily mean, however, that the existing commercial uses that were along the corridor that were outliers that were in the county.

Uh so the two CG properties that you see here, uh the incongruent land uses that are in the RS immediately to the east, uh, as well as the MLP as you move further east uh towards um Route Z.

Um those were going to convert over at any time to residential.

And so I think what Mr.

Palmer has done in his analysis is looked at well, what is along the corridor and how would that property most likely be uh converted from a county zoning classification as intensification of development was desired by the use of sewer.

And so the commercialization of the outer road is something that uh provides I think from a planning perspective, we'd say a buffer.

Uh you're gonna have a strip along the outer road, and behind that strip you may have a step down than in intensity of residential uses leading back towards the existing residential.

Um the land use patterning that we did in 2013 wasn't perfect.

And so these incongruencies and disconnects, we come up along roadways that are growing up now.

And as a result of that, uh what we're seeing is we're seeing applicants wanting to take what they have in their county zoning and be able to convert that to a comparable city zoning classification.

Um the capacities within the zoning districts do allow for some transitioning, which is something that we have to also acknowledge.

So if they decide they want to remove the golf court uh repair facility and replace it with multifamily, that would be an allowable use, maybe not the highest and best use, but the most allowable use in the MC zoning classification.

And it would still fit into the residential character.

And I would add to um there the option does exist that if you believe MC is inappropriate, uh and you would wish that they move forward with MN and then have to seek a conditional use permit to legitimize the existing business.

That that is an option, but I'm not sure exactly uh law may need to weigh in on what that process would look like.

But it does remain an option for sure.

That would require re-advertising and uh re-notice and then agreement by the actual applicant before uh we would vote to uh downzone the property.

It isn't the same class, same commercial classification.

So a recommendation of down zoning, if I recall correctly, based on past practice, we would allow.

Um but again, when you look at what the corridor is transitioning into, and the corridor we're referring to is the I-70 drive outer loop.

I believe after having been here for 18 years and watching this land use pattern develop.

Um the improvements that we are going to see will not be residential.

They will probably be more service-related interstate visibility type uses that you just have to come around to get to.

And that's just the course of the land use pattern, I think that's evolving and has evolved over time with the county.

Because the county did not necessarily have, you know, while they have had zoning, uh, I don't think that they looked at it as closely as we may have as a city, and how we integrate residential and that commercial land use uh interface.

Do you have any follow-ups, Commissioner Gray?

Uh no, that uh was illuminating.

It seems like you're talking more about um this land use pattern uh of commercial like corridor as like the character of the neighborhood broadly.

I would say to a depth off of the frontage road.

I think that that's something that we have to give consideration to, especially as you look further to the to the east, uh, where we get closer to Route Z and where we have all of the other activity around um trade winds industrial park, that that's on the perimeter of the park itself.

Uh we have some retail commercial uh as well as we have the other uh more intense development for equipment share that's right up along the front of the road that relies on that access inbound outbound access.

Thank you.

Are there other questions?

Um I just have one more.

Is there any platting action in the works for this almost four-acre parcel?

Not at this time, no.

There's no indication of that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Seeing none, I will oh, sorry.

No.

Are you sure?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

I will uh open the public comment period.

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

Name and address for the record, six minutes for the applicant and groups, three minutes for individuals.

Tyler Ashe with Simon and Strump Engineering 404 Steinbrook Terrace.

Just representing pull that up a little bit.

Thank you.

Just representing the owner and any hopefully answering questions you guys might have for me.

Any questions, Commissioner Stanton?

Is your intent to continue the operation that exists right now?

Are you swapping out just housekeeping?

The owner's intent is to keep the business up and running.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Do you use the entire four acres?

Or is everything kind of up towards the road and the rest of it is everything.

The uh the building is up towards the road.

Every there's no use, I guess, behind the building that I'm aware of.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

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

Any commissioner comments?

Commissioner Stanton.

I look at this like a housekeeping action.

They're getting it zoned for future annexation.

It's already commercial use.

Let's say we let's say we satisfy everybody's fears that are up here, right?

And they knock that down and they try to build something else.

Now they fall into buffering against residential.

They fall into all the other gar rails that are in place.

It's a unique, it's a unique mix of uses there, but I think they're okay.

I mean, I'm that's where you want those kind of places to be along those along those uh corridors like that.

And uh to the left and right, you know, you got a solar farm, you got all the other stuff, and they're you know the I think it works and I plan to support it.

Commissioner Grayvaugh, so I want to thank uh Rusty and Pat for um for your descriptions of it and especially in describing the the and clarifying the buffer on that as well.

Um the current owners intend to not uh change the the business also with most of that being up towards the the front.

Um also eases some concerns about it being uh close to residential as well.

Um and so I don't have any concerns.

Any other commissioner comment?

I don't like this at all.

This I hear what everyone's saying about the frontage road.

If this were just the acre that the building is actually sited on that is against the frontage road, I might be there.

But I'm looking at neighborhood after neighborhood after neighborhood on both sides of these little outliers with undeveloped land behind it.

And if you just look at the closeness of the buildings and the commercial operations to the frontage road, they don't go nearly as far back as this parcel does.

So now we're gonna have this entire highest commercial mixed-use zone that we've got available in the middle of a bunch of residential development.

Everything behind it's RS, everything around it is developed for residential uses.

The more intensive commercial uses are further down both directions of the uh of I-70 Drive South Southeast.

So I I don't think this is appropriate, and I I understand that they are trying to connect into the sewer and are being forced to annex, but I've gotta think that there's an option other than permanent zoning that puts us in a position where we're going to have a high commercial use four-acre parcel in the middle of a bunch of residential neighborhoods that are pre-existing that doesn't feel like responsible, a responsible zoning choice to me.

I think these two commercial parcels are the outlier in this you know, mile plus long stretch of the outer road.

So I I can't support it.

I and and even with the future possibility that maybe they could use it for multifamily housing, I hear that.

But saying we need to make it commercial because it's already commercial and there's a business on there, uh when that just doesn't make sense for the long-range plan of everything else around here, even behind it, you've got houses.

So I this does not make sense to me.

Commissioner Darr.

I I can I can definitely see where you're going, especially the back part, the deep, the deepness of the lot.

Um man, I really hate to penalize people that are like forced into a situation.

I don't know if the city council, if there's an avenue where and the reason I think it is is because they're coming forward with this zoning and annexation with no plans for development.

So there's no opportunity to try to work the development or you know, evaluate what the development would be.

It's just like it's all or nothing.

So I don't know if the city could be like, yeah, we're gonna we can annex you.

We want you, we want to serve you with sewer, but you know, we're only gonna annex the front 400 feet, you know, or something and leave the I don't know, you're getting in another, you're just creating future problems.

So I I'm gonna support it.

I mean, I I definitely agree the back part makes me a little nervous, but I just I just it is what it is, is what I boils down to me, I guess.

Well, and I don't know if they could have done a split, if they could have annexed it, splitting the parcels.

I don't know, but it's a permanent decision.

Commissioner Gray, sorry.

Um I'm curious, uh, based on your comments, if there is a more appropriate zoning to you for this area for the entire four acres.

I would say something residential, because everything around it is residential.

Either R2, RMF, there's single family residential.

But I I would I would rather see it a residential zone, and I get the problem, and I don't like that that problem exists, and I agree with Commissioner Darr.

I hate that the owners are put in this position.

But this needs to be, and I guess because we're annexing it, it can't be a pre-existing nonconforming use either.

And a follow-up, so uh under residential uh zoning, could that business continue to operate in permitted use?

Okay, so it shaking head, no.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Low, did I see a hand?

And then Commissioner Stanton.

Uh yeah, I think one of the things that um I think is just important to note here is the presence of I-70 so close to this and the intensity of use that it practically uh represents.

Um I think looking at this, I don't necessarily see um as much concern about a higher industrial use nearby residential neighborhoods when you have uh the highway that close to it, as well as looking at uh the general kind of character of the corridor um outside of further to the east and further to the west here.

Commissioner Stanton.

We're overcomplicating it.

Um I know people that live out here, and I I don't want to characterize, but I'm gonna have to to kind of get the feel.

This is a blue-collar county neighborhood.

If you really dig into us, look at this in Google Maps, you see there's a fireplace business that's down off the road.

These are basically mom and pop stores that were built in the county.

These neighborhoods are old out here.

This is Sun, this uh Sun Valley Drive.

I have a cousin who lives out there.

This is old neighborhoods that have already been here probably just as long as these businesses are.

And they coexist because this is some good old county county property, county that was built back when it was in the county.

And mom and pop stores that probably, you know, at the beginning, we're close to the houses that they lived in.

And we're kicking this owner in the butt.

We're kicking them in the butt, real talk.

For having four acres, imagine this is county.

So if I'm gonna buy two and I got an opportunity to buy four or ten or whatever, it's county.

This is we're kicking them in the butt.

We're kicking them in the butt.

We we really are.

And this is way simple.

It's way simpler because if your worst fears, like I said before, if your worst fears come true, then all the guardwheels that we fought in the UDC kick in.

The buffering you're worrying about, the all this you're worrying about would kick in.

And I'm gonna say this.

I'm gonna say this.

Now, we're we're talking about the the parcel where the uh golf car place works, right?

If you look at the one next to it that we had asked before, there is a around the fire business there that's deep down in the road.

There's a chimney safe chimney company right there off the road.

You slide over.

There's a landscape business right there on the road that's right on the on the top of the road to Sunny Val.

If there had been major problems and concerns with this issue, you know Columbia.

We would have people out here saying something about it.

And we don't.

Did we get any letters?

Do we get any protests?

Did we get any any of that?

Was this stuff advertised?

Was all of this done?

I think it was.

And all I'm saying is we're kicking the owner in the butt.

This is good old fashioned country county property that was bought back in the day and is used, how it's been used, has been developed organically, how it's been done.

I get that.

And I'm saying that we are giving them permanent MC zoning.

And these folks, I I don't have a problem with them.

My problem is once we make this four acres MC, it can become anything.

And I hear you about buffering, but buffering doesn't change the fact that we're giving up potential residential land in the middle of residential world.

And it could, if it were we're gonna do like some kind of weird thing that we're not allowed to do where they get MC, and if that ever goes out of business, it reverts to residential, sure.

But we can't do that.

That doesn't exist.

That's not an option.

So now I'm trying to think, okay, when this company maybe goes out of business, maybe doesn't, or decides to expand into a full-blown car lot, like there's nothing to stop it once we give them straight MC zoning.

Commissioner Gray Ball.

In looking at Google Maps, just going a little bit, um, I guess it would be West.

There's and this may be outdated, but there's a a for sale sign in front of a property, and it I can't quite tell where that is.

And does it rusty?

Do you happen to know in in your research is that that area is at the next section over, or is that the R2?

I honestly don't know which one exactly you're talking about.

Um I didn't notice the for sale sign when I was out there or when I looked at it.

It might be outdated.

It might be updated.

Okay.

It says March 2020.

Yeah, so it's fairly recent.

If you look at it, updated.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

Thanks.

Further commissioner comment.

Commissioner Walters, go ahead.

I have a history of developing residential properties in Columbia for over 30 years.

This has zero appeal in the residential neighborhood at this at the current time.

So diddle to what uh Anthony said earlier.

Any further comment?

Commissioner Gray?

Uh, Commissioner Stanton, I do appreciate your your comments.

Uh, your monologue, it's very persuasive.

I am a little um resident or reticent, cautious about saying I'm overcomplicating it, and that um this is eerily similar to something that has happened at my family's property, where uh a residential area was categorized as a corridor, and uh some uh things that impacted my family's land and uh what they can do with their property was uh a part of this.

So I want to go through all of the criteria and and kind of balance um if it doesn't really align with the comprehensive plan, um, because the people doing the comprehensive plan in 2013 could not see into the future of the land use patterns and were not um accounting for this, uh then what are the other kind of criteria that I am weighing my decision on?

I hear um the larger concern about the surrounding extant zoning and whether this is compatible, um, but I think in supporting this decision, um, I'm looking at the larger uh character of the neighborhood, the the fact that we talk about the I-70 corridor, this is a corridor zoning.

Um, and that I'm not necessarily hearing any um particular detrimental effects um that impact um the neighbors in surrounding zoning um outside of what we fear could happen past this particular landowner.

Um I I understand the caution and wait alongside the other criteria.

I'm not in my decision able to see um a reason to deny it based on that.

Anyone else?

Commissioner Stanton.

I like to entertain a motion if my colleagues are done with the discussion.

Any further comment?

Seeing none, go ahead.

As it relates to case 174-2026, 7208 I-70 drive southeast.

I move to approve the proposed permanent MC zoning pursuant to the annexation of the property.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Stanton and seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any further discussion on the motion?

Oh again, for the record and public edification, this is not about the annexation.

This is merely about the zoning.

Should the city council decide to annex.

Any discussion.

Seeing none.

Commissioner Stanton, may we have a roll call.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Madam Chair.

No.

Commissioner Grebaugh.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Lowe.

Yes.

I'm a yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Yeah, one nay and one, two, three, four, five, six, seven.

Yes, Madam Chair.

With a vote of seven to one, the motion carries that recommendation will be forwarded on to City Council.

And as a coda, I would say that we need to look at our forced annexation policies.

Case number 185-2026, a request by Crockett Engineering Agent on behalf of AGIST Investment Group 2 LLC owner for approval to rezone 6.4 acres of land from the A Agricultural and PD Plan Development Zoning Districts to the RMF multifamily dwelling district.

The subject site is located at 3000 North Providence Road.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may.

So public notice 24 postcards sent on May 20th.

And then letters and ads were sent out on the 7th of July and that went to the same 24.

Property owners.

Then you can see Garth on the kind of lower left coming up into the roundabout with Blue Ridge.

And again, Providence is adjacent on the on the east side.

So the site was originally zoned A, I believe that was upon annexation.

Then in 2005, it was rezoned to OP, which permitted uh R3 uses and then a number of uh specific list of office uses, uh, mostly institutional stuff and then you know general office.

Um there is a small portion which you can make out from the yellow outline that kind of cuts through the west side of this site.

There's a sliver there that somehow remained the A zoning, so that's included in this.

Um the intent here is the applicants do wish to develop the site with a multifamily uh uh development, uh, but they wish to utilize the open zoning um uh under the RMF zoning district.

So um of you may know there is uh uh I believe it's a Dunkin' Donuts out on the um rangeline frontage, and then really none of this uh site kind of developed out except for on the west end where we have the other uh multifamily just immediately west of this.

So um this kind of a notoriously underutilized uh parcel uh which eventually had Providence cut through and uh divide this subject tract off of uh the rest of the parcels.

So um the uh let's see the frontage along uh I said Vandever for some reason.

I don't know why that's in there.

It was uh rangeline uh frontage is MC.

Uh again, that's where the Dunkin' Donuts exists, and there's some space for some other commercial users on that frontage as well as uh farther down uh the Blue Ridge Road frontage.

Um it transitions into MN uses, uh, which is the area that you see along here that's zone PD.

The MC portion is kind of still farther to the east off of the page.

Um then the PD over here again is multifamily, and you can see that's developed out with multifamily uh user.

So other contextual zoning is predominantly R1.

Uh oddly enough, this is more to the northwest.

Uh and then you see A zoning to the south and another kind of uh undeveloped couple of parcels that were kind of bifurcated by the extension of Providence Road.

So uh that's kind of the general context out there.

Uh so the comp plan actually designates this as employment district.

Again, this was really anticipated uh you know in 2005, and then again apparently in 2013 uh to house some office users users, um, and that has never come to fruition.

Uh so multifamily development that's being proposed is somewhat inconsistent, but uh it is believed to be an appropriate use given the context being generally multifamily and other residential users as we kind of uh disperse outward from the site.

Uh and the fact that the property has been underutilized and or generally not utilized uh for the 20 plus years uh since it was rezoned uh to OP.

So uh that was a big consideration.

Um multifamily uh would just be an extension of the existing multifamily uh that would basically fill in the rest of the that uh block, if you will, between Garth and Providence.

Um and then it would act as a uh uh transitional uh use between um the existing single family again to the north and west and the commercial users uh to the east.

Um something I didn't uh I think I uh see what I do with that.

We'll move on.

Um so in conclusion, the site is a suitable candidate for downzoning.

I think that was the important thing I wanted to make a point of is this is actually a downzoning from the existing OP uh or PD now uh zoning that exists.

Um so the site is a suitable candidate for downzoning, giving it's laid dormant since 2005 when it was rezoned to OP, and uh then again the existing land use context is supportive of uh multifamily in this location.

So with that, our recommendation would be to approve the rezoning from PD and A to RMF.

And I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

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

Seeing none.

Questions for staff seeing none, we will go to public comment.

Any members of the public to speak, please come forward.

Name and address for the record.

Good evening.

Pardon me.

Andy Green with Crockett Engineering here representing the applicant.

Pretty straightforward request tonight.

Just taking uh PD zone property and requesting to rezone to RMF to allow a little bit more flexible development of multifamily apartments.

Any questions?

Seeing Commissioner Graybaugh.

That's all right.

Um the owners of the property is there interest in developing that anytime soon, or what is the time frame look like?

Yeah.

What is it?

Very soon.

Okay, immediately.

Yeah, like um I would be tasked with working on the project.

Should we get the zoning go?

Okay.

Any other questions for this applicant?

Seeing none, thank you for being here.

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

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

Any commissioner Stanton?

Madam Chair, this is one of the main things you support is getting out of PDEs and going to straight zoning.

So I was supported based on how you support straight zoning.

And I think that this is a great example of the things that you support very highly as the chair of this organization.

I would add that it is surrounded by multifamily development, and that would fit in perfectly with the existing land uses.

And thank you for your support of my continued efforts to get rid of planned developments that haven't been built in 20 years.

Any further comments?

I did, but I think um Commissioner Gray has something.

Commissioner Gray, go ahead.

Uh just as like an educational opportunity for me, um, because I've only heard downzoning kind of in comparable like R1 to R2 or those kinds of scenarios.

What makes this downzoning?

Uh so the OP basically allowed office uses.

So it would be uh similar if they were in MOF now and downzoning into RMF.

Um so basically the difference is probably one of the bigger differences um in a downzoning is is from some type of commercial use into a residential.

This is a little bit less than that, but uh in terms of intensity.

But yeah, generally it's just removing those office uses.

So you know I'm drawing a blank on some of just like medical offices, research labs, those sorts of things.

Now wouldn't be able to happen there if it's rezoned.

Got it.

Thank you so much.

Commissioner Stanton.

I'd like to entertain a motion, Madam Chair.

If my colleagues are done.

No further comment, please go ahead.

As it relates to case 1A5-2026, 3000 North Providence Road.

I move to approve the rezoning from PD and A to RMF.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none.

Commissioner Stanton, may we have a roll call?

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

I'm a yes.

Commissioner Lowe.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Grabo.

Yes.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

I was just trying to keep you guys awake.

Make sure you guys pay attention.

We have unanimous eight votes for yay.

Thank you.

That motion carries that recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

That concludes our cases for the evening.

Are there any public comments of a general nature from members of the public?

Seeing none.

Staff comments, Mr.

Zenner.

So your next meeting is going to be on August 6th.

And we do have a number of items.

So on August 6th, we will have a preliminary plat for a cottage development that was recently approved by our Board of Adjustment at the corner of Sexton and Washington Street, Washington Avenue.

And then we're going to have a series of public hearings.

South side of Gans Road, Discovery Parkway, Gans Road, and Ponderosa Street.

This is piece that's a track seven of the overall Discovery Park development.

So that is a major revision.

That is why that is a public hearing.

And then we will have two short-term rental applications, one at 122 North Greenwood, which is right up along Ash Street, if I recall correctly, Ash and Greenwood.

And then we will have one at the entrance to Twin Lakes Park down off Chapel Hill at 2400 Chapel Hill Road.

Our Columbia insurance parcel there on the south side of Discovery Parkway.

And then our last two short-term rentals there on North Bringingwood at Ash, and then they're at the entrance to Twin Lakes.

That is all we have coming up.

So we will have some agenda items, and then we will have additional discussion as it relates to our topic data centers in our work sessions.

They don't train staff on new technology.

So we got through the meeting though, and hopefully you all found it uh informative.

Again, before we leave tonight, I will have some uh announcements that I would like to make offline.

Very good.

Any commissioner comments this evening?

Well, that's what I was going to do.

Move to adjourn from Commissioner Grace.

Second from Commissioner Stanton.

Without objection, we stand adjourned.