Good evening.

Welcome to the City of Columbia Planning and Zoning Meeting.

Thursday, August 21st, 2025.

Introductions.

Pro call, Mr.

Secretary.

All right.

We are going to do our voting slightly different than we've done in the recent past.

We notice that we are supposed to be voting in alphabetical order and not in our seating arrangements.

So at our last meeting, Commissioner Stockton voted first.

And in this meeting, Commissioner Walters.

You will you will be voting on all our items and we'll just cycle through every meeting.

All right.

So Commissioner Walters.

Attendance.

Here.

Commissioner Wilson.

Here.

I am here.

Commissioner Darr?

Here.

Commissioner Gowway Jones is absent.

Commissioner Gray?

Here.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Here.

And Commissioner Stanton.

Present.

And Commissioner Stockton.

Here.

We have a quorum of eight.

Mr.

Zenner.

Are there any adjustments to the agenda, sir?

Yes, there are this evening, sir.

We received a request to withdraw case number 267 2025.

This was a publicly advertised short-term rental hearing at 3306 Melinda Court.

As I indicated, the applicant has requested that this item be withdrawn from further consideration.

So that item would be your last public hearing, so we will not have that item on the agenda.

That is the only amendment.

Outstanding.

I moved to approve the agenda as amended.

Or is that okay?

Yeah.

Second.

Been moved and properly seconded to approve the agenda as amended.

Take a thumbs up for that one.

All is opposed, thumbs down.

Everybody should have had an opportunity to read the August 7th 2025 regular meeting minutes.

Are there any adjustments to the minutes?

I move to accept or approve the minutes.

Second.

The move then properly seconded to approve the minutes from August 7th, 2025.

All those in favor, thumbs up.

All those opposed, thumbs down.

For the record, I abstained.

Thank you.

Oh, the last meeting.

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

Thank you, Ms.

Ortiz.

Our first public hearing case is case two six two-2025.

A request by Stephen Fleischer, agent, on behalf of VSP LLC, owner, for the approval of conditional use permit to allow 11 club court to be used as a short-term rental for a maximum of six transit guests and up to 210 nights annually, pursuant to Section 29-3.3, Section V V and Section 29-6.4 M subsection 2 of the Unified Development Code.

The point two two acre subject site is zone R1 and located in the terminus of Club Court and is addressed 11 Club Court.

Can I have a staff report, please?

Yes, you may.

Thank you, Commissioner Stanton.

And public notice was made for this request in the form of notification postcards on the 21st of July.

And a ad was placed in the Tribune on August 5th, uh notifying uh community members of this public hearing.

Um here's so oblique aerial imagery of the site.

Um it also has sidewalk access from uh what is the intersection kind of at 90 degree angle turn at uh Charles Street and McAllister Street, um, but is vehicularly accessed through club court through a uh cross access easement that exists near the terminus of Club Court, which is a private street.

Kind of at 90 degree angle turn at uh Charles Street and McAllister Street, but is vehicularly accessed through Club Court through a uh cross access easement that exists near the terminus of Club Court, which is a private street.

Um so discussion on this, it is uh R1 zoned, and it is not the applicant's primary resident.

Uh and again, it is accessed through Club Court, um, which is a private street through a cross access easement from the property uh that exists to the west of this or to the east, excuse me, of this site.

Um it is a three-bedroom, two-bathroom home.

The maximum occupancy would be seven per the International Property Maintenance Code, but the applicant is only requesting six at this time.

Um it was listed as available on short-term rental sites, uh particularly Airbnb, uh, all year in 2024.

Um at least four of the nine parcels that were identified within 185 feet of this property were confirmed to be owner-occupied.

Um there are no other approved short-term rentals within 300 feet of this property, and there are no open code violations related to this property either.

The designated agent for this site lives one mile away.

Um regarding uh correspondence from the community for this request.

Uh I received three phone calls all that came after the property owner letter was distributed.

Um all of these calls expressed opposition to the request um for reasons that will likely be articulated by community members later, but it was because commercial vehicles, um, particularly contractors were um on the site and also had trailers that were uh parked within the parking lot and there are concerns related to that.

Um two emails were also provided in response to the public notification, which were distributed to the commissioners via email um earlier this week.

Uh and there should also be two more letters of opposition in the agenda packet that you all have today, as well as an exhibit that a community member will be bringing up as a presentation later in regards to this.

Um yeah, all of these were uh particularly noted a previous on-site incident related to commercial vehicles utilizing the site.

Uh the property currently has driveway and a parking pad on the site that would support the required three parking spaces uh requisite for six total guests.

Um through staff's uh analysis of the conditional use permit application uh criteria, um they would all be supported uh by this request.

Um the short-term rental regulations would provide oversight and means to address impact such as commercial vehicles in a greater way than maybe currently experienced and short-term rental uh recommending approval of the short-term rental would support broad policy strategies and actions of the comprehensive plan.

Therefore, it's the recommendation of staff to approve the requested short-term rental conditional use permit, subject to the following maximum occupancy of six transient guests at any time, and a maximum of two hundred and ten nights of annual rental usage.

If you have any other questions, I would be happy to answer them.

Thank you.

All right.

Um if any of my colleagues have any uh exploitate information relating to this case.

Um we'd like to share that with the rest of you the commission at this time.

I see none.

Um questions for staff.

Nine.

Oh, Mr.

Tees.

Have we seen a short-term rental on a private street yet?

Um not to my knowledge, no.

Yeah.

Is there any special consideration we should take in for that?

Um I do not believe there's anything regarding particularly needing access to a public street within the criteria for approval for a conditional use permit for short-term rentals.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Any other questions for staff?

Well, open up public hearing.

Wait for me to slam that miss.

So gonna behave this evening.

Is there any buy from the public that wish to discuss this case?

On once.

Uh uh somebody.

Okay, so be sure you state your name and address.

If you're for an individual, you get three minutes.

If you're representing an organization, you get six.

Yes, sir.

I'm representing myself and my wife, Debbie Proost.

We live at six club court.

Can you repeat your name, please?

We're we're recording it so we have to do it.

Warren Proost, P R O S T, and my wife, Debbie and I live at six club court.

Warren Proost, P R O S T, and my wife Debbie and I live at Six Club Court.

Can we get this up on the screen?

Oh, it appears.

Yep.

Thank you.

I am the resident that submitted the document, uh, lengthy document uh to uh to uh P and Z staff.

I'm happy to answer any of those questions, any questions you may have regarding that follow-up information that I previously submitted in writing.

We have lived at six club courts since 1992.

So we have 33 years of first hand experience and knowledge regarding our great small neighborhood and the private street club court.

It's the club court is 65 years old.

It is narrow, only 20 foot wide, and it has no curbs, no sidewalks.

It is an unreinforced concrete pavement with many cracks.

As you know, we are responsible for maintenance of it.

This includes snow removal.

The section of Club Court in the very worst condition is on the west end, the cul de sac, where the street narrows from 20 foot down to 16 foot wide.

The turning radiuses were never constructed for any traffic other than normal passenger vehicles.

City trash trucks discontinued driving on club court over 15 years ago with mutual with the mutual consent of the homeowners in the city in order to prevent any further damage to the street.

City trash collectors now drive a pickup and manually throw our trash bags into the back of it.

All of this is to prevent further damage to club court.

That is a high priority.

We have worked hard to get to know our neighbors, both permanent residents and long-term residents, because knowing one's neighbors is a well-established basic building block for safe and secure neighborhoods.

And we encourage one another to keep an eye out for unusual activities or vehicles.

But the unpredictable stream of strange vehicles and short-term tenants going in and out of 11 Club Court this past year, randomly showing up at any time of day, any day of the week has fundamentally changed our neighborhood.

We have no idea really who is in the house one or two doors away from us.

Not only can this be unsettling, but it's nothing that any of us bargained for or expected.

It has undermined the safe and friendly character of our neighborhood, in my opinion.

We ask that you denied us this request.

This request benefits us nothing.

On the contrary, it adds extra burdens to the neighbors for us to monitor any possible damage to the street, plus monitoring short-term tenant compliance.

The bottom line is this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this for the speaker?

Is there homeowner association?

No.

How is the um maintenance of the private drive done now?

Is there a formal agreement or is it just so as I put in writing in my in my comments?

Uh sadly, in 1960, they constructed no, they organized no home HOA, so there are no funds.

So it's just how are you guys?

Yeah.

Yeah, be clear, we have no money uh set aside for anything.

So theoretically, even if if there is violations and you guys complain, but there is already damage to the street.

It's not a public street.

You guys will be on the hook to the case.

We are we are 100% on the hook, uh, responsible for this.

Well, we know this when we bought it.

You know, disclosure, this is a private street.

And the very worst part is right at the nexus of where uh the applicant's uh driveway ends enters club court.

Thank you.

Good question, Dr.

Clark.

Yes, ma'am.

Hi, thank you.

Um you said that you worked really hard to know your neighbors and talk to them and establish a statement overhead.

Uh have you talked to the applicant, the owners?

Um I I can tell you that the twice that I've had a conversation with the applicant.

Uh once was a year ago at a casual social event.

I I'm acquainted with him.

I don't I don't uh he lives broadly in the neighborhood.

It was the first I learned that that it was an Airbnb.

So the applicant never initiate any discussion with the neighbors on the front end.

I'm not saying it should have, but that's what happened.

Um a week ago we had an informal meeting.

Um there were some positive things.

We mainly discussed the condition of the road.

Um the applicant was there, and really uh some things were discussed, but no decisions were made or no actions or suggestions were initiated or anything.

That's my memory of the discussion.

So yeah.

Um and I was also just wondering, so uh you talked about uh the upkeep of the road that uh the applicant would also have an investor.

Yes, he's just one of the ten people that would be, you know, have to work over a pot of money.

The last time anything was only been money spent on it twice, once in 1989.

And um, and then um that asphalt patch you might have seen on some of the photos that I sent.

Uh that was like 15 years ago.

And my last question, thank you.

Um you talked about the burden of monitoring the safety of this community in this neighborhood if this is approved.

And I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of the enforcement and what that would look like with two verified uh um claims.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I guess to that I would say we never bargained for that.

You know, our neighborhood didn't buy into that when we bought our homes here.

So I have long-term rentals, I they're great, you know.

Never had a problem.

Several several neighbors have long-term rentals.

And so it's a different dynamic.

I the if you may recall the one picture of the photo of the large truck, that's an example.

That gentleman showed up at 8 o'clock at night, and they were gone by six o'clock or eight o'clock the next morning.

It just so happened that I was in my house and heard this loud noise and saw it.

So that's the that's the way it is.

Thank you.

I don't think there's anything in the system that will prevent that from happening again.

Yes, sir.

Uh you mentioned that the applicant told you sometime last year at a social setting, uh that was the first time you learned that it was an Airbnb.

Do you recall when that was?

I don't.

Uh not exactly.

Uh late late summer, early fall, I guess.

Okay.

And the reason I ask is just because the the property has been operating as an Airbnb since December of 2023.

So I was curious if um or or yeah, curious that you used to.

It could have been the summer.

I really I don't, you know, I was like, what's going on?

See what's going on.

Judith, you hadn't noticed any issues prior to that.

Um I noticed a lot of strange vehicles going up.

It was what triggered my main concern were the three weeks of the utility contractors.

That's a bad deal.

So that's when I realized that this was not I needed to do something different.

That's a bad deal.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the speaker?

Thanks, sir.

Anyone else from the public wish to speak on this case?

Going twice.

Close the public hearing.

Fellow commissioners.

Questions, comments, concerns.

We we already closed the public hearing.

So do you know if you need to ask you?

Well, yep, you know.

Do you want to open public hearing again to hear this guy?

Okay.

May approach, sir.

My name is Steve Fleischer.

I own VSP L L C.

I own Eleven Club Court.

I live at 2007 South Country Club Drive.

And thanks for being here tonight.

It's a beautiful evening.

Sorry you're inside.

Do you guys have questions for me?

I do.

So part of the documentation that we have for this evening is your supplemental questions that were asked.

And question F is usually one of the questions that I'm very keenly interested in because it asks if there will be significant impacts to the surrounding properties.

And you said yes.

What was your what were your thoughts?

Oh, not cause.

Never mind.

You said yes.

So what were your thoughts?

Still same question.

When you said that would not cause significant or adverse impacts to the surrounding properties.

I mean, I really haven't had any any problems there at all.

Traffic count's been low.

More in referenced three weeks of contractors.

I've never had anyone stay over three weeks that were contractors.

I asked the at that meeting, are we concerned about length of vehicle or weight of vehicle?

Because there's some some heavy equipment that has nothing to do with Airbnb that will be on our street.

And the streets in not great shape.

So I'm willing to adjust, and I told them, told them that at the meeting.

This was a professor moving across the country with his two small children.

And after that, we put a comment in there in the in the notes that said please contact us if you've got oversized vehicles, something to that effect, so we can make arrangements.

Can that be zoomed in at all?

Image.

That's good.

I just so I also own nine club court.

I bought that house for my mother-in-law when my father-in-law passed away, so she could be close to us.

And then I had the opportunity to buy 11 club court, and I bought that for my mother.

Um and that just didn't quite work out, and I didn't want to put a long-term tenant in that property in case she does change her mind and wants to move there.

I don't I don't want to be in a tie tied into a long-term lease.

Um shoveled my mother-in-law's snow and she made them cookies.

Uh same contractors.

Um I'm very conscious of who goes into that property.

I I there are limits.

I can't, you know, our screening, we do the best we can.

Um has a lot of past reviews, they're all positive.

It's usually a pretty straightforward deal.

If someone has no reviews, they just joined Airbnb, I'm probably denying that stay.

Um but I I try to be very careful who goes in there.

And uh pretty much I get a report card from my mother-in-law after every stay or during the stay.

When did you put the comment about if you like you have oversized vehicles?

Is that relatively new?

No, that was that was after one of my tenants was harassed on the street.

Okay.

Because I just noticed that in the photos that were provided by the public, a neighbor.

Um do you see oversized vehicles with the public hearing notification like placard in the yard?

So how do you plan on?

I I don't understand.

So notification about this hearing, right?

Yes.

Is in the yard.

They took a picture of it in the yard with vehicles in it.

Yes.

And so we were provided from one of your neighbors photos of over oversized vehicles outside of the property while the notification was in the yard.

So that implies that it's recent within the past couple of weeks.

Right.

Right.

I mean, it's it that's kind of where uh I'm hoping that guest is going to notify us or or take heed.

I mean, I can I can change the verbiage or add it.

But I can see the picture.

Right, right.

And so that's why I I also explained it to you verbally, right?

Um my question is how do you plan to enforce um that there's not like a ton of big vehicles?

Like what what kind of do you have?

Like a camera.

Is your mother-in-law going to call you?

Like, hey, there's a U-Haul carrying up the street.

She'll call.

But I I mean, that's uh I can guess that was probably someone moving their student here.

I mean, uh that was coming to our Airbnb to move their kid.

I uh I mean we only have really so much control.

I mean we try to screen the best we can.

Um we do our best.

I mean, it it's it's an investment for me.

I want to protect my property.

I also uh am going to keep an eye out for uh for the neighboring house.

That's all from me.

Any other questions, comments, concerns?

Dr.

Gray.

Um given uh some of the the comments and concerns about safety, you talked about your mother-in-law not um would there be any additional measures or screening that you would be willing to implement in order to assure that your neighbors felt safe?

Absolutely.

I I'm open to suggestions.

I said that at our at our meeting.

So, like any any work that's done on the street, I own two of the houses on the street.

So I I pay twice what everyone else does for snow removal and and road maintenance just has not occurred.

Um I also live on a private street um where we pay for road maintenance, we actually replace the asphalt a few years ago on our street.

We pay for snow removal.

We have large tractor trailers drive down our street.

There was and on my street on Club Street, just a week and a half ago, there was a tractor trailer on the street.

Tore up the tore up the little cul-de-sac.

Nothing to do with me, and I don't know if you got pictures of that.

The uh second thing I want to say, thank you.

Um I understand uh that you have made adjustments in the listing and ask people to indicate if they have oversized vehicles.

But I just want to confirm that you understand with two verified violations within a 12-month period, your license would be revoked.

I mean, what would like having uh I guess I don't know the definition of an oversized vehicle and are they are they not allowed on the road or parked how those I just I'm not seeing what you guys have seen.

So would those two instances be violations of someone parking on the street or I'm all to get along.

I mean I'm I'm gonna say this without giving a definitive answer without really giving you a clear definition.

Um it's very important with this process to get along with your neighbor.

Right.

I think communication is key in this short-term rental thing.

Right.

Um it's in the eye of the beholder, because as Dr.

Gray just said, a violation is in the eye of the beholder.

If they feel like you they want to complain about it and go through the proper channels, then it's very and it's a verifiable complaint.

It's a verifiable complaint.

I kind of see where you're getting at.

Like, what is that?

That is communication with the neighbor.

That's working that out, seeing what triggers them.

I guess is the best way I could say, you know.

Um the picture I seen, it looked like a like a U-Haw like attachment to a like to a tow hitch.

It's not the big U-Haul truck.

It's just a, you know, it's a U-haw attachment.

Okay.

To me, that's not oversized.

To me, it's not.

Right.

You know what I mean?

But to somebody else that may.

And I, you know, with this being a private road that's not in the most restricting, you know, condition.

You know, there's probably a little sensitivity to the use of that road with those kind of things.

That's communication with the neighbor.

That's really hashing it out with them.

That's kind of what I would suggest.

Dr.

Gray, did you have anything else?

No, thank you.

No, thank you.

I have a question of staff.

Um it's an interesting point is that so a vehicle parks in the street and it creates difficulty in access, but it doesn't block access.

And so someone would call, they could call our number to complain.

They could call the police, but the police can enforce parking on a private street, correct?

That's correct.

So uh what uh constitutes a uh a valid complaint here regarding oversized parking if access is still possible.

So the access easement is afforded to all of the properties that are on club court.

That is provided through the plat that went with this subdivision when it was created.

Um there is no active homeowners association, it's a problem because the homeowners association would be the one that would be able to muster the troops, so to speak.

A verified complaint as it relates to this particular topic is going to be have it would be a complaint would be submitted to our Office of Neighborhood Services or submitted to the Community Development Department.

That complaint's veracity would be compared against what is in the code by definition.

So we have weight limits, we have tire limits that constitute what a heavy vehicle is and what is and is not permitted in a residential neighborhood.

If it doesn't meet that criteria, yes, it is a frustration to those adjoining neighbors, but it is not a verified complaint.

Uh verified complaints really are going to more man up to the idea of noise violations that trigger a police report to be filed over occupancy complaints that actually can be verified through evaluation of booking calendars and following up with the applicant and the operator as to how many people did you actually have during that weekend stay?

Those are the types of complaints that are verified based upon neighbors participating in the enforcement process by either photography, which is going to be the best means of verification.

So there is photographic evidence.

Hearsay doesn't really make it in court.

So we're going to have to have something filed, and it is going to have to have veracity.

We have been doing enforcement for four months.

I'm sure that there are a lot of folks out in our community that would love to see their neighbors who are operating an unlicensed short-term rental shut down immediately.

That's not how it works in reality.

We have to mount a meaningful case, and then we have to have it prosecuted.

The way we get prosecution is by evidence.

And so evidence is gained by looking at our code and what constitutes actual code violations, not by just the neighbor calling and being upset that their neighbor is operating a short-term rental in a way that they don't like.

And that is how we will have to approach solving these problems as we move forward in the enforcement phase.

Okay, thank you.

The main thing I see with this case is that it's a private street.

Do you guys have weight limits for that street?

You know, like have you ever seen a streets where you'll say, hey, no truck beyond X amount of pounds allowed?

Because a semi rolling down that street.

Right.

There's a semi on there two weeks ago, tractor trailer.

Yeah.

That probably wouldn't have been my choice, but he probably does like, hey, I didn't see any weight.

Let me, I'm gonna go for it.

Well, you know.

At our meeting, we discussed putting because there's no signage at the end of the road that says no turnaround.

Yeah.

Uh it doesn't.

So it it's you know, no outlet, no turnaround.

There so we talked about putting those signs up at the end of the street.

I think that so uh that number one, you know, kind of answers the question what's oversized, what's not.

That number one, I know that's not your problem.

I'm gonna get back to know thy neighbor.

Right.

And work with thy neighbor on what that is.

I mean, you could probably say, hey, mm.

F, you know, I don't know.

You know what big is.

You know, you know whether you and this this particular property, so the turnaround he's talking about is in is right in front of kind of between seven and eight club court is where the cul-de-sac is.

Oh, I see.

Okay.

So from nine club court to eleven club court, there's only two driveways coming off of that.

And that's nine and eleven.

So there's a small part of a street that probably seventy years ago was a through street.

I don't I don't know how long ago.

Um doesn't drive a car.

And then eleven, I've got plenty of parking and a two-car garage that that the guests have access to.

But the whole front of nine is uh part of the asphalt drive, and it's it's just has those two driveways.

Twelve club, their driveway comes off of the road behind us.

Any other questions, comments?

Yes.

I looking at I found uh a clear image on Google Maps and looking at that.

It looks like the properties most adversely affected by large vehicles related to your property would be the people who own lot nine, that's you, eleven, that's you and twelve next to you.

Because of the uh little loop road, a little cul-de-sac loop that you were referring to earlier.

Everyone there appears to be able to have some way out of here without being impacted by parking.

I'm not justifying illegal parking.

I'm just trying to think of this out loud.

Anyway, I I don't think I have a f uh a more concrete comment to make than that.

I'm done.

Thanks.

I would just add next time I would lead with that, because that is very helpful that there is a turnaround between the or at between six and eight.

Between seven between seven and eight, there's a small culture sac.

And it's and it's small and narrow.

I don't it it's it's hard to navigate, especially like if if the tenants at A Club Court are parked in the in the grass on the street.

But what I'm hearing is really the only traffic that would go down to nine and eleven are those are your properties.

Correct.

Okay.

Right.

Okay.

I see what you mean.

And then 12 had to access through the 12 driveways on the Charles.

Okay.

So I okay.

Sorry.

Now I'm understanding.

So the people that live going up to your properties are the ones that have the problem.

Okay.

Working through this out loud.

Right.

And and for the most part, from seven club down to country club drive, there there's no reason for anyone to be driving back there.

Okay.

And we get, you know, the post person and Amazon and UPS are on the street all the time.

Anytime I have guests there, I take a loop and make sure there's trying to protect the property, make sure we don't have 10 cars or a party going on.

So access from McAllister Street, I'm seeing.

Trying to not street access.

So they get back to that, they have to go around the circle court.

I mean club court.

Following you, I'm sorry.

How do I get to 11 and 9 off of the city?

Give me the options to get there.

Country Club Drive is your option.

And when you get to 8, there's a small cul-de-sac there.

So I guess the question, because I'm because these markers are in the way, I can't see the other street.

The way I'm looking at this, and please correct me on the council sees it.

I don't or my commission see it.

If I were to try to get to 11 or 9, or yeah, 11 or 9, I have to go from country club drive up club court.

I have to go through two, one, two, five, four, six, seven, eight to get to your properties at nine and eleven, correct?

Correct.

There's no other way to get to that from any other way but to take club court.

Is that what I'm seeing?

Okay.

Any other questions?

Thanks, sir.

Thank you.

Well, I got public hearing open.

Anybody else have anything else to say for our state your name and your address.

And you have three minutes.

My name is Kirsten Pape and I live at Southern Club Court.

And Steve is my neighbor, one of my neighbors.

Clara is his mother-in-law who is directly right next to me.

And I would have to say that I was at the meeting when we discussed the streets and the conversation.

And I would like to continue to see those lines of communication be open.

And so I do want to say for the record that I enjoy having Steve and Clara as my neighbors.

Steve is wonderful, it's helped me with my property.

He is a great neighbor.

But because we are a cul-de-sac, we have no lighting on our street at all.

There's no public lighting.

But last night for uh just an example.

Um the people staying in the property, um, because there are no streets.

Um Clara was asleep when this happened.

Um, but I came out to let my little dog go to the bathroom, and they backed out of that road and then didn't know how to turn around, so they continued to back out around the cul-de-sac right in front of my property, and because there are no street lights, one of the gentlemen in and I uh it was a man's voice in the back of the street of the car, had their phone um with the camera on the phone with the flashlight on the phone, trying to guide the driver so that they didn't heat hit the median.

Um and they were kind of screaming and kind of loud um because he was like, You're flash I I I can't see, you're blinding me.

And then he's like, I'm trying to show you where to go.

Um so that's just an illustration, right?

About how that can be slightly disturbing for the neighbors and the neighborhood.

Has nothing to do with Steve and his um Airbnb, but it just has to do with some concerns that I have in the neighborhood about navigating a street that's not lit, that may be not familiar to them, and then on top of that, there is no on-site management.

Um so no one's greeting them as they come in.

They do come late at night, so that's a concern and what that looks like.

And I know that that's a challenge in the industry and what's going on, um, but that's kind of my concern.

Could there be more put in place?

And I think Steve is open to this in the ad.

Um you mentioned cameras, and I think that's a great idea.

Um I think neighborhood participation in Clara is a wonderful idea.

Um, but also are there guidelines where you have to arrive by 8 p.m.

You have to be checked in by someone instead of just have a code to get into the home.

Are there some things that we can be doing and talk to the management company about doing when there is active management of the property?

Can we lean into that more?

So that's kind of where I'm coming from within the neighborhood.

Because it is a cul de sac, because we have no street lighting and it doesn't get a lot of traffic.

I'm probably at the end of my time.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Any questions?

Any questions for the speaker?

Hi, thank you.

Hello.

I understand how your example and your story could be disconcerting.

I'm curious about this kind of recommendation to perhaps like limit when people could check in or out, given that if it were a long-term renter or another owner, you're not going to be able to police when they can come in and out of their home.

So yeah, I'm just I wanted to be a little bit curious about that solution.

So one of my thought processes, and I'm the one who actually recommended the signage at the meeting, so I'm very open to kind of ideas and and how this will come across.

But my idea was if they got there before nightfall, um when everything was still lit up, they would be able to see, they would see the cul-de-sac, they would see how challenging it is to actually get around, how they might maneuver their vehicles within the driveway setting.

So my thought process was before the sun sets, if they check in and someone's there to help give them some guidance on the property, that might be helpful.

Um that was my thought process on having a check-in time.

I know that that can be challenging because people are traveling late at night.

Um, but I also know there are lots of Airbnbs that have that in place.

I know most of them are residence occupied, um, and so that makes it a little bit easier for the people managing the company.

But my thought process was is that it would just be better if it was daylight and they could see things and they could kind of see some of the obstacles that might be in their way as they're maneuvering that spot because it is kind of challenging.

We have talked about various different things that we can put in place, like the signage.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Questions?

In that same vein, I wonder if I suspect this would be for the homeowner.

When people are booking, if we could provide pictures to say, hey, this is an issue, and this is how you would turn around, should you need to turn around.

That could also be an option.

Yes, I think that's a great idea.

Thank you, ma'am.

Okay, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Anyone else going once, going twice?

Closing public hearing.

Fellow commissioners, let's talk about it.

Or make a motion, either way.

Oh, we got one, two, three.

Um let's talk about it.

And a motion or something.

Wilson.

Um all of the concerns that we have about vehicles are applicable to any home in the neighborhood.

It's not singled out just for this homeowner.

So I'm not inclined to make a decision based on vehicles and traffic because it's applicable to everyone.

Hence, you know, when the homeowner shared with us that there was a semi-tractor trailer on the street, and it had nothing to do with him.

So I'm not persuaded by by that argument.

Roski.

Um in a similar vein, I I uh very sympathetic to that that you know the entire neighborhood is gonna use the road and and say that this one applicant is gonna damage the road anymore.

I'm just I'm not uh I don't know that I'm I'm on board with that.

And I and I do think that this particular owner also has the incentive owning two homes to also protect the road, just the same as the neighbors.

Um and then I will remind uh all of us that you know these licenses are with the applicant on that property.

It doesn't stay with the property forever and ever.

Um I I'm okay with this.

A lot of the things that I'm hearing are things that I think can be worked out between the neighbors and the applicant and communication with the short-term tenants, um, you know, just communicating with them about the condition of the road and hey, there aren't street lights, so you know be careful if you're coming in after after sundown.

So I I I'm comfortable with this.

I I think a lot of the issues that we're hearing are are things that can be be uh handled with communication.

Sure.

Um see I am a little bit moved by the parking concerns and it being a private road.

It even in a subdivision with public roads, I am very familiar with people having issues with semis being parked, and trying to get recourse for that from the city is very difficult because you're allowed to be there for like 24 hours or something.

So and then, you know, so if you just come and the police say, okay, well, you know, if we come back tomorrow and they're not there, maybe we can do something.

Or you know, maybe they move, you they leave and then come back and park in a different spot.

Uh so even on a public road, and this being a private, I think is going to make it even more difficult to for the city to enforce that type of thing.

And with the testimony that we've had about parking being such an issue on this road and it being private, really for the first time I I'm kind of nervous about voting yes for this, so I'm kind of voted leaning towards no.

Uh I'm kind of conflicted because, and the reason why I asked this series of questions I asked is basically they have to go around the whole COGA sack to get to the property.

Yes, there's there's already normal traffic, but with the Airbnb, can we not say there's going to be increased traffic to the back of the COGA sac if he's successful, you know, he's going to have people back there.

Um I'm kind of conflicted with that because but this is what's got me and I'm I hate leaning on trust and faith.

I'm leaning to a yes.

If I can look the guy in the eye and say, you're really going to talk to your neighbors and you've heard the testimony, you've heard your neighbors, you heard our opinion.

You're going to come up with a solution about big vehicles, parking, and addressing the management of the property.

I'm trying to get a vibe that I'm going to get this from the owner, because if I don't feel it, I'm going to go no.

But I am inclined to give this guy a chance, because we have systems in place that if he doesn't do what he's supposed to do, we take his license.

I believe in this system.

So I'm inclined to let the system work and snatch it if he doesn't do what he's supposed to do.

Okay.

I feel I feel conflicted as well.

The question that I ask about how do you plan on enforcing the oversized vehicles?

That was kind of to see how the applicant would respond.

And to me, the response did not inspire any confidence.

However, I do have trust in our system that if the applicant does not take care of the property or doesn't is not being a good neighbor, I do think that the system we have in place will revoke that license appropriately.

So I am leaning yes.

Okay.

I am I'm lean I'm landing yes, but it's not.

What about me, folks?

Oh no.

I am leaning yes only because I have trust in this system, but I want to make it very clear, and it's not because I am confident in the applicant.

Any other questions, comments?

Just a quick comment for stab.

I saw Pat just stepped out.

Um, if if this applicant has tenants and they are parking on using off-street parking, and because their vehicles are too large to be dominated by the off-street parking on the property, uh and the neighbors take pictures of that, I mean that would be considered uh verified violation that would count towards two, I'm assuming.

If they're parking on the on the private street off of the site.

Correct.

Um I do not believe, I mean, again, from past response earlier, if the city does not deal with the enforcement of private streets, I'm not necessarily sure that's something that could be.

I guess I would look at it more as a, you know, they're they're not using their off-street parking.

And that would be that is the violation because they're not using their off-street parking and they're allowing vehicles that are too large to be accommodated by their off-street parking.

That would that would be a constitute a violation.

So again, part of the part of the technical evaluation that our staff does.

As I as I've said previously, we evaluate this from the technical, not the not the subjective side.

So the site has adequate parking.

If the applicant's tenants decide that they don't want to use that adequate parking, that then becomes a verifiable violation.

Because if now if you if you have capacity for the three vehicles, so you have six people.

Two come in one vehicle, two come in another.

And two more come in their own individual vehicles.

That fourth vehicle could park on the street, because that fourth vehicle, we can't anticipate how travel will occur.

They have to have three compliant parking spaces.

And so there's a point at which, again, this is the veracity of the comment given the conditions.

And so we cannot anticipate every permutation of how a violation may occur.

You may have six people that come from six different directions in the country, and they all drive themselves.

And so at that point, what the applicant needs to be aware of is Mr.

Stanton pointed out, there is sensitivity within this neighborhood.

That is communicating with your neighbors.

And you need to counter act that through how you list and how you describe what your property is available to accommodate.

And that is what we would encourage the applicant to do if that type of report was submitted to us, and we concluded there there was nothing technically that we could do from an enforcement perspective.

Address it through this means.

Thank you.

Yes.

I am empathetic to the neighbor's testimony and also find myself returning to the staff's report, uh, that there is adequate infrastructure.

Um that if uh there are violations, um, if people are uh not doing what they're supposed to or using this appropriately, uh that we have neighbors who are willing to do an amount of surveillance and hopefully follow through in reporting that and supporting the enforcement.

Um for that reason I am comfortable uh with moving forward.

One more comment, and this is just to kind of wrap up what we talked about.

So we understand what a violation is, it has to be verifiable.

There is processes in place to document these things.

Yes, you're not getting paid to police someone else's property, but if we want to make this work in a win-win situation, we may have to be more vigilant neighbors.

I am reaching out to the owner and hope he's heard all of this.

I am leaning yes, but man, if he doesn't do what he is supposed to do, neighbors.

Get him out of there.

I hope he's heard everything.

If he's had digested all this, he has all the information to make an accurate, clear, specified guest list or whatever you want to call it.

All the time we spent in this hearing.

You have all the tools to make a great short-term rental.

If you do not, I will be the first to come to court and let's have a party.

Let's get them out of there.

But I am inclined to give them a chance and work the system.

I hope the owner has listened and is modified his business model to make this a win-win for his neighbors.

I pray that he does that tonight.

I would like to make a motion.

Let's go, Ms.

Walters.

I uh uh could we have to change the screen?

Oh back there.

No, I mean the same.

Well, anyway, I can improvise here.

And regarding case number 262-2025.

There you go.

I uh move to approve the requested STR CUP subject to maximum occupancy of six transient guests and maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage.

Second.

Secretary Oh, excuse me.

Any more discussion on this motion?

Secretary Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Commissioner Wilson.

Yes.

My vote is yes.

Commissioner Darr.

No.

Commissioner Gaway Jones is absent.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

And Commissioner Stockton.

I'm going to abstain.

I know some one of the people that just spoke.

The motion carries.

Move on to our next case here.

Case.

We're still a public hearing.

Case 265 dash 2025.

Lot 1 Rocky Creek Estate Plot 2 rezoning.

Request by a civil group on behalf of Corey and Kathleen McDonald.

For approval rezoning of 0.96 acres of property from the PD to residential R1 to allow a single family dwelling to be developed on the site.

The subject site is located approximately 220 feet northeast of the intersection of Forum Boulevard and O Planck Road.

And is presently unaddressed.

Staff can I have a staff report please?

You may, Commissioner Stanton, thank you.

And yeah public notice was made for this request uh in the form of early notification postcards distributed on the 21st of July public hearing letters on the 4th of August of which there were also 23.

That is not a typo there was 23 on the last one there's 23 on this one as well.

And a tribune ad was placed on the 5th of August related to the public hearing for this request.

I only received one inquiry about this at all and it was from a resident off of Bethel Drive and they did not have an opinion on the case at all.

Here's some aerial imagery of the site you can see it kind of forms a cone shape as it leads to the eastern portion of the site kind of is cylindrical leading down.

Has a decent amount of frontage upon forum boulevard but not 300 feet which is going to be worthwhile or of note later in this presentation.

And south of this site is a presently R1 subdivision that is developed and has access off of uh West Old Plank Road.

So as a background on this site again the applicant is seeking approval to rezone this site to the R1 zoning district from Plan Development District and adjacent zoning around this site is R1 in every direction with the exception of the eastern corner bit which abuts R S which is county residential single family so it's it's all single family zoned more or less whether that be in the sound county or the city.

And the requested rezoning does align with the surrounding zoning as well as the future land use map designation the comprehensive plan of this site being in the neighborhood district.

So some background on this site it was assigned R1 zoning upon annexation and then in 2009 they requested PUD 3.5 zoning which would permit up to three and a half dwelling units per acre on the site some plans were approved around this time as well but there was no development that ever occurred.

These plans also considered as I mentioned this would be a point of discussion later access off of Forum Boulevard for a private residential driveway which typically requires director approval of that to occur and it was considered appropriate at that time when those plans were approved.

The statement of intent for that plan development only allowed detached single family homes but they were going to construct three single family homes all on one lot.

If it were rezoned to R1 and comprehensively stayed as one lot and were not subdivided farther only one single family detached home would be able to be constructed on this site.

As you can see, I've highlighted it here outlined in yellow on the PED to the left on this side.

Um and forum driveway access would still be um permitted and considered acceptable uh despite the fact that it is classified as a collector street for this segment, um, and typically it is not encouraged to have private driveways directly access off of either collectors or arterials.

Um rezoning to the R1 would not uh would not at all result in any nonconformity as the site is entirely vacant at this moment.

Um and the site is currently served by city water, um, will be served by city sewer, although there is no sewer hookup on the site, I believe, at this moment.

Um, and it is served by Boone Electric.

Emergency services will be provided by the Columbia Fire Department and the Columbia Police Department.

Um so ultimately uh the proposal of the rezone the site to R1 from PD, um given the restriction of the the PD previously, uh is consistent with both the surrounding land uses, the existing statement of intent for this site, as well as the future land use map within the comprehensive plan.

So it's staff's recommendation to approve the requested rezoning uh of lot one of Rocky Creek Estates Plat 2 to R1.

Uh and if you all have any other questions, I would be happy to answer them at this time.

Thank you.

Um I would like to say if there's any colleagues of mine up here that have had export information relating to this case, we should disclose that at this time and share that information with your fellow commissioners.

And no one has any additional information or does not need to recuse themselves.

Are there any questions for staff?

Dr.

Gray.

Thank you.

Um I just wanted to clarify.

So uh you mentioned in the report and also just now uh about the access to forum.

Uh if that weren't so, would there be any other access points or it has to be that way?

No, the stipulation in the code is that it can be considered for residential units if it's uh not necessarily feasible or practical.

Um there are some avenues I would say they would not be feasible or practical in this way.

Um it would either involve uh waiting on other lots to subdivide and or uh granting of easements and extension of streets that wouldn't really make a lot of uh practical sense.

So that's why the exception is being considered appropriate here.

Great.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

There's no more questions for staff.

I'm gonna open up public hearing.

Sir, if you're working as an individual, you have three minutes.

If you're here for organization, you get sick, sir.

Thank you, Anthony.

J Gephart, uh civil group, uh 3401 Broadway Business Park Court Suite 105.

I'm here tonight with Corey and uh Corey and his wife would like to build their home on this lot.

Not going to be a short-term rental.

So we don't have to worry about that.

Um but yeah, that it's per currently uh there is a plan that expired on this, but that plan had three homes on it.

Um they do not intend to follow that.

Um they want to build a single family home.

They applied for a permit to build the home with under the PD, but it it had been expired.

So this was the most logical choice.

Yeah, I think this is pretty straightforward.

So not to belabor anything.

If anyone has any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

Any questions for the speaker?

Thank you.

Thanks, sir.

Anyone else would like to speak on this case?

Going once.

Going twice.

Closed.

My colleagues, any questions, comments relating to this case?

Like to make a motion.

Outstanding.

Uh regarding uh case number 265-2025 lot one of Rocky Creek Estates.

I move to approve the uh recommended uh rezoning of the property from PD to P from PD to R1.

Second.

Moving property seconded.

Any questions on this motion?

Nine.

Mr.

Secretary.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Commissioner Wilson?

Yes.

My vote is yes.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commissioner Gowway Jones is absent.

Commissioner Gray?

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton?

Yes.

And Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Recommendation will be for the City Council.

All right.

Moving my long hair.

This is the last case in our public hearing section.

And last case of the evening, if I do believe.

This is case two, 66-2025, 2613 Creacy Springs Road.

STR Conditional Use Permit.

As co-trustees of the Tyler and Ashley Prairie Living Trust.

Up to 210 nights annually, pursuant to Section 29-3.3 subsection V V and Section 29-6.4.

Subsection N, subsection 2.

The point 83 acre R1 drilling, zone subject to uh subject site located 390 feet north of the intersection of Creasy Springs Road and Proctor Drive and is addressed 2613 Crease Springs Road.

Have a staff report, please.

Yes, you may, Commissioner Stanton.

Thank you so much for that introduction.

We sent out early notification postcards on July 22nd, followed by public hearing letters on August 4th.

We sent out 18 of those, followed by a tribune ad on August 5th.

Here is an aerial view of the site, so the site is accessed off of Creasey Springs, your north-south street there.

The concrete parcel to the north there is a towing company of some variety.

And then that large uh swath of land there to the west.

That's Boone Quarry.

Uh the property directly abuts that to the rearward of the site.

Uh here is a street view of the site, so you can see that they have a parking pad kind of to the north and west of the subject site access via a driveway.

Um and then in the back there you can see that the quarry that was mentioned earlier.

So the property was zoned R1, and it's currently not the primary residence of the owner.

It's a three-bed, one-bathroom home.

Maximum occupancy would be six per the IPMC, which is what they are requesting for, the short-term rental request.

Uh it was offered for 84 nights in 2024.

Uh we had found that three of the three rental proper parcels within under an 85 feet of the site were used for rental purposes.

I want to just clarify that one of those is a towing company, and then though the other two were the uh houses directly there to the south, uh access to the west of Creasey Springs.

The rest of the parcels there are either vacant or a large hole in the ground where we pull rocks out of.

Uh we had identified no additional STRs within 300 feet of the site, and we did identify one code violation pertaining to an illegal SDR operation, which we're here to currently resolve at this time.

Uh the designated agent lives in Columbia and is seven miles away or 13 minutes away, as indicated by the applicant.

Uh we've got no public correspondence pertaining to this request.

Um, and as shown in the street view that I provided, the site currently has at uh adequate driveway and parking requirements to fulfill the three required parking spaces for the six requested guests.

Uh in conclusion, staff believes that the conditional use permit analysis supports approval.

The SDR regulations provide oversight and means to address impacts, and uh approval supports broad policies of the comprehensive plan.

So staff recommends the uh requested short-term rental conditional use permit be approved, subject to the max occupancy being six transient guests at any time, and a maximum of two hundred and ten nights uh per year.

With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions the commission has.

Thanks, sir.

Any questions for staff?

Greg was kind of just freestyled real quick.

Um there any commissioners that have any outside information, exploring exportate information relating to this case that you would like to share with your fellow commissioners, or you would like to excuse yourself from this case, you can do so at this time.

If there is none, um questions for staff.

I'm going to open up for public hearing.

I am Ashley Perry and my address is 3001 West KMJ Road.

I am the owner of this Airbnb, but I am also the owner of the some sort towing company next door, which is Doug Ferry Telling.

So we kind of give you his address later.

You can tow his vehicle.

It came up for sale, and we kind of bought it as a buffer for us.

And that is why I turned it into an Airbnb, because who wants to live next to a tow company where we could potentially be dragging in cars at 1, 2 a.m.

So I kind of like the quarry in the back.

That's pretty cool.

Yes.

It would make a great impound lot.

And I heard it recently got purchased by um QuickCrete.

So it's been not operating, which has been great because when they blast, we shake and then the dust is like everywhere all the time, still, even when they're not.

So but that's fine.

I'm not complaining.

No neighbor wars.

Any questions for the speaker?

Right.

Thank you, ma'am.

Any other uh people that want to speak on this case.

I think I'm going to close public hearing.

Are you guys laughing at me up here?

Um Commission.

Discussion?

I would love to entertain a motion.

Unless we're going to be able to do that.

Oh, I'd like to make a motion.

Outstanding.

Great.

Um as it pertains to uh case number 2662025, 26 or 2613 Creasy Springs Road, STR conditional use permit.

I move to approve um the uh requested SDRCUP subject to maximum occupancy of six transient guests and maximum of ten two hundred and ten nights of annual rental usage.

Second.

In discussion on this motion.

I see none.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Commissioner Wilson?

Yes.

My vote is yes.

Commissioner Darr?

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

And Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Recommendation we move to City Council.

There are any public comments.

Oh, excuse me.

Yeah.

Let me do my thing, Ms.

Ortiz.

Are there any public comments?

Are there any comments from staff?

No, I can't make a meeting go by without them.

It's not even 10 o'clock, and you all are punchy.

I mean, you know.

Can't I can't I be heard?

Marvelous.

I would like to see those comments.

Your next meeting is September 4th.

Uh enjoy the holiday.

Uh we will be closed on September 1st.

So council meets on Tuesday the second.

Uh we have some upcoming cases.

Uh fortunately, they will not be much.

Well, I shouldn't say that.

We have three short-term rentals.

Um, so it it could be a challenging evening, but we will begin the night off with uh the um uh the butt the banner project.

Uh this was tabled at our last planning and zoning commission meeting.

This is the rezoning request to the north of the Burke subdivision, uh western portion of track five of our Richland Road annexation.

Um so we will be unpacking that.

Uh we have continued to receive public comment that will be shared with you as we post the agenda uh before the holiday weekend.

Um we are probably a hundred plus comments uh now.

Uh so uh we should expect to probably have a uh lively conversation for 231.

So just so we can be familiar with where we're going to be talking about uh in uh the world, uh your uh request that was tabled there at the back side of the Brooks.

Uh then we have our short-term rental off of South Heather, which is on uh just south of West Broadway, west of stadium, um, and between Stadium and Fairway, or Fairview.

Paris Road.

Uh, and then we have our last uh request, uh Parkview Drive, and this is just north of Stevens Lake Park.

So those are your four cases.

Uh what I can tell you is is the agenda for our second meeting in September is also been set, and that actually is only three items.

So we are seeming to get to a little bit of a more normal volume uh of cases as we have seen.

However, the volume of short-term rentals is about equivalent on each of the cases, normally more than half.

Um, and we continue to uh receive uh applications in.

So on the 4th, I will know what will be your first meeting in November as our application deadline for that first meeting in November is August or September 2.

Um.

We will bring you uh back as we discussed this evening in work session a updated uh version of the memo uh for uh the Commission comments as it relates to the amendments to the short-term rental.

And as I did mention during work session, we do anticipate by the time we get to our September 4th meeting, uh we will have posted to the Be Heard website a summary of the changes uh and uh how they are how they are how they were created and why.

Uh we will also likely have available at that point uh a uh correspondence piece as it relates to the definition of family to begin the collection of the public comment on that before we bring that back to you at the beginning of October.

So with that, that is all we have to offer this evening.

Thank you very much.

Uh another meeting that we have uh ended two and a half hours early from what was scheduled in the video.

I just had one comment.

I really like how the rookies are coming along.

We're really going through these STRs and learning from them as we run into unique situations.

This is what it is gonna take for us to get this ordinance really refined.

So uh hats off to the rookies, you guys are doing good.

Great job.

I wouldn't attend a motion to adjourn.

I did have one quick comment.

Oh, excuse me.

Um I uh I already emailed, I think Pat and our uh uh chairperson.

I will be absent at the next meeting, uh, but just wanted to uh uh Commissioner Stanton or whoever was gonna fill in for Secretary at the time.

I'll take over the mic, young man.

All right.

I figured uh Commissioner Wilson will be first to vote at the next meeting.

Okay.

Outstanding.

I would like to move to adjourn.

Second.

Are those in favor of adjournment?

Thumbs up.

All is opposed, thumbs down.

Have a good evening.