Good evening.

I will now call the Thursday, October 9th, 2025, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order.

Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call?

We may.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Here.

Commissioner Gray.

Here.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Here.

Commissioner Stanton.

Present.

Commissioner Stockton.

Here.

Commissioner Walters.

Here.

Commissioner Wilson.

Here.

I am here.

And Commissioner Darr.

Here.

We have a full quorum tonight.

Thank you very much.

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

Zinner?

No, they're not, ma'am.

Their motion to approve the agenda.

Move to approve.

Approve the agenda.

Second.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Stanton.

Seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Can I get a thumbs-up approval on the agenda?

Unanimous.

Thank you.

We all received a copy of the minutes from our last session.

Are there any changes or adjustments to the minutes?

Seeing none, is there a motion to approve?

I moved to approve the minutes.

Second.

Motion to approve, made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Thumbs up approval on the minutes.

Unanimous with abstentions from Walters Wilson and Ortiz.

Excellent.

Moving on, our first case is a withdrawn item.

You still want me to read this though, right?

Correct.

Okay.

Withdrawn item for the evening, case number 308, 2025, a request by Lorenzia and Shelby Henderson agents on behalf of Much MO Services, LLC owner, to allow 1201 South Old Highway 63 apartment 301 to be used as a short-term rental for a maximum of six transient guests and up to 210 nights annually, pursuant to Section 29-3.3 V V and Section 29-6.4M2 of the Unified Development Code.

The.02 acre subject site is located within the Lexington Square condominiums development on the west side of South Old Highway 63, approximately 600 feet north of Stadium Boulevard.

Applicant has withdrawn the item for f from further consideration.

Is there any kind of staff report on the withdrawn item?

Other than the fact that it has been withdrawn, uh this wasn't advertised.

It was not an advertised public hearing.

So this is information purposes only.

Very good.

Thank you.

Our next case under public hearings, case number 295 2025.

A request by Stephen and Susan Bowles on behalf of SSM SSBMOW properties LLC owners to allow 502 Southwest Boulevard to be used as a short-term rental for a maximum of six transient guests and up to 210 nights annually pursuant to Section 29-3.3 V V and Section 29-6.4 M2 of the Unified Development Code.

The four-bedroom two and a half bath home has an attached one-car garage and driveway capacity to support two UDC compliant on-site parking spaces.

The.29 acre subject site is located on the east side of the Southwest Boulevard, approximately 50 feet south of Ridge Road and 100 feet north of West Lathro Road.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may.

As you mentioned, this request is for a condition use permit uh for a short-term rental uh authorization for 502 Southwest Boulevard.

This is a request for a 210 night short-term rental with a maximum of six transient guests.

We sent out early notification postcards, alerting of this uh the public to the request on September 8th.

Then we followed up with public hearing letters notifying the public on uh no on September 22nd, and we sent out 31 of those, and an ad was ran into in the Tribune uh notifying the public of the public hearing as well on the 23rd of September.

Here is an aerial of the site highlighted in the uh red rectangle here.

It is surrounded by other single family zone or single family structures in the R1 zoning.

The site is access to the west from West Boulevard, a major collector that does not permit on-street parking, nor does it have sidewalks installed.

Property zoned R1 as I mentioned, and it is not the applicant's primary residence.

This is a four-bedroom, two and two and a half bathroom home.

The max occupancy per uh the per the IPMC given the uh requested or the listed rather uh bedrooms would allow up to eight, but is restricted to six given the uh on-site parking capacity.

There are two parking spaces in the driveway, and one would have to be in the garage as well to have those three on-site parking spaces to satisfy the six requested guests.

In 2024, the property was offered for 118 nights.

There are no additional identified short-term rentals within 300 feet of the property, and there is one code violation pertaining to illegal short-term rental operation.

Regarding that, the owners received two letters of violation relating to the illegal operation of an STR.

The first letter was sent on June 30th requesting compliance by July 30th, and that was not uh followed through with.

And then on July 30th, a subsequent letter was sent requesting compliance on September 1st, and staff did receive the application for the CUP on August 20th after that letter.

Twenty of the 25 parcels within one hundred 185 feet of the subject site are used for rental purposes.

The designated agent is is a resident of Columbia one mile away or roughly two minutes.

We received two letters in opposition regarding this case, both again in opposition.

Uh the letters were stating they would prefer the home to be rather a owner occupied or used for long-term rental purposes rather than short term.

And we also received one call just asking about the regulations and how all this is monitored.

In conclusion, the condition use permit analysis supports approval.

The short-term rental regulations provide an oversight and means to address impacts.

Approval supports broad policies, strategies, and actions of the comprehensive plan, and staff's recommendation is to approve the requested short-term rentals C UP subject to a maximum occupancy of six transient guests, a maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage, and that one garage parking space, the one garage parking space be made available while in STR use.

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 any contact with outside parties to this case, please disclose so now.

Seeing none, are there any questions for staff?

Uh just to clarify, they got two letters and then applied, or and there is another unregistered one nearby.

Is that there is no additional short-term rentals within 300 feet?

And after the second, in the midst of the second uh letters uh being sent out, they were uh able to apply after or before the requested compliance date on the second set of letters.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

All right.

Seeing no other questions for staff, we will go to public comment.

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

Yes, please.

Speak into the microphone.

Uh we allow three minutes for individuals, six minutes for the applicant or any group.

Okay, thank you.

Uh name and address for the record.

Sorry.

Pardon?

Name and address for the record.

Heather Matthews, 503 West Boulevard South.

Um, so being new to this, I have some questions, and I'm I'm hoping they're appropriate for this forum.

Um I understand that there are uh I don't understand there are a maximum number of units that can be in an area, is that right?

No, not exactly.

If there are if you are within 300 feet of another one, that is a reason for us to decide to deny you, but it's weighed against other factors.

It's not an automatic.

So obviously I have concerns because this is a residential area primarily, and from the research that I've done, um short-term rentals are not necessarily beneficial to residential areas.

And and particularly since it is in, in my opinion, one very beloved area being the older section of town.

Um what protections do homeowners have with regards to these Airbnbs or these short-term rentals?

For example, let's say um the uh Airbnb is rented and the there's a lot of noise and a loud party.

What do we do in that case?

So we do have a hotline that you would be able to call the owner has to have someone within city limits who can go and respond.

If there are, remind me of the number of violations, two violations, they get their license pulled.

And how quickly do they have to respond?

They have to respond immediately.

Immediately.

Okay.

Um, and we apply to them if there is property destruction or something that happens.

I would also report that to neighborhood services through the hotline.

In a lot of these cases, the Airbnb owners have given their personal information to the neighbors, and I would suggest that if the applicant is here tonight, you try to get that information from them.

And what do we do about security?

I mean, obviously, if we're in an area with only 300 feet separating these Airbnbs, and and the downtown um historic area is definitely a an appealing area to purchase in.

What do we do as more and more of the properties are are purchased for essentially hotel purposes?

Um we have any sort of um plans for increased security or protection because essentially the the area becomes a commercial area.

Because essentially the the area becomes a commercial area.

And we are already would suffer the effects of either decreased property value because on the one hand, because people don't want to move into a uh commercial area, the area that has essentially been uh uh experienced a form of gentrification where the the homeowners and the renters, the people who are invested in the community have been pushed out by these Airbnbs.

Um or increased value where people can't, single families and renters with families can't move in.

But we also have the problem of increased security.

Now we have people who are coming in and out of the area who we don't know.

Am I safe to put my young children in the backyard with strangers now who are now you know hotels around me?

What what type of provisions have been made to address those things?

Sure.

I would say that that is a general policing problem, and it is the same as it would be if you didn't know your neighbors, even if they live next to you for years.

I I think it's a little different because they I would know who they are.

I wouldn't know the strangers up to six in this case, but in some cases, many more.

Um so the city hasn't really made any provisions other than general policing.

Um questions.

Thank you very much for your comments tonight.

Any questions for the speaker?

Thank you very much.

Next speaker.

Oh, we do not please try not to applaud just so we can keep going on between as quickly as possible.

Is there someone else who wants to speak on this case?

Please come forward.

Rebecca Graves, 1108 Chantilly Court.

I actually came for the case following this one, but they're similar short-term rentals.

And I'd like to um accentuate what the previous speaker said about the detriment that short-term rentals have on home ownership.

So the City of Columbia also already has um a pressing need for affordable housing.

And a lot of these short-term rentals are in places where people could hope to buy a house as a first-time or maybe a second-time homeowner.

And I think this is going to cut into that because real estate gets more expensive because it's more lucrative when you rent it, especially short-term rentals.

So I think that weighs against putting in short-term rentals.

Thank you.

Oh, sorry, thank you very much.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Next person to speak on this case, please come forward.

Just come on up, ma'am.

Yeah.

Susan Goles, I'm the homeowner.

Um we have had the house for eight years.

It is our second home.

We spent Thanksgiving, Christmas there for the last five years.

Um we learned about the house because we stayed there as an Airbnb person, the person had owned it for nine years before we bought it.

So this home has been an Airbnb.

It's nothing new.

We've never had um our neighbors, we know them.

What with a house right next door to us just sold this fall, so I don't think it was a detriment to them.

We are friends with both people on each side.

They spoke to us and said they supported it, but they weren't, they had other things going on and weren't going to come tonight.

Um but they've they have met many of the people that have stayed there, especially if they've stayed longer than just the weekend.

Um they even shared um stuff from their garden with them.

We've never had issues with guests that have been detrimental to the neighborhood.

Um there hasn't been a problem, and I don't feel that we have kept the house up.

We have installed, we have had dead trees cut down, we've had other things done, which some of the owners that live there full time um on the street have not.

And I feel like we're good homeowners and that um we don't just use it as an Airbnb, it is a second home.

Thank you.

Questions for this speaker?

Oh, please stay, ma'am.

Commissioner Wilson?

Yeah.

Thank you for coming forward.

Um you hopefully you heard the question about security.

Do you guys have any security measures?

Um we have automatic locks on the door, but we are gonna install some lights.

Uh, you know, um, we don't have those that record anything right now, you know.

Other questions?

Commissioner Bradsky.

You mentioned that you have owned uh the house for eight years.

Well, since 2018, so seven years.

This is we're starting our seventh, yeah, our eighth year we're starting.

Okay.

And you've had it as an Airbnb this the whole time.

Yes.

And the owner before you also had it as an Airbnb.

So it's and I don't know how many.

I know we stayed there like nine years prior to that.

So at least nine, ten years.

And she had family in the neighborhood, and we had two sons when we bought it and grandchildren here, and that's one reason we bought it.

Great.

Thank you for that uh additional clarification.

And then I did want to I'm I'm not trying to put you on uh on on blast here, but just curious.

Um, you know, staff did send you a letter on uh June 30th and July 30th, and it took until uh late August to submit for the CUP.

We started gathering the stuff in July.

We didn't see the one in June.

So I don't know whether it went to our home here or our home there, but whatever reason.

Um I had in May I had triple bypass surgery, and so things have been a little bit um hectic and different at our house.

And my husband had three stints two and a half weeks before I did.

So we've had a great year.

Um I don't I didn't we didn't intentionally ignore it.

I I I don't know whether we I don't I don't know what happened.

Uh I don't know whether it got lost in the shuffle with cards and stuff, honestly, or if um, you know, we thought it was a just a flyer type thing, you know, from the city, but we didn't realize until we got the second one, and then we started the procedure and got stuff from the banks and got stuff from the from our trust and those kind of things to get it together for them.

So thank you very much for uh for answering that.

Uh it's something I'll I'll probably ask of all the short-term rentals that we see going forward.

So thank you very much.

Any final questions?

Thank you very much for being here.

Anyone else to speak on this case?

Please come forward.

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

Any Commissioner comments on this case.

Seeing none, would anyone like to make a motion?

Oh, Commissioner Brodsky.

Um I'll just make a quick comment.

Um, you know, I think we've we've had a lot of these cases where um a property has been functioning as an Airbnb for quite a while, uh, hasn't uh caused any issues in the neighborhood.

And uh for me at least, I think that's where I'm gonna land on this one.

Uh so if there aren't any other comments, um Commissioner Stanton?

I just want to make a public service announcement that there is a hotline.

You have been um introduced to the owner if you didn't know who she was.

Uh those are the fail-safes.

She has the responsibility of being a good neighbor, so get her number and get the hotline number.

Um there's things in place.

We've worked on this a long time.

There are security measures to protect the neighborhood.

Um, and the system is in place.

The system is working.

So uh make sure you have all the tools you need to uh ensure that if she is allowed to have a short-term rental that uh she's compliant and is a good neighbor.

And all those places, all those things are in place.

So uh you would staff or one of us, and we can get the number to you.

Do you have the weapons you need?

Any other commissioner comments?

Commissioner uh Stockton.

I haven't really brought this up with all these short-term rentals, but I've lived next to several in a previous town, not Columbia.

And also live next to long-term rentals.

And I'm here to testify to you that the long-term rentals were the issue, not the short-term rentals.

And in fact, um they raised our home value because uh uh Airbnb owners, short-term rental owners tend to put a lot of money to be able to market those.

So I'm not gonna guarantee that that's gonna be the case with this and all the other cases we're hearing tonight.

But that was my personal experience.

Um I think that there's a lot of safeguards around these, and I do understand the affordable housing argument, but that's why the city in this commission, prior to me being here, is put in all these safeguards to make sure that there's not a huge high density of them.

There's there's some guardrails, which other municipalities don't do.

So I think we are trying, but we we still appreciate the feedback and want to continue to hear that.

But um I just wanted to let you know that was my own personal experience.

So I can tell you lots of stories about that long-term rental, but I'll leave it there.

Any other commissioner comments?

Commissioner Wilson.

Are we ready to entertain a motion?

All right.

In the matter of 502 Southwest Boulevard, short-term rental, conditional use permit request.

I move to approve the requested short-term rental, subject to a maximum occupancy of six transient guests.

Maximum of 210 nights of annual rental rental usage.

And the one garage space be made available while in short-term rental use.

Second.

Second.

Commissioner Gray already seconded.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

Motion made by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none.

Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call?

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Commissioner Wilson.

Yes.

My vote is yes.

And Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Next case for the evening, case number 296-2025.

A request by Kevin DeKerber on behalf of PAR5 properties LLC owner to allow 1306 St.

Michael Drive to be used as a short-term rental for a maximum of eight transient guests and up to 21 nights annually pursuant to Section 29-3.3 V V and Section 29-6.4M2 of the Unified Development Code.

The four-bedroom, two-bath home has an attached one-car garage, sufficient driveway capacity to support one UDC compliant on-site off-street parking space.

This request, if approved, will be subject to expansion of available on-site off-street parking by two additional spaces to permit the eight desired guests.

The dwelling is presently limited to four guests given available parking.

The point two three-acre subject site is located on the south side of St.

Michael Drive, approximately 510 feet west of the intersection of Cresland Avenue and South Christopher Street.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may, Madam Chair, and thank you so much for that introduction.

We send out early notification postcards not on August 22nd on but on uh November 8th.

I apologize for that.

Um public hearing letters were sent on September 22nd.

We sent out 41 of those, and a tribune ad was run on September 23rd.

My apologies.

Uh here is an aerial view of the subject site that is highlighted in red.

It is accessed via Cresland Road, which is the North South Street on the left side of the right side of this picture.

Um this is the most recent Google street view of the subject site and its relevant parking and uh structure arrangement.

Uh the str uh site is currently zoned R1 is not the primary residence of the applicant and is surrounded by R1 properties.

It is a four-bedroom, two-bath home as indicated by the Boone County Assessor's Office and by the applicant.

Uh maximum capacity per the IPMC would be eight occupants in this house.

Uh it was offered for 190 nights in 2024.

Uh we uh per our analysis, we believe that 10 of the 16 parcels within 185 feet of the subject site are used for rental purposes.

Uh that is used, or we calculate that by combin uh comparing the structure address and the owner address per given uh parcel.

Those are the same that we indicate that those are owner-occupied.

Uh we identify no additional STRs within 300 feet of the property.

Um this case had nine total violations on file in our system, one pertaining to the illegal STR operation and eight resolved solid waste violations, those ranging from overflowing or spilled garbage to the roll cards being out too early or too late.

In addition to that, uh we did uh find uh two different police calls that had been uh responded to at this site while operation um as an STR was being conducted.

On uh July 26, 2024, there was a suspicious incident where guests at the SDR mistakenly attempted entry at 1308 St.

Michael.

Uh police responded, no arrests were made, and no police report was filed.

And then on June 10th of this year, there was a response to a parking complaint.

No one was there to answer at the residence.

Uh there's a follow-up the next day, but on uh June 10th is when the uh notice of illegal SDR operation was filed.

Uh letter went out that day, and then also on uh another subsequent letter went out on August 5th.

Uh they made their SDR application for the September 2nd deadline.

Uh the designated agent for this property lives in Columbia 10 miles or 20 minutes from the subject site as indicated by the applicant.

We received eight letters in opposition for this case, citing concerns regarding parking, partying, property maintenance, safety, and noise.

Multiple letters did draw attention to that suspicious incident in 2024 that I mentioned.

Um I also want to reiterate so the property currently has enough parking for two uh cars, which per our code would mean that a maximum of four guests would be allowed.

So that would be one in the garage and one in the driveway.

Um to get the requested eight guests, they would have to add an additional two parking spaces off the street or on the subject site.

Um but as it currently is uh uh arranged, as we have mentioned, they could have four guests without any modifications to the property.

So this case I think we've approached as a staff with a certain level of sensitivity given um everything that we've uh found with this property.

It is our analysis that this applicant would fall within the technical regulations that are presented in the code pertaining to short-term rentals.

Uh these code violations and neighborhood concerns are of a nature that in theory, and I want to preface what I'm about to say within theory, they could happen at any residential residence in any type of dwelling unit.

Um as you mentioned, you know, long-term renters can also have these types of violations happen on their site.

Um these cases that were opened happened before uh adoption of the short-term regulations and a before enforcement of those regulations.

So if approved, this applicant would now be within the purview of the regulations as currently written.

As we mentioned in the last case, two verified violations would result in potential revocation of their short-term rental certificate of compliance.

Um also conditional use permits are conditional.

Um it is per the discretion of this commission that if the uh conditions that I'm going to read here in a second, if you want to change amend or add to those, that is per your discretion, that is what a conditional use permit is for.

So with all of that said, uh staff's recommendation is to approve the requested short-term rental conditional use permit, subject to a maximum occupancy of eight transient guests, maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage, one parking space within the attached one car garage be made available while it's being used as a short-term rental, and the construction of a driveway or parking pad on site that would accommodate two parking spaces prior to the issuance of a short-term rental certificate of compliance or business license.

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

Thank you.

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

Seeing none.

Questions for staff.

Commissioner Wilson.

Um I'm doing the mental exercise of trying to understand where we actually fall.

I see your recommendation of where we fall with regard to the maximum occupancy.

But I'm looking at the rec recommendation in the report and item number four.

And so I'm just I'm trying to balance this out and understand you know, are we saying they can only have four unless they do the construction?

And if they do the construction, and that they can have eight.

What what is the actual thing?

Yes, that is the um recommendation we're making that is as presently constructed and laid out, they could have a maximum of four.

If they wanted the eight that was in the request, they would need two additional parking pads before we would issue uh certificate of compliance for that.

And so just to follow up, I apologize.

Whenever we make this motion, I just want to make that clear um because it's not clear in the recommendation that's on the screen.

At least not in my opinion.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yeah, I need further clarification, because the way I'm looking at this, if I give you eight.

So he can't operate at four.

He would be able to operate at four because that is what he is compliant for.

He hits a maximum of eight.

So what you are what you are approving is the maximum amount once he's fully compliant with all of the other regulatory standards.

Okay.

Meaning he then does not have to come back to go through this process again once he has added those compliance features.

Okay.

He will not be issued a certificate of short-term rental compliance or a business license for anything greater than what the capacity of the property is as of today.

Got it.

Commissioner Darr.

The violations, were they all at the same owner?

Yeah, that was from uh 2022 to now.

Thank you.

I am looking at Street View, which I think was one of the slides that you had as well.

I am not sure they could add two more parking spaces given our other codes.

Am I misunderstanding that?

So based upon the lot frontage that this parcel has, it is a relatively wide lot.

And so we allow parking within the required front yard setback, provided you are not over the impervious surface that is created is the greater of 30 percent of the lot frontage within the or 30 percent of the required front yard setback, not uh or 500 square feet, whichever is greater.

So adding two additional compliant parking spaces in this picture to the right of uh the van of where the mailbox is possible and it still would rely, it would still allow the property to be in compliance.

You would not have paved over 30 percent of the required front yard.

Um it definitely will change if that is what would be pursued.

Uh it will change the characteristic of this street based upon that.

Now, again, as we had talked in the development stage of these regulations, this is an option that we needed to consider to be made available.

And um, if you can maintain compliance with the UDC and the parking standards that are within for a driveway.

An owner who wants to expend this money that is either potentially not going to be the long-term owner of the property is just put in a very large expense.

However, if they intend on holding this property for a length of time, that expense may very well be worth it.

The other alternative way to look at that is is if you put in a driveway that actually has capacity to support the actual use of the home as a typical residential development, you have probably also provided a benefit to the neighborhood you have pulled parking off of the street.

But you are changing the composition and the character of the street with that type of improvement.

But an owner can pave over the front yard.

They could park within 30 percent or the greater of 30 percent or 500 square feet of their front yard.

That is what the code says today, and that is what the applicant would be able to do.

We I calculated that myself when we took the application in and identified the issues associated with this property.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Commissioner Gray.

Um Thank you.

Uh I know that with the SDR CUP, we have the ability to impose additional conditions uh if they are reasonable.

Does that also apply to uh potentially the number of um yes?

So as a conditional use, yes.

So you the everything is open for option here.

You could reduce it from the 210 that has been asked to 90 nights if you so chose.

You could ask and you could you could recommend you could recommend for council's consideration a reduction in the total occupancy.

That is entirely within the purview of the conditional use.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Commissioner Walters.

Real quick question.

Do you know the uh the width of the street, St.

Michael's?

Top of my head, I don't recall.

Um if I had to guess, probably 30.

Yeah, we rotated a camera here on it.

It looks like it is by 26 feet, 28 feet.

I would I would suggest probably 28 back a curb to back a curb.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else?

Commissioner Darr?

Just measuring on Google uh maps is 28 feet.

28.

All right, thanks.

Final thoughts?

No?

Okay.

We will open the floor to public comment then.

Would the first member of the public that wishes to speak on this case, please come forward.

Good evening, Commissioners.

I am Mary Kay Doyle, the owner of the House at 1308 St.

Michael Drive.

I am hearing here in opposition to the uh application.

I also have sent a letter in, which you should have in your packet, which has some additional information, which I shall not include in my remarks.

I'm concerned about the quiet peacefulness of the neighborhood.

It will become a very loud and difficult place for my tenants and my neighbors who live on the dead end block of St.

Michael Drive.

Despite the statement that the neighborhood is predominantly rental, there's no excuse to inflict an STR of up to eight unrelated guests on a home that is about 1,400 square feet, including the basement.

The application notes the usual party for the residences for, and it will go to eight.

During the last four months, there have been four and like and most likely 12 guests at one time inhabiting this home.

And there have been eight to ten cars of those guests parked on the street.

The number of guests make a lot of noise when they party outside late in the evening.

It's disruptive to the usually quiet family neighborhood.

The requirement for four additional parking places on the property will destroy the single value, I'm sorry, single family residence ambience.

The place will look like a parking pad for an apartment.

The application points out prior violations are not a prediction of future events.

I disagree with that.

When you have eight or more people staying in a 1,400 square foot home on a quiet street, the partying will be at the same level of noise and noisiness as it has occurred in the past.

Regarding the 10 p.m.

banging on the door, there was no indication from the city staff a need to have a written document about the police reported incident.

I thought the information from the police department would be sufficient.

When it takes two letters from the city and three months for the agent to respond to a code violation according to the application, I'm doubtful about the neighborhood continuing to be a quiet refuge for the inhabitants of St.

Michael Drive and its surroundings in a short-term rental is allowed.

Please vote no on this application.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any available for questions?

Thank you.

Are there any questions for the speaker?

I have a question.

Commissioner Wilson.

Thank you for coming.

You mentioned the 10 P.M.

knocking at the door.

Was that your residence?

Yes.

I do not live at this residence.

It is my second home.

My sons live there now, currently.

Previously, I've had tenants that are not related to the family in that home, also.

But my son, who's going to speak after me, will tell you he was the one at the responded to that banging.

I have another question.

How long ago was this estimated 12 guests?

It it happened between uh June of this year and now.

Thank you.

Next person to speak.

Um my name is Jeffrey Doyle, and I'm the one who was with members of this body, neighbors in the public.

My name is Jeffrey Doyle.

I've come to express my adamant opposition to the I'm sorry, Mr.

Doyle.

I know that we know where you live because of what your mother said, but could you say it for the record?

I am okay.

I live, and I was just I live at 1308 St.

Michael Drive, and I have lived there for 23 years.

Thank you very much.

Members of this body, neighbors in the public.

My name is Jeffrey Doyle.

I've come to express my adamant opposition to 1306 St.

Michael as a short-term rental.

My letter has already been submitted.

I make these remarks to highlight the main points.

I have lived at 1308 St.

Michael, a property immediately adjacent to 1306 for 23 years.

I grew up on Rollins Road nearby, and as a boy I spent a great deal of time in the neighborhood.

I presently live in friends live there.

We rode bicycles there in the 1970s.

I value this neighborhood, and I don't wish to see it degraded by a limited liability corporation's aim to profit from it for the benefit of a group of shareholders, the expense of our way of life, our property values, and our peace of mind.

This is a neighborhood that once has had as a resident Darwin Heinmann.

A name you might be familiar with.

Parking issues have made m been made much of, but that's only the tip of the iceberg.

It is fundamentally incompatible to have a short-term rental in this family-child neighborhood.

These transients treat this neighborhood as a vacation place with their loud parties, marijuana smoke coming over the fence, and their loud boom boom stereos waking f waking us from sound sleep even late at night or early in the morning.

Where we live, raise children here try uh try to live out our peaceful lives.

That's why we moved here to have peace and quiet.

I take exceptions to two counts in the Commission's report.

One that my uh one that my past experiences are not relevant because the law had not yet been applied.

And I have seen 12 people exit this because I'm I happen to live next door, and I I went outside and worked in the yard and I counted 12 getting those cars.

And that was not that long ago.

Um I want to talk about that.

I was the victim of an attempted forced entry.

This was not a mere, you know, accident on their part.

They attempted to force my door down.

They were polling as hard as they could.

They were loud, they were big guys.

I'm almost 60 years old and I have bad arthritis.

I was forced to call the police to deal with that.

That's the only time in my entire life that I ever feared for my safety in this city.

Only time.

And uh I don't let me see, let me get back to what I was having to say.

Everyone I've spoken to in this neighborhood, and that's many, is likewise adamantly opposed to this.

The choice, your choice is stark, cleared, clearly delineated.

You can choose to side with an old established family neighborhood, or you can choose to side with an accumulation of capital, a par five LLC of St.

Louis, they can further enrich their shareholders at the expense of our of one of Columbia's finest neighborhood.

And lastly, to those in other neighborhoods who feel nothing can be done to fight City Hall, I submit we can fight back and must to defend our way of life.

I await your vote.

You can take one of two sides.

I hope you will pick a sensible choice for our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you very much for being here tonight.

Next speaker on this case.

Hi.

Uh my name is Tiki Grahl.

I live at 1303 St.

Andrew Street, which is directly behind this property.

Um I live at 1303 St.

Andrew's, which is right behind this property.

Um this is a very sweet neighborhood.

It's sleepy, it's quiet, it's full of, you know, starter families and older people.

We would really like to keep it that way.

I can see into their windows.

So I know that this is going to impact my life further.

And I'm not trying to be the fun police.

I'm here for everybody to make their buck, but not on the backs of the rest of the residents of our neighborhood.

We do know each other.

We do have each other's back.

And we really would like to keep it as a nice residential area.

By allowing this many nights, 210 nights, you've turned this into a small hotel.

And we don't need that in our neighborhood.

We need more small families.

We need more children.

We need, you know, retired people, so that we can have that community and continue with it.

Um I appreciate that they want to improve and that they would keep the property nice.

I have no doubts about that, but I do have concerns about the transient nature of people coming in and not caring about the rest of us.

So I appreciate you taking the time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Oh, before you run off.

Commissioner Ortiz.

You said that you know your neighbors.

Do you know the owner of this home?

I knew the owner previously, the couple that lived there.

But not the current owner.

No.

Okay, thank you.

And ma'am, I'm sorry, I also have a question.

Oh, it's okay.

Um, this has been in operation for three or four years.

Have you seen problems increase, decrease, stay the same?

Um I've seen there was a significant decrease after the couple passed away, like their son kind of stayed there.

And the yard got worse and worse and worse, honestly.

And it hasn't really improved until we started hearing about this.

Then things started to improve on the exterior of the home.

And when you say started hearing about this, do you mean like in the last couple of months or when when I started receiving notification that they wanted to have a short-term runoff?

Thank you.

Commissioner Stockman, did you have something?

No.

Okay.

Sorry.

I thought somebody down, I thought you were trying to get my attention.

Nope.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else to speak on this case?

Please come forward.

Tim Colden, 1307 St.

Andrew.

I appreciate the chance to express my opinion on this.

That St.

Michael's is a dead end street.

And that intersection there is a kind of a can be a nightmare getting around.

No sidewalks.

And there are children up and down the street, bicycles, walking.

It's just a family activity up and down through there, and a lot of extra traffic won't be a good thing for that area.

I oppose it, I guess I should have said at the start of it.

Thank you very much.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none, thank you.

Next speaker to come forward.

Zach Roderman, I live at 1311 St.

Andrew Street.

My wife and I bought the house in 1999.

In terms of knowing the neighbors, I know uh both Tiki and Tim who just spoke.

Um in terms of St.

Michael's, the people that own the home directly behind me, don't know the gentleman's name, but I've talked to him quite a bit.

Uh my concern is, I guess, uh echoing everything that everybody else has already said.

What I would like to add is that despite the nature of property values, if we're always concerned about profits rather than the people, we lose the tenor of our neighborhood.

The idea that this person who owns this home have not met them.

But if they are not responsive in the last two years at this level with four residents, what is indicating that they're going to be responsive in the future, even though these safeguards are in place if they're expanding it?

And so that's my concern.

This has not been proven over the first two years of this person's incorporation as an LLC to be responsive to the issues heretofore.

Um echoing everything about the children.

I raised my two sons along with my wife here.

There are kids everywhere.

As I was coming down here, I teach at Hickman.

Stayed late tonight, right?

Kids are out of school, working till almost 7 o'clock, come home grab a bite to come down here and try to speak.

Um four kids out on bikes with their families and the intersection that Tim was talking about.

People roll through there as it is right now, not stopping at the stop signs.

And so echoing those concerns.

That would be the only addition I would have.

Thank you.

Are there any questions, Commissioner Brodsky?

Just real quick because I missed it.

You live at 1311 St.

Yes.

So my property, if you're looking at the backyard of the property that is applying for this, I guess that would be on the uh southwest corner.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Seeing none?

Thank you very much, sir.

Next speaker.

Please come forward.

Tim Morris 1312 St.

Michael Drive.

Um I'd just be two doors down from the 1306 property.

Um I'm here to oppose this uh proposal and to support my neighbors, I think they've said concerning security, trash, um, children.

Um but I am curious uh how this parking would work.

And I do disagree with you, sir, that that paving over the front yard is going to enhance anything in our neighborhood.

I don't think that's true.

And and I'm curious uh you know how this parking is determined.

You had a slide up earlier uh with a van parked.

I mean, you can clearly get two cars.

I've seen two cars in that driveway multiple times.

And I'll support what the Doyles had said uh over the summer.

I think we had a a football camp there.

We had a dozen big guys there with six, seven, eight cars.

It's a it's uh you all have touched on that.

I appreciate it.

It's a narrow lane, it's a dead end lane.

Um any more congestion to that is gonna make it all the more tougher, and we are going to lose our community, our sense of community in uh in a neighborhood that means a lot to us who have been in there uh over 20 years.

So um I I would hope that you would oppose this.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none, thank you.

Oh next speaker on this case.

I'm Marilyn Brown, and I live at 1308 St.

Andrew Street.

Um I would be one street across, but you know, my back yet, they don't touch my back fence, doesn't touch my yard, but I'm just across the street.

I have lived in this neighborhood since 1983, raised three children and two grandchildren there.

And we had so many children on that street over the years.

Then for a period of time there weren't too many.

But we have lots of new families who have come in with small children.

We have no sidewalks on either of these streets.

And we the people the children ride their bicycles, they play basketball.

They uh have these little motorized vehicles, and maybe they're four years old, similar to that, almost catty cornered from me.

And they have to play in the street if they're going to use those vehicles, even if you teach them to be on the side of the street.

And then there are, you know, we have a 25 mile per hour speed limit.

However, not everyone goes 25 miles per hour.

And uh St.

Michael Street being a dead end street and the location of the property where it is with the cars, when they leave leave that street, how many of those are going to go to the end of the dead end street or go into other people's driveways to turn around so they can get out, since that is not a street through street.

Uh and again, that corner or that uh intersection is really kind of a caddy wampus kind of cross.

I mean, it's not like a typical four-way or two streets come together.

It's caddy cornered.

And there are a lot of close calls even with cars there, uh, if people don't stop, which they usually don't stop.

So I'm very concerned about the safety for the children and the walkers in the neighborhood.

Uh a lot of people walk dogs, uh, older people as well as younger people jog and and you know, take walks.

Um I'm not saying they have a right to walk in the middle of the street, but you know, it's still when a car comes down pretty fast, and especially in the evening or when it's getting close to dark, uh I think it's can be could be very tragic.

Thank you, ma'am.

Have you noticed any problems with this property in particular?

Or I know you don't touch it.

I don't touch it, no.

So uh I have smelled um marijuana, whether it's coming from that place or somewhere else, I'm not sure.

Okay.

Umignificant smell of marijuana in the evening sometimes, but um I haven't heard, I mean, I haven't had any other.

I do walk up and down that street with my dog.

Uh but it just, you know, I just can't imagine cars having to turn around.

Uh there's no I think the fact that it's not a through street is adds to the traffic problem and the congestion.

And I am against this, so um, for those reasons as well as other reasons I had in my letter that I sent, um, which other people have already addressed.

Yes, ma'am.

Any other questions for this speaker?

Seeing none, thank you very much.

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

Is the applicant or one of their representatives here?

Would you please come forward?

Evening.

You're gonna need to pull that way.

Thank you.

My name is Kevin DeKerber.

I am the owner, one of the owners of this property.

I've been a resident in Columbia since January of 2012.

I while I stand here and obviously I'm listening to everybody speak, and I appreciate everybody coming in and speaking towards my property.

Um I I will not sit here and you know go back and forth with with residents of the area.

I'm not disregarding anything that they're saying.

Um I I will say that I can certainly make very good rebuttal statements to every statement that's made on this property.

Um I don't think that that's productive.

I think going towards the security, the overall security of the property, we have security cameras.

Um we do have very strict property code rules in terms of partying.

We do not allow parties.

So is could there be an isolated incident?

I'm sure there could be, but we have very strict rules against parties.

Um we have very strict rules against smoking, not just marijuana, but cigarette smoking.

We have fines that are imparted on guests that have been caught doing that.

We have not had to assess any fines.

Um I've heard more than one person talk about smelling marijuana.

Okay.

I don't have any proof that I can say that that came from our property.

We don't have proof that that came from another property.

So again, I don't think that it's prudent to sit here and just argue meaninglessly against any of these statements.

But I will say that our purpose with this home is not to bother the neighbors.

It's to improve the neighborhood, improve the home, make the home beautiful.

Um, but also provide adequate um accommodations for the City of Columbia.

Again, as I said, I I've been in Columbia for almost 14 years now.

I know that everybody here has seen the improvements going on in this in the City of Columbia, uh, namely for O Field in the district.

Uh my office was off of Faye Street for some time.

Um I had an office off of Wilkes Street for some time.

My personal opinion, I don't think that there's a adequate amount of accommodations for the different events that we have in the city.

You know, with football games, forget about it.

We're in the SEC.

We can't, we just simply do not have the capacity to provide accommodations for the SEC that comes in for football games, let alone basketball, baseball, uh, and all the Division I sports that come through Mizzou.

Um that's not to mention we have Columbia College here.

We've got Stevens, you know, down the road, we've got colleges down the road as well.

Um you have events like true false that take up a week long you know, they go through the district for an entire week.

Where are these people staying?

There is not enough room in hotels for these individuals.

So speaking um being here as a representative of this property, obviously I'm for the properties, you know, proposed uh conditional use.

But as a resident of Columbia, don't we think that we need more accommodations for these guests?

We have a fantastic town.

We have fantastic sports, we have fantastic events.

Are these people just gonna stay in Jeff City or in Montgomery City or in Fulton or where are these people gonna stay?

Wouldn't it be better for our town for these people to stay here in Columbia, spend their money and their time here in Columbia?

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Santon, you can start a strong believer that you play like you practice.

And you did bring up points about things that are kind of on the fence and that couldn't be proven.

We have a list of violations and other things that can be proven.

I'm going to make a statement.

It is almost essential that the owner speak upon their property.

I think, Madam Chair, if we even if you hadn't came up here, my vote would have been no.

Automatic.

So you being up here is greatly helping your case.

So we're at a ninth inning.

You're down by three runs.

You have two outs.

Make your case based on what you've heard tonight and what we have in the records right now concerning violations, well, property violations, noise violations, police reports, citizen testimony.

How you gonna how are you going to win this game?

Thank you.

Eight trash violations.

I would make the comment that those all happened prior to the new trash system that we have, correct?

Uh yeah, they were all uh I believe before roll call uh roll cart implementation.

And if uh my memory serves of our discussion, a lot of those were like overflowing trash because we're trying to contain it.

Right.

Um but anyway.

We made arrangements not knowing that you weren't allowed to have a trash can.

I've never lived in the city.

That's not true.

I lived in I lived downtown, but I trash was very different for me back then.

Um outside of that, I did not know that you couldn't have a trash can.

And that was one of the biggest issues that we had.

Um now that we have the new system, I I think that's going to alleviate that.

Um the violation for parking.

Again, we are doing everything that we can.

We have made notices on our listing.

It is not allowed, we do not allow people to park in the street.

If it comes up on the camera, we can see the street parking.

If it comes up, we immediately notify the guests that they are not allowed to park in the street, make do with the parking that we have.

We have reduced our number of guests to four.

If and when this this expansion does happen, then we will expand that.

But until then, it will be stuck at four, which we have adequate parking for for guests.

Um with parking, you know, the only thing I would say to that is if I lived in this house personally, I'd be allowed to park on the street.

That's not what I'm saying that we want to do, but that's kind of a legitimate statement.

There are cars that are parked on the street.

Um that's what I'll say about parking.

As for the uh police report with the guest that was trying to get into the neighbor's home.

I hate to say this, I was not made aware of that.

I did not receive a letter on that, didn't receive a call on that.

I didn't receive a call from the neighbor on that.

I did not know that that happened.

Um what I will say is uh that looking at from the street to the homes, they look they do look identical.

So what I will do, given that situation, um we are uh making plans to identify our house better, painting the front door a bright color, uh, making a big sign that goes onto the mailbox.

Um kind of a uh I call it a direct decoration, just call it a sign, whatever we need to do to identify this house so that that doesn't happen again.

I have 10 properties, okay.

I have never had a situation like that happen prior prior to this.

That's a one-off isolated incident.

What I can say about these guests is they're not here to bother the neighbors.

They're here to go to a football game.

They're here to go to graduation to see their kid graduate.

They're here to see family, they're here to go to true false.

They're here to go to the show me games.

They are not here to bother the neighbors.

It's just as much as I appreciate the neighbors in the neighborhood and I want to do what's right by those individuals, these guests are not here to bother them.

They did not pay us money to stay in this home to torment the neighbors.

That just is not the case.

They're here to be in Columbia, visit their tourists or their family.

They're here to support Columbia.

Other people that testify, how many do you know?

Personally, I do not know the residents in the neighborhood.

Have you made any effort to talk to or create a relationship with any of the surrounding adjacent or surrounding neighbors of said property?

When we first bought the property, we did a uh neighborhood campaign, just walking, and I say neighborhood loosely, the street that we're on.

Um did not visit um St.

Christopher or St.

St.

Andrews, but the street that we are on, we made a a campaign to walk around and knock on the doors and just give our information out.

The way this works is you have every right because it is a legal use of the property, you have every right to apply.

To have a short-term rental.

The success of this is that you're a good neighbor.

It's essential because as these increase, and you've heard the testimony, the view of you is that you're a corporation.

You know, and I understand LLC is a protect corporate veils, I would do the same.

But it's essential that you're a good neighbor.

It's essential that you communicate.

At this time, what I see and what you're what the evidence shows me that you haven't been.

So wow, convince me.

I want to win-win, but I'm not here.

I appreciate that.

I I my partner and I will do everything in our power to make our names, our faces, our phone numbers, our emails, everything known to the neighbors, whether that's again taking another campaign around the neighborhood, expanding that to the streets surrounding the our street, as well as sending a mailer out to everybody, here's our name, here's a picture of us, here's our phone numbers, emails.

We want to be that first point of contact.

The last thing I want is a neighbor that's unhappy with me.

I just I don't want that.

That's not good for me, that's not good for them, that's not good for our guests, that's not good for Columbia.

That's not what I want.

I want to make every single effort so that every neighbor in the area, if they have an issue, they come to me first.

Start in this room tonight.

So Commissioner Gray.

Hi.

Um you said that you didn't know about the police incident and you didn't know about the trash can situation.

I'm curious if you knew about the regulations and the enforcement starting back in June.

Sorry, I may have misspoken.

I did know about the trash can issues.

Okay.

Yeah, those we knew about those.

We were actually called about those.

Um Joe Cagle, I believe, is the is the guy that was running that.

He came, he gave us a call personally, so that's how I knew about the trash situation.

Um as far as the uh regulations for the conditional use permit, uh, those were sent to my partner's house.

So we knew about it.

We just weren't sure how we were supposed to go about there were so many different things that we had to get done first, namely the parking.

We were actually under the pre impression that we had to get the parking done before coming here, um, which kind of threw us through a loop because we've been through that situation before with another property.

Um, but it's been corrected now.

It's been uh better communicated now.

We we understand how it needs to we need to proceed with that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Wilson.

I'm looking at your application, and there's a question that asks, has this been used as a short-term rental before?

It's marked as yes.

And then there's a follow-up question that says, if it has, how many days in the previous calendar year was it a short-term rental?

And your answer is two years.

So can you give us the number of days that it was used as a short-term rental?

We corrected that.

It's it's 190 nights is how many nights it was used last year.

Okay.

And I do have another question.

Given the information that you've received, and I appreciate you coming.

And um, like my fellow commissioner said thank you, because yeah, I was I was a no.

I was a hard, hard no.

Um, but given what you've heard from your neighbors, the concerns about the children, and the fact that it is a uh terminal street, all of the things.

Um would you consider uh fewer days as a rental to sort of help ease the tensions and work with your neighbors and kind of work with their concerns?

What I would say to that is it's it's very difficult to identify the nights that are necessary.

Um I will say that reducing because I I don't know that this was made mentioned, but prior to um going through this process, it it was, I believe at 12 was how it was listed.

So that may have been sort of the issue at hand.

Bringing it down to four and ideally bumping that to eight at some point when the parking is is situated.

That in and of itself will reduce the number of nights that this the house gets used.

Just simply the number of guests that it can accommodate will, in my professional experience, that will reduce the number.

Um but reducing the number from 21, I think is what you're asking.

I don't know that that's gonna really affect anything because it's last year it was used 190 nights, and that number is quite high because we did have a a concrete company, I believe, that was in for like three of those months consecutively.

So had they not been in the house for those three months consecutively, you're probably looking at more like 150 nights that the house would be used.

But reducing the number from 210, I I don't know how that really works because I can't say one way or the other is it going to be how are the nights going to get used?

But again, it would be my professional opinion that it's gonna get used less with lesser um listed accommodations.

Then that brings up another question for curi curiosity.

So do you also have a uh long-term rental license?

I have a multit I have 10 total.

Um I have two that are uh one that's a long term, one that's a midterm, so it's 30 nights or more, or 28 nights or more, and then the others are short terms.

Yes, I meant specifically for this property because you said that there was a concrete company that was there for 90 days.

Right.

So that's greater than the short-term rental time.

So they just happened to book on the platform.

Okay.

Okay.

It wasn't like a leased situation.

It was they booked through the platform.

So they booked for 29 days and then booked the project.

They actually booked for like three weeks and then called us after the fact and said our job was extended significantly.

Can we stay longer?

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

So you have 10 properties.

Two of them are in Columbia.

I have a residence in Columbia.

This property I have.

Seven in St.

Louis, I have one in uh Branson.

I'm looking on Airbnb.

You have two in Columbia.

That property is my personal residence that I use I use uh when I'm in St.

Mike, sorry, my girlfriend lives in St.

Louis.

Sorry, not to just disclose my personal information, but you're listing two properties on Airbnb.

That house is outside of the city limits.

It's outside the city limits.

Yes.

Okay.

I I was made aware that you can't have more than one in the city limits.

That's wouldn't be here if that were the case.

Just making sure we're all clear because we did have to come find you to get you to get in compliance.

So you understand why I'm like, I do.

Yes.

I do understand.

Um we were to say you can only have four guests, period.

Would that I mean that puts you where you're at now, right?

Where you're advertising now?

Yes.

Yeah, it does.

Um I would obviously I would be against that.

Uh and this is uh I should preface this is my livelihood.

Reducing the property from where it's at now to four, we've seen a significant downturn in the in the bookings in the house.

So that that's immediately taking money out of my pocket.

This is what I do for a living.

I know you're you're asking, would I take less money?

Would I take a lower salary?

The house is a four-bedroom.

It does have the space to accommodate it at least eight guests.

Now we are more than happy to comply with what what the regulations are.

And we're fine with eight.

Absolutely.

By the very nature of this business, you are responsible for your guest behavior.

Absolutely.

And it's not been great.

And so trying to balance those two things, because we're not in in interested in just randomly and you know, without real thought denying people the right to use their property as a short-term rental.

That's why we have you come before us.

It sounds like this has not been a good track record on this property.

And I'm not saying that you're doing it maliciously or that you're not a good business owner.

I understand the things that you're saying.

It's had an impact on your neighbors.

They all showed up.

So we're that's what we're you're gonna hear us struggle with is how do we balance these two rights and needs.

So that's why I I ask about the four.

Um but I understand what you're saying.

It is it is by the math, half as many people.

Right.

Right.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Dicker, before you uh uh step down, it was pointed out to me.

I think we we we established for the transcript and record here that uh you we got your name and that you own the subject property, but we didn't get your address for the for the for the record, I believe your your home address.

7571 North Fall Creek Drive.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jesse.

That's my job.

I messed up.

That's okay.

Sorry.

Thank you very much for being here tonight.

Got it.

You got it.

Anybody else?

Yep, you're good.

Anybody else to speak tonight?

Oh, you're good.

Thank you.

We don't allow people to come up a second time, I'm sorry.

But if anybody who hasn't spoken yet tonight would like to speak, please come forward.

Seeing nobody else, we will close public comment and go to Commissioner Comments.

Anyone want to start?

Commissioner Darr.

Um I'm in support of four.

I don't know that I'm in support of eight guests, just because I think the number of neighbors that came out and the testimony, it just doesn't seem like infrastructure supports eight.

You would have to build additional driveway and parking.

It's not in the character of the neighborhood.

Uh so I would be in support of four guests.

Commissioner Ortiz.

I am not liking this one.

Um thank you to all the neighbors that came out today and to the applicant for coming up to speak.

Um but I do think that this has an adverse impact on the surrounding properties, and there's inf insufficient infrastructure to support um a short-term rental on this block.

Commissioner Stanton.

I agree with my colleagues.

I don't like eight, but I'm sure that our motion will be as it is written.

And I think the applicant made it clear that he wants to ride or die on eight transient guests.

I think we need to let the voting guides go from there.

Commissioner Brodsky, anything?

I'll go next.

Um yeah, I'm I'm leaning towards no on this one, but I could be convinced the four.

Um for me, this is very similar to um the case that we had um over by Stevens Lake, Dead End Street, narrow road, uh lots of families, no sidewalk.

Um a lot of those those things are even more so uh with this case.

I'm leaning towards no, but I I could be convinced of four.

Anyone else, Commissioner Stockton?

I know I'm flipping.

But I think the nature of West Boulevard South in this neighborhood are different cases.

And that's the whole reason we're sitting here today, because it's not just an automatic robot that says yes or no.

We're humans and making this evaluation, and I agree with what's been said about the nature of the community and looking and studying this a little bit in combination with the violations.

I'm leaning towards no.

I'm not even sure.

I think I'm with Ortiz on this with the the four residents.

It just doesn't seem like it's going to add quality to the neighborhood.

Um I think there's other ways to make money in other in other locations.

And I think there's other ways to make money in other in other locations.

And I know that this one was probably met the budget, but in this case, I don't think it's worth it.

So Commissioner Walters?

I'm voting no regardless.

And a big reason why is the owner could be a could have been proactive.

It's not that hard to develop a mailing list of labels, send out postcards twice a year just to make sure everyone around you is aware of how to reach you.

And they haven't done that.

They haven't made much of an attempt at all, so I'm voting no.

Commissioner Wilson.

I have concerns.

The first is all of the violations, and I cannot just allow that to pass.

That's number one.

Number two, the statement regarding the construction workers who were there for 90 days, but there's no long-term rental license bothers me very much because that then lends itself to another violation.

So this is this one is very tough for me.

I am struggling.

I just want to say this for the record that owners of properties have the right to have a short-term rental.

Additional use is the buy-in from the community.

Yes, the residents had great weight.

Technically, he has met all the criteria, but I feel again, I'm gonna say you practice how you you play how you practice.

And the practice isn't there.

Um had not Madam Chair asked him to come up, I don't think he would have came up here.

Which speaks values, and I say this for anybody else that's doing as to you.

If you're here and you own this place, it's detrimental for my decision.

Speak.

And um Yeah, we have to be good neighbors, and you have to make those moves, and you have to make those calls, you have to make those relationships, because you are acting as a business in a commercial.

I mean, you're acting like a business in a residential area.

So you have additional responsibilities.

And ignorance is not innocence.

Uh I'm flabbergassing when I hear you didn't hear about the regulations.

This stuff has been on the news.

It has haunted me for four years.

I there's just no way you didn't hear about STR as being a hot topic in Columbia, Missouri.

There's no way.

Unless you're not here, or unless you're not paying attention to your business.

So with all that being said, um, it's looking tough.

Commissioner Wilson.

I have a question for staff.

Um a denial of this application this evening.

Would that be prohibitive of the applicant trying again with different criteria?

No, it would not.

So they would be able to revise their application and be able to resubmit.

Um circumstances for compliance are still going to be the same, obviously.

Um because it is not their principal residence, the only method by which to be able to operate this dwelling as a short-term rental is through the conditional use process, regardless of what level of usage, because it is not their principal residence, they must come through this process.

Um anybody else, or if not all.

Okay.

This is certainly the agent's business.

Um he's got ten properties across the state.

Seems to be very interested in making this business work, and yet to Commissioner Stanton's point, did not seem aware we were working on regulations.

Did not come forward until after a second notice.

Has eight trash-related violations, plus a police report that one of his uh guests or set of his guests were apparently unable to get a hold of him to find out why they couldn't get into what they thought giving them the benefit of the doubt was their Airbnb.

All of this gets me to a point where I don't think this is an example of a good neighbor.

I think this is someone who has already had a detrimental impact on the neighborhood and will continue to do so.

And the whole point of the conditional use process is to allow us to evaluate the individual who is asking for the license and what they're wanting to do with their property and determine whether it fits with not only the technical specifications of the short-term rental regulations, but also our conditional use criteria.

Part of which is about neighborhood impact.

And I think the neighborhood impact here is very detrimental.

Um perhaps I might be convinced to do four.

Applicant doesn't want to do four.

Even at four, I'm not a hundred percent there.

I'm certainly not there if we're gonna pave over what is the walkway to the house right now, so that there can be additional parking so we can get eight in there.

There is a different impact from eight people living in a house, especially when we're talking about a four-bedroom.

They're not gonna be, you know, I don't know.

There it just there is definitely a different impact on the parking, on the way that you would arrange yourself if that were the case, and you lived there full time and had to figure it out day in and day out, versus you show up, had no idea that there wasn't going to be a place to park, and you got to figure it out for the moment.

So all that to say, to my mind, we put the CUP criteria in place so we could measure neighborhood impact.

This has a pretty strong negative impact based upon the violations history, based upon the lack of coming forward at the beginning of the CUP application period, and based upon the fact that it would appear that people are not able to get a hold of the agent when they're trying to get into the home that they think they've rented.

So I'm not assigning any kind of um intention to any of that, but the record speaks for itself.

And to me, it it indicates denial.

That I'll stop talking.

Anyone else have any comments or like to make a motion?

Uh for the audience, we make all motions in the affirmative.

Um we have to do it that way so we don't confuse ourselves with the record.

Commissioner Stanton.

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

Please.

As it relates to case 296-2025, 1306 St.

Michael Street, STR conditional use permit.

I move to approve.

They request the STRCUP subject to the following maximum occupancy of eight transit guests, maximum of 210 nights annual rental use, one parking space within the attached one car garage to be made available while the drilling is in is used as an STR, and the construction of a driveway parking pad on site accommodating two parking spaces prior to issuance of a STR certificate of occupancy or business license.

Motion made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

None.

Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call?

Commissioner Gowa Jones.

No.

Commissioner Gray.

No.

Commissioner Ortiz.

No.

Commissioner Stanton.

No.

Commissioner Stockton.

No.

Walters.

No.

Commissioner Wilson.

No.

My vote is no.

And Commissioner Darr.

No.

Motion fails.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council because that was unanimous.

But for denial, it will appear on old business.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Mr.

Zen?

Thank you very much.

Which means it will have a full hearing at City Council and not be included on the consent agenda.

With that, unless there is any further business on that case, we will move on to the next one.

Very good.

Case number 301-2025, a request by Engineering Surveys and Services on behalf of J.

Gordon Arbuckle Living Trust seeking approval to rezone 63.11 acres from A agriculture to IJ Industrial.

The subject site is located northeast of Highway 63 in Paris Road Interchange on the east side of Paris Road and is addressed 3815 Hinkson Creek Road.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may thank you very much for the introduction.

And yeah, just some some clarification on this one initially.

It's definitely part of it.

But the southern portion of this, particularly portion south of Hinkson Creek Road, as well as most everything that is south of the northern limit of the FEMA identified floodplain area is all to remain in agricultural zoning as it is presently.

That comprises around 20.55 acres of land.

So the amount of acreage that's requesting a rezoning to the industrial district is actually 63.11 acres as noted here.

Public notice was made for this request in the form of a public information postcard that was distributed on the 9th of September.

Um and letters were distributed to owners, occupants, and tenants of properties within 185 feet of the perimeter of this subject site.

Um on the 22nd of September, there were 17 of those, and then an advertisement was placed in the Tribune on the 23rd of September.

Um hopefully this is a little bit more illustrative of what I was talking about earlier.

So pretty much everything in the southern area here is remaining within agricultural zoning per this request.

Um and everything to the north of it that is illustrated here in red uh is requesting the industrial zoning.

Um some nearby, excuse me.

Um nearby developments of of pertinence are mid-city lumber, um, as well as Stevo's, which has a fueling station and a barbecue restaurant, and then tractor supply company, um, as well as the uh Italian meats uh manufacturing uh area or processing area that's just north of here by about two or three lots.

I believe it's SWIFT, is what it's called.

Um and then here also is it illustrated kind of as far as how the parcels are broken up here.

Um the southern portion that's a little bit more green, shaded in again, that's agriculturally zoned, and everything north that has a darker shaded area is what is being requested for industrial zoning here.

Um you can notice there's a few structures on the site.

Uh it's currently has one or has a structure that is um registered as a as a long-term rental with the office of neighborhood services, and it's classified as a two-family dwelling, so there's actually two addresses on this site.

Um just of note, it's it's currently technically non-compliant because you can't have a two-family dwelling in agricultural zoning and will continue to be if the zoning classification goes to industrial, uh, it will just be considered a legal non-conforming use.

Um then here's just one more illustration, but this time I wanted to include the surrounding zoning districts to provide a little bit better of an idea, and I have another zoomed out look here in future slides, uh, but this also illustrates kind of where the floodplain goes as well as surrounding zoning contexts, particularly how um most all of the corridor of Paris here north of 63, and then even many portions south of 63 at this interchange do have industrial zoning designations here within the city.

Um here's the more zoomed out look.

Uh so as you go all the way up north towards uh Brown station or Brown School, I forget which one of the two it is, excuse me.

Every single parcel that abuts Paris Road for the most part, with the exception of this, I guess the northeast corner of the intersection of 63 in Paris is zoned for IG, and that's also with the exception of Stevos, but that has C3 use is permissible on it for the most part.

There's larger swathes of industrial zoning also on Heller, which is to the east of this site and north of this site.

Just kind of here to show the ubiquity of the industrial zoning that exists around this Paris corridor.

So a little bit of background information on this site and the context of the surrounding zoning.

Again, it's PD zoned to the north here.

It's MC zoned, and well, and uh that's unimproved.

It's uh has a conditional use permit that's been approved for like an RV trailer park, uh, but that's yet to materialize, I suppose.

And then there's also agricultural zoning to the south of this site.

Um agricultural zoning is the only thing that abuts this site to the east.

Uh and to the west, it is bound by Paris uh road.

Uh but there's industrial zoning on both sides of Paris and Route B all the way from 63 interchange to the Route B and North Brown Station Road intersection.

Um and this site is the last uh non-commercially zoned tract uh that directly abuts Paris.

Uh so three tracks uh are involved in this request, um, but really only one full parcel and half or so of another parcel uh are requesting this rezoning here, and one will remain in A zoning, uh, but they're all under the same owner here.

Uh most all the lands south and east of Hingson Creek Road, uh, which is the road that kind of runs not necessarily diagonal, but on the eastern side of the slide here, then down directly south, and then following this line with my mouse.

Um all the land that is south of that as well as all the land that's east of that around this area at least is remained as an agricultural zoning and is agriculturally zoned.

Um a lot of the land around the Hinkson Creek Road area is within a floodplain, so there are some encumbrances in terms of development in this site, particularly within the floodway.

You would not be able to pursue development, floodplain development permit could be pursued.

Um, and other portions here, it's also going to have a type one stream buffer, which is 200 comprehensive feet, 50 on both sides for the inner buffer, and 50 on the outside for the outer buffer.

Uh so that adds up 50 times 4200.

Um, before any development on this site could be pursued, uh platding would be necessary, and this would result uh in right-of-way dedications along Hingson Creek Road, uh, because that's uh classified as a major collector per the Catzo Major Roadway Plan, but does not have adequate right-of-way uh for it at this time.

It's considered substandard uh access for the commercial property from Hinkson Creek Road would likely not be encouraged due to the inadequacy of the street at this time.

Uh the site has been identified as a neighborhood district in the Columbia imagined future land use map, um, although uh as noted in the staff report, uh staff believes this to be inconsistent and largely informed by the fact that that's how the property was used when the comprehensive plan came out.

Um neighborhood district is inconsistent with the surrounding zoning and uses along the Paris corridor and has a full access point that was considered previously.

Uh Modot has continued to state that this would be a full access point available to this site.

Um usually if you have traffic that is this close to an interchange for state-maintained highway and a road like Paris here in the city that also has quick access to I-70.

Um, that's something that we would want more commercial uses to be considered around, and so this has resulted in perhaps uh underutilization of the existing acreage.

Um staff believes that um the neighborhood designations probably inconsistent with other zoning and uses along the Paris corridor, particularly.

Um as far as the classification for future land use that IG would fall under, that would be in the employment district, um, which generally encourages employment generators, uh, whatever that may be.

It can be manufacturing, it can be service industry, uh anything along those lines.

Again, full access would be available, so that's right in, right out, left in, left out, uh, available off of Paris, and that's all MODOT maintained.

Uh and the site is uh over 800 feet from the nearest dwellings, but that's just from the perimeter of the property, not necessarily from where construction would take place.

So again, the site's largely encumbered by a floodplain, floodway, and stream buffer, like I mentioned previously.

Um I just wanted to pull out this uh illustration that was made by uh building and site development plan reviewer during the concept review for this, uh, which includes the regulatory floodway being illustrated with the hashed lines uh kind of in the center of this area, has a little bit over a hundred feet in width in this area, and then a one percent annual chance floodplain, uh, which is uh on the outside of this area.

Uh results in a relatively large amount of encumbrances on the site that would inherently restrict the amount of acreage that could be developed.

Um it's likely going to push development opportunities a little bit closer to Paris than it would be uh closer to Hinkson Creek, perhaps.

Um all development structures or all development uh on the site would be subject to the stormwater production provisions of uh 12A article V of the city's code of ordinances.

Uh an industrial zoning would allow most all commercial uses within the city to be pursued.

Um wanted to bring to attention the use specific standards for light industry because it's um I'm sure many people here have um seen publications uh in town about the potential of this site being utilized as a data center, um which was something that was noted by the property owner during a concept review.

Um had ample concerns about uh particularly the environment environmental impacts um of this type of use on this property.

Um so just wanted to call out these use specific standards, particularly that it can't result in harmful discharge of any waste materials uh and activity must be conducted in a manner that is uh not constituting a menace to persons or property in a manner that's dangerous, obnoxious, or offensive, and this includes specific call-outs to things like um fumes, flames, smoke, noise, lights.

Um this is all something that will be reviewed whenever development is pursued when it is pursued, but again, plotting has to happen.

Uh in this request is uh particularly for the compatibility of the zoning district on this site, not necessarily locking into a particular use.

Um just here's a utilities map as well.

Um so this site does lie within a tier one prioritized infill area uh according to Columbia Imagined, which means that it's entirely within the urban service area.

Areas around Highway 63 um are also specifically identified as top priority areas for economic development within the comprehensive plan.

And the site comports with the economic development goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.

Uh I also wanted to just call out that there's a level three buffer that would be required along the eastern and the southern area of this site because it abuts um agriculturally zoned property and would continue to do so uh if this rezoning were approved.

And that requires a 10-foot landscaping buffer as well as an eight-foot screening device on the site to screen the uses from the adjacent uh neighbors.

So uh just some discussion about the appropriateness of the IG zoning district.

Again, the Paris corridor north of 63 is is all zoned IG with the exception of Stevos and the one MC lot just south of this.

Um this is the last A-zone parcel abutting Paris in the first place.

Um the existing A zoning is not compatible with surrounding uses or zoning designations, um, and the largely the environmentally sensitive areas, those lying within the floodplain in the floodway, are going to remain an agricultural zoning, uh, has full access onto Paris, which gives it access to 63, which then gives it access to 70 uh without having to go through neighborhood areas uh in a relatively efficient manner.

Um and it also has limited exposure uh in terms of what could be developed to uh nearby dwellings that have existed for a while.

So ultimately it's staff conclusion uh that we support the requested rezoning to IG for the site, do the consistency with uh the comprehensive plan goals and objectives related to economic development, particularly, as well as the contextual zoning around the area and land use patterns of this becoming a more commercial corridor, uh, as well as alignment with neighboring uses, particularly those north and west of Hinkson Creek Road and those abutting Paris Road.

Uh so staff's recommendation is to approve the request to rezone 63.11 acres of the subject site from agriculture to industrial, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

See none.

Questions for staff.

Commissioner Brodsky.

Just uh uh for clarification, and I have no doubt that this is um you know completely acceptable, but I noticed the southern parcel.

We're only rezoning half of that parcel.

Uh just curious about the mechanics of that.

Will they have to do a plat and split that parcel or can we can we zone half of a parcel one thing and the other half another?

Yeah, you you can zone uh not the entirety of a parcel.

The the amount of the area that's zoned is dependent upon the legal description that's provided.

Um since it's not platted right now, I I can't speak to the intent to plat this property necessarily.

I think it would be reasonable to suggest that everything that's zoned within the industrial district would be platted into one lot or perhaps combination of lots, um, leaving the southern portion um on perhaps an unplatted lot.

Um but yeah.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Any other questions, Commissioner Ortiz?

Um you said that in Columbia Imagine that it it was it was neighborhood um district, like that's what it was intended to be.

Why is that not the case?

Like why isn't it why did Columbia Imagine say that if it's not appropriate?

Columbia Imagine was based on the future land use map was not based on anticipated future land uses, it was based upon what was generally existing based on zoning at the time that it was created.

So that is why there's the disconnect that Mr.

Coontz is referring to.

If we had looked and idealized what we wanted the corridor to be, it would have been identified as IG, but using the zoning that existed in 2013 is why it is actually AG and identified on the in identified as residential because residential fit within that category.

Uh the AG district fit within the residential category.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Seeing none, we will go to public hearing.

Any members of the public who wish to speak.

Chad Femmler, 1113 Fay Street.

I'm with Engineering Surveys and Services on behalf of Gordon Arbuckle's Living Trust.

Um I'm here to answer any questions that you guys may have of us, but um just a couple things that I wanted to uh allude to is we there will be a uh final plat.

Um once this is complete, that's the next phase in our uh development plan.

So too, there is no planned use.

This is just about uh the uh zoning map amendment.

Um that's the other things that are going around, it's just uh kind of news to everybody else.

So thank you.

Uh I think that might be all I have.

Is there any questions from you all from us?

I or if nobody else has a question.

I was just gonna ask, and I I think you probably um semi-answered it just now, but you you say you have a plan, but you don't have like planned buyers or anything.

You're just getting this useful.

We we recognize that uh well, obviously uh the uh our client recognizes that there is a hole there, it really is not the best use uh at at its current agriculture um just to fill that corridor in.

And the other the other opportunity though is that because of where it's located, the uh the topography going down to Hinkson, it it is as uh as the staff has said, is gonna limit the actual developable parcel of land.

So uh but we wanted to stay out of that FEMA regulated floodway.

And then one other point I wanted to add is that um currently, based on Plaza Commercial Realities um uh release that they do every every year, we are at a vacancy of 1.5 percent for industrial land.

And um really what they say is a convention a condition to demonstrate a need for more industrial would be about six percent.

So everything's occupied at the moment, and uh it would be good to have some more just available for the community.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Say none.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Anyone else to speak?

Please come forward.

Esther Ellis 2309 Nellwood Drive.

Uh, my first question is for places that are zoned industrial, what is the decibel level requirement?

Is there one at the property line, like a maximum level outside?

I'm not sure off the top of my head, but it looks like uh Mr.

Zenner is going to get the specific language.

So uh currently, um my interest in the property.

I submitted a letter.

Um my husband and I currently lease a property that's just to the southeast.

Um it's directly east of the space that will remain agriculture, so it'll be caddy corner to the industrial.

Currently, um my house on Nellwood Drive abutts industrial.

Um the actual small businesses that are in those spaces have been fantastic and communicative.

Really worked to build relationship with them.

However, some of the people who own the properties haven't necessarily been as in a few years ago, there was uh a large vacuum that was put outside less than 20 feet from our property line.

Umise, etc.

So had to work with the city to get that resolved.

Um my concerns are with industrial.

There are a lot of regulations in place.

I recognize that.

I think they're fantastic.

I recognize that likely this will be rezoned to industrial or homes at some point in the future, and that's necessary for the growth of Columbia.

My concerns are that um with whatever moves in, we have regulations, um, but the companies who move into those spaces don't necessarily always abide by them.

And I recognize that we have things in place to remedy that.

Um, however, during the time that it takes to remedy, there's still an impact on the people, animals that are nearby.

So that would be us, our animals on the property.

Um the all-spa land is directly to the south of there, um, which is meant to um prioritize the wildlife and nature in that space.

So in summary, I recognize that this will likely be rezoned.

Um my concerns are that whatever moves in there, um, will they actually want to uphold the regulations, regulations, and as there's been discussion.

Were you able to find that answer?

Unfortunately, no, there is not anything specific under our heavy industrial or under our light industrial categories.

Um, prior code, there were particular noise limitations as are related to a planned industrial zoning district.

Uh there are other noise-related standards within the city's municipal code that would likely be able to be evaluated and applied, which is probably what was being used with our building and our site development department uh in addressing the other issue that you referred to.

There's nothing within the zoning code that I can make reference to to assist you in answering that question.

So that would be part of my concern.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Anyone else to speak on this case?

Please come forward.

Good evening.

Uh my name is James Gordon.

I live at 703 West Boulevard North.

I moved to Columbia 13 years ago with my spouse, Reverend Dr.

Molly Housh Gordon, who ministers the Unitarian Universalist Church of Columbia.

Molly and I started our family here.

We have two kids, nine and seven years old.

We love the city, and uh we have uh felt loved by the city and we care deeply about the growth of this city and sustain the community where we have made our home.

I want to be up front and acknowledge that I only learned about this case a few days ago.

Um, a shout out to uh Mike Murphy at Como Buzz, who um reported this, and I think it's a reminder that we should all be supporting local journalism and uh maybe you know throw a subscription Mike's way, yeah, if you get a chance.

Um I have, however, had time uh to speak to a lot of parties who are uh have like a direct and immediate interest in this matter.

And uh given what we know and what we do not yet know, I believe we would be wise to deny this application to rezone this property located at 3815 Hinkson Creek Road.

So I'll start with what we do know.

We know this property is part of a border between land on the east side, which is which has been farmed by multiple generations, and land on the west side adjacent to the Paris Road, Route B, which in more recent years has been developed for commercial and industrial use.

We know that allowing industrial use of this land will move that boundary even closer to the Hinkson Creek than that floodplain.

And we know that folks who live and farm on nearby land have felt and continue to experience negative impact from this encroaching encroaching industrial development.

I spoke to several people who um uh have complaints about um the um the smell of some of the other industrial um facilities nearby, and um I know this is not exactly what we're talking about for this particular land use, but I think we should be can we should be more considerate about um the people who are who actually live uh in this area.

Um some of these folks have submitted public comment, and I hope some of them will continue to stand up and speak tonight.

Um I also want to say that we know that um the applicant, um Mr.

Gordon R.

Buckle, who I have no relationship to, by the way, um, he does want to build a data center on this property.

I spoke directly with Mr.

Gordon Arbuckle on the phone yesterday.

Um, and he was very candid and clear about his intentions to uh pursue a data center development on this property, um, and that this project is part of a much larger initiative stretching beyond Missouri, involving some big players in the tech industry.

He specifically mentioned uh NVIDIA and Oracle.

Uh it's not my place to speak to the details of Mr.

Gordon Arbuckle's plans.

And so this is where we start to wade into more uncertain territory, and I believe we would do well to proceed with an abundance of caution.

And I and I do want to speak about this is where I my vocational expertise may have uh um come in handy because um, you know, I am somebody who is a technologist who works with digital technology every day.

Um I believe that the possibility of a new data center in our community might sound exciting to some of us, but um I would urge you to reconsider that if you believe that.

Um there are um many reports and outlets like the Financial Times and Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal that are revealing that this um nationwide trend of data center build-out is um built on the shaky economics of the generative AI industry.

And it's important to understand that the um all the like computationally intensive processes of generative of generative AI, those are the things that are the primary drivers of these new data center construction projects.

And um these reports that are coming out every day um have very clear uh empirical evidence that uh all the demand for this computing capacity is about to drop very dramatically, uh, which I think beg begs the question.

If we are to allow this rezoning and if this data center uh project ultimately is built, um is anybody going to need this facility in a year?

I don't pretend to know the answer to that question.

Uh and I encourage um you know Mr.

Gordon Arbuckle and his partners uh to provide more information about how what they plan to do with uh this land, how they plan to development, and um, you know, how they plan to navigate all these economic challenges.

Uh if they do come forward and have with more details, I we should really expect to hear some precise details about how they will mitigate environmental impact on the neighbors' uh land and lives and how they will mitigate the potential strain on our city utilities.

Um for instance, are we going to be able to um are we are we all gonna see our electricity and um water rates go up uh because of this new facility, which is something that has uh been experienced by other other communities that have um gone forward with these sorts of developments.

Um, right now I think we don't don't know very much.

Uh and I think the most reliable source of information are the people who actually live close to this property, the people who live on Hinks and Creek Road.

And so we should listen to them.

Um we should listen to folks like uh Miss Reese Miller, who I know has submitted a public comment.

I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to cut you off.

That's your three minutes.

Oh, sorry, forget that.

It's okay.

It's okay.

Any questions for the speaker?

Seeing none.

And I just want to apologize for some reason I could not reply to your message.

I don't know why it locked me out.

That's okay.

But I was trying to tell you to get together with the staff, but it sounds like you did.

Uh I didn't, but it showed up anyway.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Appreciate that.

Yeah.

I did want you to think I was ignoring you.

That's okay.

Um further questions for this speaker.

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Next.

Uh my name is Josh Patterson.

I am the owner of the property.

I don't know if it was intentional or unintentional, uh, acknowledging at 3411 North Hankson Creek Road.

This is this uh little pizza slice right below um the proposed property right here.

Um I don't necessarily know that I'm for or against this particular one.

I was coming to this meeting as more educational to try and understand a little bit more about this.

I'm glad that some of my other neighborhood members, because we are a very small neighborhood, there's just a couple of houses, quite frankly.

I'm the only residential right there that would be directly impacted by this, as they slightly mentioned on the topography.

Um the water drainage area is not adequate whatsoever as it is right now from that industrial area as it comes down the hill, it floods my property terribly.

Um there's a little drainage ditch off the side of the pizza slice that floods into my yard and floods up to my house.

And the all-spa land, this is kind of a nature area to pay close attention to.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Ortiz.

If they're trying to clean up the area and maintain and it, especially if they want to improve that stormwater drainage, that would be nice.

Honestly, it's just the house that stays, otherwise, everything else kind of goes underwater.

I'm just learning this.

I bought this property in uh December of 23.

It's where uh my girlfriend and I are starting a family, and this is still residential.

This is not just an industrial park.

There are residences around here that is still a family area.

And if there is access on that Hankson Creek Road, there definitely needs to be development because there's a single lane bridge right there coming off, and there's already problems with people dumping stuff and thinking that it's not part of the city, and they just kind of throw trash and uh freezer dryer were thrown out on that road, and I'm constantly trying to clean stuff up.

Can you get up on the mic a little bit more for court reproofers?

Yeah, thank you for that.

Yeah, as I was saying, like that gravel road right there, North Hinkson Creek Road, really would need to be improved if it's even if it's like a secondary access to that industrial site.

Like I understand the growing of this, this may get approved, but something for this body to keep in mind, the neighborhood around there is going to be impacted, and I appreciate your um kind of time thinking of this.

Thank you.

Any further questions for the speaker?

Seeing none, thank you very much.

Next person to speak on this case, please come forward.

My name is Isaac Ellis.

I live at 2309 Nellwood Drive.

Um, I my wife has just been up here.

I actually farm and um raise cattle on the uh southwest of the zone, what will be zoned agriculture space of this if uh um if it goes to vote here.

Um sorry, southeast, excuse me.

Um so I raise um cattle there on Miss Janie Reese Miller's uh property.

Um so um I understand the corridor being um uh in the there for industrial.

Uh I I understand what Mr.

Arbuckle is trying to do.

Uh I am a little bit fearful of the data center, um, the water requirements, the energy requirements, uh, the possible pollutants.

Um we already receive in the Hinkson Creek River uh PVC particles from the uh extrusion extruding of PVC up the road.

Um Swift Meats Company uh during the building of that, saw incredible amounts of garbage, trash, foam in the Hinkson Creek River floating right next to the farm.

Um I I understand that development will happen in Columbia.

I understand that it will grow, but I I it sounds like we're just gonna rezone it without understanding what the property will be used for.

Um I would appreciate more explanation, more understanding of how the property will be used.

Will it encumber the creek?

Will it encumber um the small neighborhoods that are around?

Um would it be better served to move further north or further south of Columbia rather than continuing to move in on those communities?

Um those are my main questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

None.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Next person to speak on this case.

Hello, my name is Halene Darland.

Uh address is 558 West Crofton Hall.

Um I just wanted to come up here and say that I understand that rezoning this as industrial is neither here nor there in terms of a data center.

Right now, we're not talking about what's going to be built there.

We're talking about rezoning.

But obviously, the word of the data center has gotten out.

The owner himself has stated.

It's even in the official notes of this meeting.

So I'm actually the network infrastructure specialist with Columbia Public Schools.

So I really understand how these operations run.

And I also understand that cities don't have a lot of infrastructure or regulation in place to support or kind of keep them in check.

And I know that we they have said that, you know, that there's no uh there's no obvious intention to to build a data center or anything, but uh I'm very concerned hearing about that.

Uh just when they went over the industrial regulations that this zone would take on if it was rezoned.

Uh the thing about data centers is they don't have a lot of lights, they don't have a lot of noise, and they don't have a lot of waste.

They they have other impacts that can really harm a community.

A lot of data centers will come into an area and say that they're bringing jobs and that they're bringing growth to a community, but I can say that even as a network specialist, they wouldn't hire me at their data center.

They would bring in their own staff, their own people, especially places like Nvidia and Oracle.

Like they're not going to be trying to hire local Colombians to run their data center.

They're going to come in and set up shop and they're going to close their doors and they're going to do what they do.

So I am not against rezoning this parcel.

I think that with the floodplain being what it is, and a lot of people attributing to there not being a lot of like development in the area, and also that there's just uncertainty about what exactly this land is going to be used for.

I think that I would like to see a little hesitancy going into it.

And I I mean, obviously, people have questions and concerns.

So yeah, that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Next person to speak on this case, please come forward.

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

Are there any commissioner comments on this case, Commissioner Darr?

I guess this is for staff.

Is data center listed as a specific use in UDC?

Uh no, it would be classified under light industry.

Um, and that's where I pulled up the use specific standards here for I went past it.

Does staff feel like the light industrial is robust enough to handle what a data center is?

Uh yeah, it would involve the like I guess this it says the storage of things in like a large capacity is one of the explicit uses in the definition for light industry.

Uh so and I believe that that would be classified under that definition.

Um I don't know.

Uh Mr.

Zenner, do you have any other comments about that?

Use is not defined specifically what's in the unified development code or evaluated against similar uses found elsewhere within it, and then they are categorized appropriately.

I would suggest that if we look at what other types of uses are categorized as industrial, the director at that time would conclude that light industrial is the appropriate zoning classification.

This is not a heavy industrial use because it is not extracting raw materials nor doing anything outside.

The building is or the use would be entirely within an enclosed building, which is one of the principal differentiations between light and heavy industrial uses.

You must have 80 percent of your operation interior to be considered light industrial.

So when we look at 3M, we look at some of our other manufacturers up on the corridor that are further to the north of this, they all fall into a light industrial categorization.

I don't believe we could state that a data center, if that is what is to be built here, is any more intense than potentially the manufacturing facilities that are to the north, with the exception potentially of the utility infrastructure demands that they may draw.

That would be an issue that would be discussed and determined.

It's adequacy, the adequacy of our systems would be determined before permitting would be issued.

It would be something that we would have to address as a part of actual formal consideration of a development project and permitting.

We do not have any of that in front of us.

So yes, what this record shows, what the press has carried, what the owner is suggesting has not been reviewed by staff at this point.

We do not have the information specifically, and as has been discussed also, this decision is based about the appropriateness of a land use designation, not a use specifically.

So light industrial is where this would likely fall based on all of the characteristics that the use that has been being discussed would likely comport with when we look at it from a broader perspective of uses within the zoning ordinance that is defined.

Thanks.

Any Commissioner Wilson?

Would the property owner or developer have to come back to us with any type of plans for us to understand?

And I am asking this as a person who has worked in technology, similar to the person who works for the school district.

Data centers do not bring jobs.

And I would be very concerned that we have got a large parcel of land in our community being used as not a benefit to us.

The only action that this body will have brought before it is a plating action.

And you will not see development plans.

The development plan process for this is through our other regulatory processes that are not within the purview of this body.

And so the zoning of this property is a decision that this Commission must make a recommendation on and Council must weigh based upon the public comment.

If Council does not believe that this is an appropriate industrial parcel, that is their purview.

It is yours as well.

And at that point, possibly acquiring or attracting a use that does not offer a great value to the city is something that would be addressed.

If the project is otherwise compliant with our regulatory standards and is proposed by an applicant, unless they are asking for something unique, such as a Chapter 100 bond to help offset the tax costs of infrastructure or things of that nature, there may be very limited involvement of the City Council once a zoning action and a re and a platting action has been approved.

We are going to assure that through the platting side of it, all of our requirements, access and all of the other things that we would typically require will have been addressed, and the site will be set up then for development of some nature.

So that is the way that this plays out.

Will the future development of the site be contributing to the city's economic value?

That is yet to be seen.

We don't have that information because we don't have a formal request before us on a use specific, nor the circumstances by which that use may seek assistance.

Commissioner Walters?

This is like planning and zoning for dummies for me, because if we approve the zoning, and I understand what we're up against, but the public would have someone would follow through with that data center, there would be no other public point in the future where the public would have an opportunity to speak opposing that.

What's the zoning tonight might be approved?

Not unless there is another triggering event.

That would require a public hearing and a public decision to be made by an elected body.

Okay.

That's what I thought.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ortiz?

What can this body consider in this case?

Like what are we actually deciding on?

Sure.

As pointed out, the uh the zoning action and the data center are two discrete issues.

So by state law uh straight zoning request or application for straight zoning, uh this commission can't do any conditions upon that.

It's uh it's a yes or no.

And the criteria for approval is very simple.

It's in uh Chapter 29, uh Article 6, uh subsection 4 and 1.

And simply that uh the zoning request conforms, does those zoning requests conform with a comprehensive plan?

And is there adequate utilities, drainage, water, sewer, electricity, and other infrastructure to support the IG uh and IG development?

That's that's it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Walter.

So the adequate utilities is is a consider would be a consideration both for the council to approve at some point in the future or at the time of uh approving the zoning.

I mean, I'm sorry.

So consideration of adequacy of utilities would be pertinent at the point of the case.

Yes.

So I mean that's the same criteria for this commission and for council moving forward.

Okay.

For tonight.

Commissioner Wilson.

If we don't know what's going in, uh are we assuming adequate utilities for light industrial?

Right.

Okay, thank you.

I if I may, because I I think where you're going here.

The ability to bring adequate th there may be inadequate utilities at this site today.

It's because it is an undeveloped agricultural parcel of property.

There is not a identified capacity issue with serving this property for a series of uh a spectrum of uses in the IG district, which contain commercial and light industrial uses.

So to conclude that because the parcel is presently not served by high capacity services does not mean that this site is not capable of having it being served by those to support a commensurate development.

We have to be very careful about if it doesn't have any utilities, that's one thing.

It has access to utilities.

It has access to road, water, sewer, and electric utilities.

Do they need to be potentially upgraded to support a more intense use than what currently exists?

Very likely.

But that is all part of the future development of the property as the zoned track as the zoning is being sought.

Your zoning, your future development will control, I should say the adequacy and the availability of upgraded infrastructure will control the uses that can go on that property in that zoning district.

So drawing that distinction potentially may be helpful.

Does the parcel have no infrastructure seeking a zoning classification that would require at least a minimum of infrastructure?

Or does it have the ability to get that infrastructure to be able to grow into its future use?

That's what I'm suggesting may be a valuable valuation that you go through.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Sorry.

Um real quick.

So this body, you outlined what we can consider, but City Council has more discretion than this body does, correct?

Not necessarily, no.

Oh.

Okay.

Okay.

Thanks.

So uh go ahead, Commissioner Brotsky.

Um just want to weigh in on this one uh for the benefit of my fellow commissioners.

I I think I'm I'm supportive of this.

I mean, it it the city for a long time has promoted this area as where we want industrial to go.

We've we've uh increased sewer, we've increased water, we've increased electrical capacity in this area.

Um but I and and I'm speaking from uh somewhat of a place of ignorance here.

Um I I do think this community needs to get out ahead of the potentiality for data centers to come to Columbia.

Um for me, it's a pure supply-demand economics with uh electricity and water.

Uh and uh there seem to be credible reports that electrical and water um can be severely affected for the um uh surrounding community.

Uh so while I am supportive of this rezoning, I would urge City Council uh to uh get ahead of these data centers and make sure that we have the tools as a city uh to proper bounds on that particular use.

Anybody else?

Okay.

Um sorry, I I don't I I mean I know why we do staff questions at the beginning, but we're now grilling you at the end.

I apologize.

Umind me, before a building permit is issued, they're gonna do stormwater runoff.

They're gonna require improvement of the Hinkson Creek Road at the cost of the developer potentially, depending on factors.

Yeah, that's correct.

They'll they'll have to have a stormwater prevention plan that's approved by building and site development before they could um start building in the first place.

Um that'll have to ensure that any of the impacts created on this it doesn't have a greater flow off after they develop it than it did before.

Um regarding improvements to Hinkson Creek Road.

Um they will have to dedicate the right-of-way for the road if they do want to utilize it for commercial traffic.

I think that that's um it it may require improvements just due to the size of potential vehicles that would be on the street.

Um but uh their building permit may say you have to access it from Route B.

Or the plat configuration could uh I believe potentially limit the access.

But it could have that impact.

I think again, at the time of building permitting, we know what we're what we're getting.

So there is the opportunity at that point if it does trigger a traffic and uh traffic impact assessment.

It's at that point that what the traffic impact assessment specifies as necessary improvements to serve the site, those would have to be installed at the applicant's expense.

Um obviously if their intention is to develop up on the corridor, the improvements are likely going to be focused on the Paris Road Corridor, not on Hinkson Creek.

So under standard city practices, existing substandard roadways that traverse one's property, um, unless they are integral to that development's improvement, dedication of right-of-way is all that is required, but the substandard nature of the travel way would be left in place until likely a future capital project would be built within that dedicated space.

Um dictate a little bit about what happens to Hinkson Creek Road.

If it is left segregated, as Mr.

Kuhn's pointed out, is possibly an unplatted agricultural land uh parcel, and the northern part is the northwestern portion of the property is replatted, that's ought to be IG.

It's the focus is going to be on the IG as we're dealing with improvements, not necessarily on the unplatted tract of land.

Um development code does require acreages uh up to 80 acres owned and controlled under the same individual must be platted at once.

And so I believe if when we do a more deep analysis to the plating standards, the entire acreage that is owned by the Arab local trust will be required to be platted.

So you're gonna get an agricultural parcel to Mr.

Brodsky's question, it will be segregated based upon the legal description that is being used with the zoning request, and that would then segregate that to a lot in and of itself.

So all of the floodplain and all of the environmental features would be in a lot, and the developable portion of the property less the areas that are encumbered by stream would be in the other one.

But by plating, all of those streams and requirements would be addressed per the way that the code is structured, Chapter 12A of our code.

Well, and I think that was my next question.

So any environmental impact would come at the time of plating and or site development plans?

Correct.

Okay.

What is the most intense use that could come into IG as heavy industrial?

Which would require a conditional use permit as well.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

So if they wanted to do something that was classified as heavy industrial they would have to come back to us.

That is correct.

We think and and I I have lots of things that I want to do with my life and business and property and whatever.

Um, you know, it it doesn't sound like unless we were just bold face lied to tonight.

It sounds like this is all wish list stuff.

But I would be much more concerned about the impact on Hinkson Creek of just plain water runoff of, you know, frankly, uh heavy industrial or even a larger version of Swift, I think would have more of an impact.

I'm looking at what else is around here.

It doesn't show on the map in front of us, but the landfill is not far from here.

Um we've got uh uh auto salvage yard that is you know within close range of all of this.

I mean, this is an industrial area that is bordered by residential and we've got a buffer between the two in that agricultural plat.

Um I'm leaning towards yes and trusting our code and our site development and our use specific standards to put some safeguards in place.

All that said, if City Council is listening, I agree with Commissioner Brodsky that if in fact not just data centers, but large computing spaces are likely to be something that we have to deal with in the future, whether it's because of you know large language learning models, whether it's because of generative AI, whether it's because of just processing power.

Um I think it's worth doing some real looking at what are the requirements that we want to put around those.

How much water do they actually use?

How much electricity do they actually use?

Do we need to think about land use for multiple acres of computers?

I mean, they're heat sinks, if nothing else, right?

So I I think it's worthwhile to do some research, not that we don't have enough on our plates, but do some research into do we need to put use specific standards around this use.

Um that said, thank you to everyone who made us think about that.

That is not what we're talking about tonight.

What we're talking about tonight is what do we do on this parcel that is surrounded by IG but is close to Hinkson Creek.

And and I just I don't see a reason to deny it the zoning, um, especially since our IG zoning is so broad.

Like it sounds, but it's it industrial could mean an auto parts yard.

Like it it's it's so broad in our code that I don't have a problem with the IG, especially given all of the safeguards in place once they go to pull permits to actually break ground.

That's where I'm at.

Thank you for indulging us.

Commissioner Wilson.

We have a lot of complicated ones this evening, and this one is tough too.

It's tough because I recently watched a documentary about another community that went through this exact same thing.

They were told one thing and the results were different.

Part of it was because they have these backup generators that are used in the um development of the property, and those have diesel fuel and a lot of waste, and they were not taken away.

They're continued continuing to be used.

Um I although I know we're not specifically considering and talking about the data center, because that conversation has been introduced, it gives a whole different spin to this conversation to me.

Um for multiple reasons.

And the largest one being that the benefit is just not there.

Um we're not getting anything from our land being used by a large conglomerate.

And again, this is I've worked in this industry for almost 20 years.

Um this is just difficult for me.

Any further commissioner comment?

Commissioner Gray?

Sorry, staff again.

I just have a question.

So in terms of your support, it aligns with the comprehensive plan goals related to economic development.

I'm curious about uh there's kind of a tension between the policies around environmental management, particularly around um one of the policies that suggests like uh strategies for maintaining agricultural areas.

So I guess I'm wondering is the underutilization of this land in its current zoning kind of what is the like weighing on this?

Um The fact that it's not utilized for agricultural purposes, I I would say was a consideration that we made in in support of this, but I also think there is a potential it wouldn't be requesting rezoning the IG if it were being utilized for agricultural purposes.

Um I I suppose it's a little bit difficult to say exactly the extent to which, but when looking at this, it's it's particularly thinking about the economic development goals of getting industry nearby roads that have the capacity to move things quickly and easily without impacting neighborhoods.

Um I understand the data center doesn't uh if that were to be what we're pursued, doesn't necessarily result in a lot of vehicular traffic.

Um however, if we're just comprehensively looking at the industrial zoning district, which may require larger commercial vehicles and increased traffic induced by that, um this is a prime location for that.

Um the applicant has made the request for it, so and it's not being used for agricultural purposes as well.

So yeah, I would say that's kind of where I stood on my analysis.

Thank you.

I think as well, Ms.

Dr.

Gray, what we have we have to understand is as you pointed out, there is a tension between the CAP, which is a policy and aspirational document, and the adopted city comprehensive plan, which functions as a component of regulatory administration.

We have to rely on our comprehensive plans, goals, and objectives as we evaluate requests.

The CAP does not have those same considerations.

And so this is a this is a dilemma that as we embark on rewriting our city's comprehensive plan, there will be a tensions chapter.

And that tensions chapter based on current comprehensive plan structure is to address this exact issue.

When you have two equally viable objectives, which takes precedent over the other.

And so what we would have to look at, and as I think as Mr.

Funderbuck pointed out, uh, with the applicant's engineering firm, you have a industrial vacancy rate that is extremely low.

I think if we had our representatives from ready here, our representatives from Ready would have other perspectives to provide here for why this is an appropriate additional industrial addition to the City of Columbia.

If we are going to continue to try to cultivate industrial use as possibly not a data center, but market acreage for other industrial uses, we have to have land that is zoned already to accommodate that.

This does provide that.

I think again, the warning and the request of council that you all are asking that they take into consideration possibly the impacts.

Should we venture down the path of a data center in this community?

I think that is warranted.

I think it is something that we can be asked to look at if council so chooses to do that.

Right now we have to weigh what we are obligated to look at, and that is the comprehensive plan.

That does not negate, and I I do not want to upset the mayor, because the mayor obviously was one of the champions behind our CAP.

But it is not the regulatory basis by which we make land use decisions.

That is the comprehensive plan.

And so if we align through our new comprehensive plan how we strategize to evaluate both, I think we are in a much better position moving forward, but we're just not there yet.

Thank you.

Commissioner Wilson.

Um there is another consideration.

Um again, given the scenario of a data center, there's a lot of waste.

With the turnover of servers, and given how quickly technology advances and turns over that metal, those batteries, there's a lot of electronic waste, there's a lot of metal waste.

That's a lot of waste.

And what do you do with all of that?

So that's just another consideration.

Commissioner Stanton.

I completely agree with all my colleagues.

But the task at hand is the zoning of this parcel, which I do support.

But I just want to cry out and put on the record so that our council men and women would definitely don't fall for the shiny objects and the typical marketing mumbo jumble that comes with this kind of availability of land.

They do not generate the job that somebody may tell you they do.

Even if this is not a data center, uh make sure that the use of this land is for the benefit of the community in its highest capacity, just like we want to use our land to as high as capacity.

What we do put on this land, if approved, needs to have those same requirements.

And I do support the study of data centers and don't fall for it without further study.

I would just add, like, look.

I'm guessing that the trust is going to sell to the highest bidder.

You could also put a hotel or a heavy equipment retailer, like uh, you know, someone who compete with God forbid equipment share could be on this parcel.

Uh you could have a drive-in theater.

You could have a nursery, like a you know, garden nursery, not the kind with children.

Um there's a lot of things that could go there.

We have regular requests for and occasional presentations from plaza telling us please, please make more IG land.

We have people calling us asking, can they buy IG land.

I have no doubt that we need it.

I have no doubt that Mr.

Arbuckle has plans.

I have every belief that he will sell to the highest bidder who comes in as fast as possible.

I have every belief that there are people waiting to buy IG property in Colombia, and it's not just NVIDIA.

Um in fact, it's probably not NVIDIA because they're not here.

Um I mean, I I hear the concerns about one particular use.

And I'm not taking those lightly or saying that those aren't founded in fact.

I also believe that there are so many other uses that are more likely in the real world, just based on what we hear from the various developers in the community who say that and the realtors who say that they have people coming to them all the time asking to buy this.

I think the best thing we can do is zone it for what's appropriate.

Everything around here.

You know, this is a commercial area.

I think IG makes sense.

I think we need use specific standards, especially if we believe that this is likely to become likely to be purchased by a data center.

We need to get use specific standards in as quickly as possible related to load.

Here's the other thing I'll say, and Commissioner Brodsky, I I think you'll agree with me on this.

There are other things we have in our code, like marijuana cultivation facilities that use so much water and electricity, they often have to have their own substations built out just to open up and operate.

We created use-specific standards for them.

This is something we can do.

It is not a reason to not allow this parcel to be used like the parcels around it in a way that is responsible and makes sense.

And I am especially more comfortable given that that entire floodplain parcel is going to be left zoned AG, which means that they can't even try to figure out an exception to expand into that floodplain.

So that's that's where my head's at.

I, you know, I think this is going to be one of our rare split decisions.

And that's where my head's at.

Any further comments?

Or would someone like to make a motion?

Commissioner Gray?

Um okay.

See if I can do this.

Uh in the case of uh 301 2025, 3815 Hankston Creek Road, I move to approve the request to rezone 633.11 acres of this subject site from agricultural to IG.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Gray, seconded by Commissioner Stanton.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none.

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

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

No.

Commissioner Walters.

Oh, uh yes.

Commissioner Wilson.

No.

My vote is yes.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

The motion carries seven to two.

That will recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Next case.

Case number 303-2025, a request by Kurt Crieble agent on behalf of Kurt Criebel properties LLC owner to allow 1205 East Ash Street Unit A to be used as a short-term rental for a maximum of two transient guests in up to 210 nights annually, pursuant to Section 29-3.3 V V and Section 29-6.4M2 of the Unified Development Code.

This request seeks authorization to offer one half of a two-family structure as a short-term rental.

The one bedroom, one bathroom dwelling has driveway capacity to support two UDC compliant on-site parking spaces.

The point 14 acre subject site is located on the north side of East Ash Street, approximately 120 feet east of the St.

James Street and East Ash Street intersection.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may.

Thank you for the introduction.

For this case, we sent out early notification postcards on the 8th of September, followed by public hearing letters alerting the public to the public hearing.

We sent out 64 of those on the 22nd of September, and an ad was then ran in the Tribune on the 9th alerting uh the public to the uh public hearing as well.

Here is an area of the subject site highlighted in the uh red rectangle here again.

There is single family homes uh zoned RMF to the uh east and to the south.

Uh there's also a single family home to the west that is zoned MDT, and there is also an MDT zone property that has commercial as a commercial use uh to the north there, also zoned MDT.

This is off of a local residential that does permit on-street parking and sidewalks are installed on this northern portion of East Ash Street, though not on the southern portion.

The property is zoned RMF and is not the applicant's primary residence.

This is a one-bedroom, one-bathroom home.

Thus the maximum occupancy would be two per the IPMC.

Given this is a uh two-family structure, there is an existing uh requirement for the other side, uh required parking for the other side, that is.

So there's three parking spaces located in the driveway.

One is required for the STR, and two is required are required for the other unit in the structure, so thus the STR is not taken away from the uh other use located on the subject site.

In 2024, the property was offered for 225 nights, and there are no other additional STRs within 300 feet of the property.

There is one code violation uh pertaining to illegal short-term rental operation associated with the property.

The owner received a letter of violation uh relating to illegal operation of an STR uh July 31st or was sent out rather requesting compliance by September 1st, and staff received a letter of application for the CUP on September 1st, right on that uh compliance deadline there.

Forty-three of the four 45 parcels within 185 feet of the subject site are used for rental purposes or commercial related uses.

The designate agent lives 1.2 miles or five minutes from uh the subject site, and we have not received any uh correspondence relating to this case.

I would like to mention that the applicant made it aware to me that he is not going to be able to speak at the uh hearing here be prior to the rezoning case.

He is in attendance, though.

So I did want to mention that before we turned the floor over for public comment.

So in conclusion, the conditional use permit analysis supports approval.

The short-term rental regulations provide an oversight and means to address any impacts.

Approval supports broad policies, strategies, and actions of the comprehensive plan.

And is staff's recommendation to approve the short-term rental conditional use permit subject to a maximum occupancy of two transient guests, any maximum of 210 nights of rental, uh annual rental usage.

I would 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.

Questions for staff.

You said that this was a multi-unit property.

Uh where are the other tenants, I guess, is what I'm trying to figure out.

Are they behind the building?

Yes.

So it's it's off to the so the entrance to the one uh the short-term rental is to the left, and the uh entrance to the other side of the dwelling, the long-term side would be on the right side, kind of following that red rectangle where the driveway is located.

There's another door located on that side of the uh structure.

Okay, so it's within the same.

Front to back, front-to-back duplex.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Um I I think I know the answer to this, but I'm gonna ask it anyway.

Uh there's nothing in the uh ordinances about mixing uses with parking and the conflict between potential long-term tenants and a STR tenant.

No, there is not.

It's just again, as kind of alluded to, as long as they're not taking away from the required parking for the other use, should be good to go.

That's all I had.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Commissioner Stanton.

He is present.

He informed me that he was involved in an accident prior to the rezoning and he uh is not gonna be able to speak.

He is in attendance today at the meeting still.

Is his agent or here?

He is he is the agent.

Oh, well, okay.

Yeah.

So if some his defend, he's the one that's gonna come and fix it.

Okay.

Okay.

Um any other questions for staff?

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

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

Please come forward.

Seeing none, and I understand you can't speak, but uh would the owner please wave.

Hi.

Thank you for being here tonight.

We appreciate you and hope you get to feeling better soon.

Um other questions or comments from staff or or from or the public, sorry, public first, sorry, McKinsey.

Public, no one else closing.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Did have we talked to the person that lives in the other like unit?

I have no notification regarding if it's currently occupied or the status of that.

Okay.

Thanks.

Any other comments from commissioners?

Commissioner Brodsky.

Um generally speaking, I think I'm okay with this.

My only concern in relation to what I asked staff is the fact that we have one parking lane and uh the short-term rental person is gonna have to coordinate with the long-term tenants.

Um, you know, if the short-term tenant is blocking the long-term tenants and they're gone doing whatever they're doing for the day, you know, how is that gonna work out?

So that I am a little concerned about that.

Any other commissioner comments?

Commissioner Stanton?

Reality is a property park on the street.

Uh-huh.

Sorry to to say uh cut you off.

Uh the I do I live very close to this.

All of the street parking on this street.

I and I could be wrong about this, but I believe that is all permit parking on that street.

Oh, yeah.

That does sound correct.

I believe I recall there is a city ordinance sign posted relating to the parking so it follows that an ordinance.

I believe the closest meter parking is going to be on ash west of St.

James.

So not terribly far, but I will also say that those parking spots are generally completely full.

Is the parking permit based on a neighborhood parking permit program?

I believe so.

That means then that the long the dwelling unit is provided most likely parking permits for their long-term tenants.

And so the long-term tenants, I think this is one of the things that we have had to unpack in some of these requests.

Long-term rental housing, yes, they are required to have on-site parking.

They are not required to park in it.

And so if they do have parking permits associated with this dwelling unit to park in those permitted spaces, I would imagine, I think, as Mr.

Stanton pointed out, that is likely they will park on the street where they have that availability.

The reason I asked Ross to pull this graphic up is because as you will note, the driveway does lead back to a larger backyard area where there may be the opportunity to be able to jockey the cars around without having to back them in and out of the driveway.

Again, the long-term tenant of the remaining duplex and the occupant of the short-term rental, should this be approved, that's going to be it's likely going to be stated that you have you have to park on site because that's what we require.

The tenant in the rear is going to know that.

And so one would think that they will work that out on their own.

We can't we can't ask the applicant because the applicant apparently can't speak to that effect.

And we can't ask them about the parking permit situation either.

If we could have those two answers, I think there would be great illumination on the situation here.

Um standard of practice that we would ensure, and I did ask Mr.

Halligan to ensure this that the parking to meet the demand for the remaining half of the duplex was capable of being met in full, not displaced by the short-term rental.

If it had been displaced by the short-term rental, this would be an entirely different application.

Any other Commissioner comments?

Commissioner Walters.

I am ready to make a motion.

Please do.

Uh regarding case number 303-2025, I move to approve the conditional use permit to allow 1205 East Ash Street, Unit A to be operated as as an STR, subject to one.

The maximum occupancy shall not exceed two transient gas, regardless of occupancy allowed by the most recently adopted edition of the International Property Maintenance Code, and to a maximum of 210 nights of annual usage.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

See none.

Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call?

Commissioner Gowway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Commissioner Wilson.

Yes.

My vote is yes.

Commissioner Darr?

Yes.

Carries.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Just as a reminder, we have a full dais, so if you need to take a break, please step out and do so.

It won't stop us from continuing.

But we will wait for you for votes.

Case number 307-2025, a request by Chris Kristen Car.

I'm sorry.

Kristen Craver, on behalf of HAE properties LLC owner, to allow 308 North Ninth Street to be used as a short-term rental for a maximum of eight transient guests and up to 210 nights annually, pursuant to Section 29-3.3 B V and Section 29-6.4 M2 of the Unified Development Code.

The four-bedroom two-bath home has a driveway with sufficient capacity to support four UDC compliant on-site off-street parking spaces.

The point one four acre subject site is located on the east side of North Ninth Street, approximately 200 feet north of Park Avenue.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may, Madam Chair.

Thank you for that introduction.

We sent out an earlier notification postcards on September 8th, followed by 81 public hearing letters on September 22nd.

And we read an ad in the Columbia Tribune on September 23rd.

Here is an aerial view of the subject site.

So this is between oh goodness, I forget here.

It's Park Avenue on the south and Rogers on the north.

Just for another point of bearing here, everything south of the East West Street to the south of the subject site is all MDT.

If you go into Google Street View at this time, this is the most current photography.

Based on the measurements off of that, we were able to conclude that the driveway was approximately 60 to 65 feet at the time.

Now that is too short for the four required spaces for the eight requested guests that they had.

However, we looked at uh historical photography and found that the gravel driveway previously went back to, if you can see there's a shed in between the two houses here in the s uh photograph.

Um and the end of the driveway had graveled over.

Now uh in our code, a gravel driveway is not allowed to be expanded or newly constructed, but existing site features are allowed to be maintained if they are non-conforming.

So the applicant was uh made aware of this, and uh I took this photograph here on October 2nd, I believe, and they were able to maintain the driveway to its previous length and um dimensions, therefore they now have the required uh driveway length for the parking that they are requesting, given the guests they are requesting.

I want to get ahead of that in case anybody's looking at Google Streets and not seeing that the driveway is an adequate length.

So this property is zoned uh RMF and is not the primary residence of the applicant.

It is a four-bedroom, two-bath home, which per the IPMC regulations would be a maximum of eight total occupants.

Uh they indicated to us that they opportunity uh operated for 32 nights last year.

Um 43 of the 48 parcels within 185 feet of this subject site were or are used as rental purposes.

We did identify one unregistered STR within 300 feet at 302 North Ninth Street, and there is an application currently in the queue to get that one registered as well.

Uh we had five code violations on file, one for the illegal SDR operation, three resolved regarding solid waste violations, and one resolved regarding landscape management.

I want to note that the applicant received a letter for the short-term rental violation on August 4th, or it was sent on August 4th, and our application was received on September 1st.

Uh the designated agent lives in Columbia, seven miles or about 15 minutes away from the site.

We staff do not receive any letters of opposition.

And as I maybe went a little bit too in-depth on, they do have proper driveway that would uh provide four parking spaces for the guests that are being requested.

Um as we usually go over the conditional use permit analysis supports approval for compliance.

Uh SDR regulations provide oversight and means to address any potential negative impacts that may occur on the site, and uh approval would support broad policies and strategies and actions of the comprehensive plan.

So it is staff's recommendation to approve the requested short-term rental conditional use permit, subject to a maximum occupancy of eight transient guests and a maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage.

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

Thank you.

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

Seeing none questions for staff.

Seeing none.

We will go to public comment.

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

Um I can answer any questions for you.

I've obviously don't rent it out at 10.

I'm just trying, I'm not I don't, it's not my job.

I don't make money doing it.

I'm just trying to keep it alive until maybe my kids need it someday.

So it's um not the greatest investment.

Thank you very much for being here tonight.

Are there any questions?

Commissioner Stanton.

So we do have previous violations.

We do have uh the the As I mature in this analysis, I can kind of see like things that are attributed to communication.

Some a lot of violations really deal with communication.

So tell me.

Okay.

Well, as for the landscaping, that was a one-time deal that I was out of town for extended time with my children.

Um, and I mow it myself and I haul a mower over there in the back of my SEV, and I just a one-time deal.

As for the trash, I don't even know about that to be so yeah, it's a communication problem because I don't know.

I don't know if that was before I owned it or if or if it's with the new stuff.

I have had an agreement in the past with a neighbor um uh a long-term renter next door that would pull my stuff, my no can in after um because I'm not over there all all the time, not able to be over there necessarily on a Monday morning.

Um he has moved out and I didn't realize it.

So maybe something's happened there, but I have not gotten notification that I'm aware of about any trash issues.

Um or unless something okay, so we address the violations.

I guess where I'm in is my concerns from this point forward.

Is your communication network better up to date, up to speed?

If I have a problem and I've asked this for over a year, if the stuff is the fan and I call you, how fast you're gonna get there and who's gonna get there?

Oh, I get there.

Um yeah, I've had I mean I've never had a complaint from outside of my renters, but I've had renters have you know, the air is not working as well, and I went out and bought five fans.

And uh at 10 o'clock at night I went and installed them.

Um yeah, no, I mean, as far as the neighborhood though, I it's a very it it's all rentals, sorry they know.

So I've at different times had good um communication because I'm I'm there physically, I'm outside working on the yard, and I've met them at different times, but I don't know when they change out.

So I don't know as well.

Um I don't know the I don't know the property owners.

Um I wanna I want to vote for you.

Okay.

I want to help you.

You gotta make me feel warm and fuzzy inside that you have all your ducks in a row, all your communications in line, because we had to you had to get a letter before you came in.

And like I've been saying all night.

There's no way you've never heard about this the stink that the STR situation is brought up.

So it took us getting you a letter.

Why did it take you so long to come to the light?

And I did know about it.

I I that it was happening.

I didn't I don't watch the news that well that often.

Um I didn't know I had to apply.

And I'm an attorney.

I have no excuse.

I I just didn't know.

I mean, I um you're an expert on STR laws, regulations, how I need to hear, you know what I mean?

Because if I because I need to know that if I approve a STR permit, you're gonna be a good example.

You know what I mean?

Like I don't want to I don't want to hear I didn't know.

Oh, you won't.

Now I know I need to know.

So you're gonna communication, everything is Yes, and and I guess.

I absolutely am.

I'm aware that now there's I knew there was talk of something being passed.

I just started a new job stu going back to practicing law after 20 years off in July.

So I'm now an attorney, practicing attorney, and I'm very much more aware of things going on, and I absolutely um I mean I'm dedicated to keeping that house.

It was a it was a project for me that I redid over COVID and I love it and I want to keep it, and the only way I can do it is if I keep just enough people renting it.

So yes, I have I have a lot of heart and soul in that place, and now that I know that I have these regulations to follow, I am absolutely going to.

Well, I sense you know I mean, yeah, and I guess I need to look into what those what what specifically constitutes all of that.

I need to be more up on it than I am, but I I um absolutely have the commitment.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Thank you very much for being here tonight.

We appreciate it.

Anyone else to speak on this case?

Please come forward.

I'm Devin Kelly, 9955 East Own School Road in Hallsville.

I own 302 North Ninth Street, the one that has an application right up the street.

And um it's a lovely home.

I think she does a great job.

Uh I'm really active on the street, have a business right next door.

And uh although I've not met Kristen, I believe it was.

Um I might be able to help her out a little bit with some of the unfamiliarity that she has with some of those things.

And um my goal is to get, you know, to know all the neighbors, which I've done quite a bit of, and so anyway, just saying whether my application works out or not.

Um I'm in the area all the time with my business next door, so I think I could help her out a little bit and I support her application because um I mean she barely rents it out, so anyway.

And your application is in and being processed.

Okay.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none, thank you for being here.

Anyone else to speak on this case?

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

Any commissioner comments?

Seeing none, Commissioner Stanton.

Ooh, I'm kind of shaky still, but I'm gonna give the process a shot, because if she don't do what she needs to do, she gives the complaints she's out of there.

So I'm I'm gonna play the system, I'm work system, see what happens.

Would you like to make a motion to that effect?

I would, madam chair.

Thank you.

As it relates to case 307-2025, as relate uh 308 North My Street, STR conditional use permit.

I move to approve the request to STRCEP subject to a maximum occupancy of eight to an guest, a maximum of 210 nights annual rental usage.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion seeing none?

Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call.

Commissioner Gowway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Wilson.

Yes.

My vote is yes.

And Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded.

Sorry.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Moving on to our last case of the evening.

If I can get to the right page.

Case number 310-2025, a request by Truman Orson on behalf of Truman Orson and Julie Allen owners to allow 4216 Forum Boulevard to be used as a short-term rental for a maximum of six transient guests and up to 210 nights annually pursuant to Section 29-3.3 V V and Section 29-6.4M2 of the Unified Development Code.

The three bedroom two-bath home has a detached two-car garage and driveway capacity to support for UDC compliant on-site parking spaces.

The.41 acre subject site is located on the east side of Forum Boulevard, approximately 1200 feet south of Nyphong Boulevard.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may.

Thank you for the introduction.

The public hearing letters uh were sent out on the 22nd of September, and there were 20 of those.

And an ad was run in the Tribune on the 23rd of September.

Here is an aerial of the subject site in question.

The subject site has R1 zone single family homes uh to the south, east, and west.

To the north, there is a PD zoned lot that has a boon health facility located on it.

Though there is a heavily wooded uh area kind of uh surrounding that, kind of buffering that from that uh PD zone PD zone parcel.

The site is accessed from Forum Boulevard, which is a minor arterial and does not permit entreep parking, and it also has sidewalks installed.

The property is zoned R1 is not the primary residence.

This is a three-bedroom, two-bathroom home.

The max occupancy per or per the IPMC would be eight, though there are only uh requesting for six.

There are four parking spaces in the driveway and two in the garage.

In 2024, this uh property was offered for 100 nights.

Additionally, there are no uh identified short-term rentals within 300 feet.

And there is one code violation pertaining to illegal short-term rental operation.

The owner received uh two letters of violation relating to illegal operation of an STR.

The first was sent out on August 4th, requesting compliance by September 4th, and the second letter was sent on uh oh I have this backwards was sent on July requesting uh compliance by September 1st.

July requesting uh July to requesting compliance by August, and then one is sent in September requesting compliance.

And then the application was received on the 8th of September.

And we also received letters of opposition stating they were concerned about the short-term rental affecting the character of the neighborhood and compounding that with uh safety concerns from uh speeding uh vehicles through the area.

Five of the 11 parcels within one 185 feet of the subject site are used for rental purposes.

The designated agent lives in Columbia, three miles uh from the property or roughly seven minutes.

And in conclusion, the conditional use permit supports uh approval.

The short term rental regulations provide an oversight means to address impacts.

Approval supports broad policies, strategies, and actions of the comprehensive plan.

Staff's recommendation is to improve the requested short-term rental.

That should say for maximum occupancy of six transient guests and a maximum of two hundred or ten nights of rental usage.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

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

Seeing none.

Questions for staff.

Seeing none, we will go to public comment.

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

Name and address for the record.

Um I know.

Uh Max Gump, 4215 Forum Boulevard, right across the street from the house in question.

I've been there for 28 years as a owner, resident of this community for 50 years, college here back in the 70s and seen the town grow from 40,000 to 120, and traffic take 10 minutes across town 40 years ago, and now it's 50.

So I'll try to boil this down a little bit.

You've got notes in the packets.

I've sent letters into Mr.

Halligan and other people have too.

Why are we allowing short-term rental in a residential neighborhood?

We have zoning laws.

Doing this is circumventing and running an end around of our zoning laws, because you're going into a residential neighborhood allowing something that was never there, never should have been there.

In my opinion, that it's too late now, but if you're going to do Airbnb and verbals, you ought to be in a part of town that allows it, not into a residential area.

Another question.

It's going to lower property values.

I've done a little research.

Other states are requiring you to disclose.

If it's within close proximity of your house, you are your agent at the time of sale.

I've asked a real estate lady friend of mine, she hasn't gotten back to me yet.

She didn't know.

Been in business a few years.

This is new.

Okay, so if I go to sell my house, I've been in there for 28 years, and I go to sell it, and I got a deal with you for X number of dollars, and I say, by the way, there's a transient Airbnb across the street.

You're going to lower your bid.

You just are.

I've bought and sold the property and houses in my pre previous years.

It's everybody wants a good deal.

So I'm concerned about the disclosure.

You're going to have to do it if it's within proximity.

If it's five or six houses down the street, it's not.

Right across the street or next door, it is.

You're going to cost residents money.

So that's that if I allow them to come in.

Also, there's a traffic situation there in Forum.

I wish I had a video.

I work out of my house.

People drone down that street 60 miles an hour.

There was an accident two weeks ago.

If I had been in my front yard, I probably wouldn't be here today.

But I mean, four or five cops, highway patrol, what it happened.

A man was going south, lost control, ran in the side of that Mill Creek Bridge and crossed the northbound lane right by the house in question, close to it, came back across to my front yard, tore the front end of the car on the sidewalk.

I was speaking to one of the officers, and yeah, he said I've written tickets for 60 miles an hour in this place.

It's a 30-mile speed limit.

Now, if if you are a full-time resident, rental there, you know how to navigate some of the stuff, the lay of the land.

But if you got people in and out of there during the week, they don't know.

And uh you know I extended my driveway 26 years ago, two years after I moved in.

You couldn't get out of the damn thing.

Most of the houses on forum are short.

They have the back out.

And they fly off that hill coming north and right there where that place is.

Uh it's a problem.

Uh and the people that own the place were nice.

I've met them before.

I don't have any any any issues with them, and they've been doing short-term rental, and overall the guests have been been good.

Okay.

I have no issue with that.

I am merely arguing on the nuts and bolts of lowering property values, increased traffic, which is going to cause uh accidents on that.

That's kind of the gist of what I'm on.

And uh there's other rental properties down the street, at least three I know of before you get up to Southampton, and two of them are outside of the 300-foot radius of this property.

So that means somebody else could come in here and put an application in.

And I just don't want Foreign Boulevard to become uh Airbnb Avenue.

And and you know, it's close to the towns, close to campus, the Walgreens, restaurants, bars, you know.

Anyhow, that's uh I'm gonna shut up now because it's getting late.

But uh any questions.

Thank you very much for being here tonight.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none, we appreciate you.

Thank you.

Next person to speak on this case, please come forward.

Good evening.

My name is Colleen Jansen, and I reside at 4201 Forum Boulevard, which is across the street, in about two houses north of the location that you're speaking of.

And I have to say I agree with Mr.

Gump as to his concerns.

Um so I would be against this the this uh um choice this evening.

Um part of the reason is also for me is I do have a five-year-old grandson that lives in my house and who is autistic, and the concern about traffic is a big deal.

Um like like Mr.

Gump was saying, we this is a 30 mile an hour area, or at least in I have to say that most times I see people going over 40 to 50 to 60 miles an hour down the street.

And it just my concern is adding this additional um uh tenants, these tenants would cause an addition to that traffic problem.

Um I have my self difficulty getting sometimes out of this out of my driveway onto Forum Boulevard.

Sometimes I have to plan on how to do that by backing into my group my driveway, those kind of things kind of have to plan ahead.

So those are my concerns in regards to the situation this evening.

We really appreciate you being here.

Thank you.

Um thank you.

And this is forum south of Naiphong.

Yes, it's just south of NIFOM.

My residence is just past the uh medical um perfect.

Yep.

Park that's there.

I am and no, I do want to mention one other thing.

I'm sorry.

Part of my concern is also the future.

Okay, the reason I say that is because my neighbor um has made improvements to their home, which include an in-ground pool as well as a backyard outdoor living space, and they are in the process of uh trying to sell that property.

And that property would be very um very good for the kind of same situation.

Um so that that would be my concern too, is that the future of the other homes in in the in the same um in the same neighborhood.

Thank you very much.

Any questions for the speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Anyone else to speak on this case?

Hi, my name is Julie Allen.

I live at 3602 Longford Mill.

I am the owner of this house.

We love this house.

I just want to start with that.

Like we are not a big business kind of people.

This is a house we see ourselves probably retiring in.

It's a slab home in a really great neighborhood.

Um my dream is that my children, one of my children would assume our home that is a two-story home at some point, and this will be where we live.

So that's why we chose it.

Um the lady that we bought it from, um, her great niece was the realtor.

They have come back and stayed in the house over the holidays last year just to see it.

Like we we really respect it to proactively address the two letters of notice.

I have no idea about the first one at all.

Like I don't know about that at all.

The second one, we immediately started getting the stuff together and submitting the information.

Um we did less than a hundred times last month or last year, I think it was actually 49.

Um, we're probably on track for about a hundred this year.

We are not trying to pack it in.

Um part of the reason we love the short-term rental piece is that we are in it often.

We hand mow the yard ourselves, we take the trash in and out.

Is it it is in between my work and our home.

And so we're able to go buy it frequently, make sure that it's maintained.

Um, all of those things.

Like we really take a lot of pride in that house.

My parents are aging, so when they come watch my son play soccer, they live an hour and a half away.

Sometimes they stay there because it is all on one floor.

We're not targeting big parties.

One of the bathrooms has a walk-in shower for elderly people, like it's listed on the listing.

Um, so we're really not trying to target big parties, all of those things.

The folks that stayed there last were visiting their 92-year-old parents on that side of town.

We have people that have come back live away and have parents that live here, and it's it's a pretty great location for that.

People know where forum and Naiphong is, that kind of thing.

So thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Stanton.

It took two letters to get you to bring come to the light.

I will add, I believe that was a typo in my notes.

I believe she's correct that it was just one letter.

So that is a typo on my behalf.

I know I wanted to interject before it's got carried away.

I I swear my husband called me the day we found out he's like, we gotta do this thing, and we started putting it together.

I promise I do not know about two.

Outside of that, you got everything under control now.

Absolutely.

We have um I would just mention that we have uh our whatever superhosts on the Airbnb, which you have to have at least a 98 percent response rate, which we I respond all the time, so they would always know how to get a hold of us.

Like the thing says we live very close.

If there's any emergencies, we would be right there.

My sister also lives about five miles from there.

So if we were out of town, she's our backup.

She works at John Mortar Middle School, so she's very close all the time.

Um very attentive to the house.

And like I said, we just love that little house.

It's cute little yellow house.

Thank you.

Any other questions for this speaker?

Thank you for being here tonight.

Any other member of the public to speak on this case?

Please come forward.

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

Any commissioner comments on this case?

Commissioner Ortiz.

Okay.

I might be sleepy.

Um, but did I did I miss?

Okay.

It says maximum occupancy of two transient guests.

That is the typo as well.

It's for six.

Okay.

I'm sleepy as well.

So I guess that I made this.

I wasn't sure if you guys like had talked about that already.

And I'm like, wait, was I here for that?

No, I'm on strike too for this uh presentation here.

So someone's been copy-pasting his slides.

Ooh.

Okay, you do a great job.

I know a great job.

And then I guess the other question, and I I think I know this, but I'll ask anyway.

So the there's a public works project on forum.

Is this not the section of forum?

No.

Okay.

And then do you happen to know the street c classification for this portion of forum?

Yes, it is a uh minor arterial.

Okay.

So it would be like eligible for traffic calming.

Most likely, Ms.

Ortiz, uh, I I would tell you based upon the volume that this road carries.

No.

No way.

Yeah, and yeah, I I I mean, I I think we um that would be that would that would be probably a a disaster for the southern portion of the city, but f for for traffic movement, not for the neighbors, maybe.

Um so it launches someone into their own.

Probably, and if the owners have suggested that they need it.

I mean, I I I will say this much with the improvements.

I used to live down in this area as well.

I actually lived off Chadwick.

Um, you know, as many of you are probably aware, if you come down forum over NIFON, you have now the ability to take Southampton out to John Warner.

You'll have access to the new elementary school.

You also have access to gentry and Rockbridge.

So when as a part of the improvements to Southampton that were considered as a part of um Legacy Farms, which is office in Clare.

Uh there were a series of roundabout projects that would be being built on Southampton.

Uh that doesn't help this particular segment, but that's helping to manage overall traffic along the southern corridor in essence.

Um the span between the signal at Forum and Nifong to the intersection at Southampton, if that was controlled by a roundabout, that may not necessarily reduce speed.

Um the nature of this street based on its lack of deflection doesn't help.

And then it is the valley of the street is actually just a little bit beyond where this property is located.

And so acceleration from the intersections adjoining it to the north and the south is probably the problem.

What needs to be done here if the traffic speed continues to be an issue is it needs to be more of a targeted enforcement area for the police department.

And that's the unfortunate reality.

I think we probably, if we had the ability to do something on a this was a neighborhood collector, not a minor arterial.

Maybe not at this speed, but it is designed for that purpose.

And I think hindsight being 2020, as we have grown in development over time, you would have never seen driveways accessing this roadway if this had been in a different era, because this is the problem we run into.

That conflict of through traffic with driveway traffic.

Follow-up, have we seen any short-term rentals on this, like heavy traffic, like that being the primary access?

I can't answer that directly, but the closest one that I can think of was one that was across from uh on Arbor Point Parkway across from uh Elf Hart Lewis, which was denied.

That was the second one within 300 feet of another existing site.

So that may have been a very similar streets uh um classification, but I'd have to go back and look at our specific applications to give you a complete answer.

Any other uh where are we at?

Commissioner comments.

Anyone want to make a motion?

Commissioner Gray.

Um in the case of 310 2025, 4216 Forum Boulevard, STR conditional use permit.

I move to approve the requested SDRCUP subject to maximum occupancy of two transient guests, maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage.

Did you mean to say six transient guests?

It should be six.

You just read the slide.

It's okay.

It's my I take the blame.

Do I have to do the whole thing?

No, you can take it as an amendment.

Do you take Commissioner Brodsky's amendment?

I accept the amendment.

Would someone like to second Commissioner Gray's amended motion?

Okay.

A motion was made by Commissioner Gray, amended by Commissioner Brodsky, and the motion as amended was seconded by Commissioner Stanton.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Commissioner Ortiz.

I okay, controversial opinion.

I don't like this one.

I think that the speeding traffic is actually a problem here.

And having more people access this property is potentially dangerous.

So that is my vote will reflect that.

Any other discussion?

Not at this time, ma'am, I'm sorry.

Any other discussion on the motion?

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

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

No.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Commissioner Wilson.

Yes.

My vote is yes.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Motion carries 8 to 1.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Moving on to our next order of business, public comments.

If any member of the public has a comment that they would like to say of a general nature or otherwise, now would be the time.

Going once, going twice.

Okay.

Next staff comments.

Mr.

Zinner.

Enlighten us.

Next meeting will be October 23rd.

What a surprise.

It's two weeks from now.

We will have some items on that agenda.

But before we have our tantalizing meeting of the public nature, we will have a work session.

We will start talking about changes to our subdivision regulations and the text associated with small lot development that we have previously discussed.

Clint will be attending our meetings, at least for the time being, uh, just to get his feet reacclimated underneath him as it relates to city business.

I will beat my staff with what lasagna noodles, so they do not produce PowerPoints that have errors in them anymore.

Uh and I would like to uh extend appreciation to the Commission this evening as it related to your um discernment as it relates to the plight that we from a staff are uh placed in as it relates to short-term rental evaluations.

Um I think as it was very aptly pointed out this evening, our evaluation comes from a technical side.

Um my staff is reminded by me regularly that we do not make the subjective decision.

The subjective decision is left to this body based on the evidence that is presented during the hearings.

And I appreciate that you have you defend that situation or that perspective on our behalf.

Our recommendations, um, I think as Mr.

uh Orendorff pointed out this evening on our St.

Michael request.

There was a lot of discussion, how did we want to unpack that?

And at the end of it, it was we needed to unpack it like we unpack every other request.

Facts and the facts only.

And so when we evaluate things from a technical component, that is why you see the recommendations you see.

There was a great moment of pause.

Do we need to do something different?

I think we will learn more as we move forward.

Um there are going to be potentially ones that may come to you with a different recommendation, even though technically it meets the compliance standards.

And I think those really are the ones which is why we have the conditional use process.

Those are the ones that require the discernment.

Um Mr.

Stan, to your point.

Our applicants are told in every acceptance email that we send back out to them that their short-term rental application has been received and is being processed.

You shall attend this meeting.

And so that email will be amended to indicate you shall attend and present.

Because I think what we have is we have a situation in where an applicant realizes they may have to be here, they do not understand that you expect them to talk.

Uh I try to do that the best I can with the applicants that I interact with to ensure that they know what is going to happen here and what is expected.

So we are setting standards.

We're not coaching, we're setting an expectation.

And so hopefully you will not have to wait.

You will hopefully have the applicant come forward.

The decision is in their hands.

And so if they choose not to come forward, that's something that you all have to weigh as well.

And trust me, we are, I think, all collectively looking at this process from the same perspective.

We want to make sure people can operate, but we also have to make sure that they are not impacting a neighborhood.

So that is part of what my role and my staff's role is.

And again, I appreciate your understanding and your willingness to defend how we technically evaluate these applications and then make the tougher decisions that sometimes have to be made.

That is greatly appreciated.

With that, your upcoming projects are three more short-term rentals, and a returning item, maybe.

We still do not know if we have the full final plat and design adjustment issues worked out as it relates to the uh water district's parcel immediately adjacent to Boone Electric.

There are some issues with a utility easement that needs to be relocated and an easement to be vacated.

That is a private easement before we can bring the plat to you.

So it is possible that the October 23rd meeting will only have three items on it.

Worst is we'll have several less than we had this evening, and hopefully less complicated.

Just so you know where we are, our water district parcel there on the left, our first short-term rental on Anderson, which we do not have another one around this, and then our last two short-term rentals.

Um we actually may end up with only two because the one slide on your left may be withdrawn.

Uh we did have a contact from the applicant earlier this week.

They are weighing options.

Uh if they want to proceed with their short-term rental application, that is a multifamily building, and they are looking at taking one unit out of the building for short-term rental purposes.

However, that graphic should look familiar.

That is at the corner, that is on Wilkes, and the roadway that you can see running diagonally is Paris.

We just recently approved a short-term rental request at Paris and Wilkes.

So they will be within 300 feet.

That is part of what is the decision-making process for the applicant.

With that, those are my comments.

I appreciate your contributions this evening, and we will look forward to seeing you on the 23rd.

Thank you very much.

Any Commissioner comments?

Just real quick regarding the data center thing.

I know we talked about it, but I would suggest looking at a conditional use process if you add a specific use standard.

I mean, maybe, you know, until it's the more accepted and it's you know been around longer that people know what it is that you we have a conditional use process, so that we would see it again if you could zone some to IG.

Thank you for that.

Any other commission, Commissioner Brodsky?

Um just a quick comment, and I don't want to resolve it tonight.

Um but I know we we keep saying that if there's if there's two violations with an STR, then they you know they lose their permit.

And I I looked into this many months ago and I just couldn't find it, and I kind of let it go by the wayside, but I I looked at it a little bit more tonight as our uh meeting was going, and I'm I've looked at the ordinance for short-term rentals.

I've gone back and look at the looked at the code that re references the revocation in 29-6.6, and I'm just not seeing this this if there's two violations that gets so to answer this question, and I need to add clarity to this because we have to be careful with what we are presenting and projecting to the public as to the ease in the revocation of one short-term rental permit.

So first and foremost, Chapter 22, Article 5 is where the revocation criterion is that would apply to a rental certificate, be it long-term or short term.

Clearly, within that section of the municipal code, which is not the purview of the Planning Commission, that is our housing and neighborhood services division, it clearly indicates that that is two verified violations, authorizes the Director of Housing and Neighborhood Services to proceed to revoke.

It does not say shall, it does not say may.

And so with all enforcement processes through our neighborhood services unit, you must collect the evidence, you must submit the evidence, and a decision must be made.

That is not something that just happens automatically after somebody calls with a snapshot of more vehicles or people walking out of a dwelling unit.

It has to be verified.

That may require going to municipal court.

And so I want to make very clear, we make the statement that two violations, if you have two verified violations, you are subject to having your license revoked.

It does not mean, however, that you may.

The director of housing and neighborhood services is not obligated to do so.

They present the case, and all cases on violations of the housing ordinance, long-term and short term, are handled generally by the municipal judge.

And so with that in mind, I caution you on continuing to project to the public possibly that it's that easy to just have a license revoked, because it really is not.

Could you cite that section one more time for me, Pat?

It's Chapter 22, Article V, and then it would be uh I don't know the section specifically.

I have it here in my ordinance, though, for you.

That gives me enough.

Thank you.

So a proper sorry, proper ways say this would be two verifiable complaints would subject you to reach.

Correct.

Okay.

It will definitely most likely result in, I would suggest, and we don't have enough case history at this point as it relates to this these types of infractions.

The ordinance is structured such that, and I think the section that Mr.

Brodsky is referring to, it does make reference to monetary fines, which is what is in Chapter 29 6.

Uh that is the monetary fine section for operating without the license.

The process of enforcement for violations, however, is probably a combination of fines, ultimately resulting in the revocation.

But until we have gone through enough prosecutions of those that have accumulated verified complaints, I can't tell you how that process will play out.

I can't tell you actually how the process of prosecution of operating a short-term rental without a license, which we have several right now pending on the on the court docket.

I do not know how that is going to play out either.

And so, you know, this is this is a bigger issue as it relates to ignorance is bliss until you're caught.

And so you can ask the question, how did you live under a rock for five years and not know the City of Columbia was developing short-term rental regulations?

Well, people can be a snail and they don't have to come out to get sunlight occasionally, and that, you know, ignorance is one of those things that I I we're going to continue to go.

We're going to go continue to round up the renegades, as you say, Mr.

Stan.

And our neighborhood services staff is doing an excellent job of working with the lists that we have provided them to get these people to come into compliance.

Until we have a better track record of how we are handling enforcement, it's going to be a little bit of a learning curve here.

It's what's going to work.

Now, what I can tell you, I think somebody had asked this evening.

Uh the uh short-term rental vendor contract is tentatively scheduled to be placed onto the council's uh October 20th agenda for first reading.

That is going to open up potentially uh by the beginning of the new year.

It would be January.

It's going to take us roughly 60 or so days to get the vendor on board and functional.

We will have a different set of sources that we will have available for tracking.

And so there are a lot of things that are that are happening here or in the pipeline to happen.

The amendment uh to the ordinance uh that may create relief that is still in a pending state.

So I don't know.

I can't give you any information.

Mr.

Denner, I was I liked your statement concerning applicants.

I'm not really I'm not really in support of making them.

I think it it gives further insight on the business practices of that of that person that's coming to us to STR.

If you don't, I think you recommend highly that you come and you present.

But if you don't, that tells me a lot.

It tells me that either A, you're not really vetted into this business.

I mean, it it speaks values.

If I I tried to stop Madam Chair from saying anything, I couldn't get to her fast enough.

If she had not suggested that that owner come up, that would have had a great impact.

That's fine.

I'm going to step in here.

We can't create an ad hoc ground for denial.

I mean, we have we have our criteria before us.

We can't make the applicant testify and make that a ground for denial of the permit.

Um it can be a factor if you have uh in in the short-term considerations, you have uh support of the neighborhood, and without testimony to counteract the lack of support or people speaking out against it, that then you consider whether you're then I think that that goes to the um ameliorating the weight of of the lack of support.

But we can't we can't make an ad hoc ground for denial that's not in the ordinance.

Okay, well, and it's not it's it's a ground for me to my decision, which I do have a right to do, but it's just like being in a court of law and you saying I have a right to defend myself in a court of law, or I don't have to say anything.

You know, if I'm you know in a criminal case, right?

It's a quarter to eleven.

Yeah.

This is a great discussion to add to work session.

Yes.

Um other commissioner comments?

I think I'll go to work at four o'clock in the morning.

Commissioner Gray like to move to adjourn.

Second.

Are we okay with adjournment?

We are adjourned.

Tangled.