Good evening.

I will now call the January 22nd, 2026 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order.

Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call?

Give me just one second.

I want to make sure I have our order correct.

All right.

Commissioner Walters.

Here.

I am present.

Commissioner Darr.

Here.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Here.

Commissioner Gray.

Here.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Here.

Commissioner Stanton.

Here.

And Commissioner Stockton.

Here.

We have a quorum of eight.

Thank you.

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

Zinner?

No, there are not, ma'am.

There are a motion to approve.

I moved to approve the agenda.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz.

Is there a thumbs-up approval of the agenda?

Unanimous.

We all received a copy of the January 8th, 2026 regular meeting minutes.

Are there any changes or adjustments to the minutes?

Seeing none, is there a motion to approve?

Madam Chair, I would move to approve the minutes from January 8th, 2026.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz.

Unanimous with Commissioner Brodsky abstaining.

Our first item of the evening is a tabling request in case number 49-2026, a request by Crockett Engineering Consultants, LLC, on behalf of Tory Benz LLC owners seeking to rezone 50.8 acres from PD plan development to PD plan development.

And approve a PD plan and associated statement of intent to permit development of a 240-unit multifamily development to be known as the Vantage.

The subject site contains all of Tracks 2 and 4, as well as a portion of Tract 5 shown within the 2010 Richland Road Annexation and Permanent Zoning Ordinance.

So the request is to table to the February 5th planning and zoning commission meeting.

Given some of the issues that are still unresolved at this point, it is possible that that February 5th uh agenda deadline may not be sufficient.

However, we will know better at the beginning of next week.

The applicant is wanting to continue to proceed to seek the February 5th agenda, realizing that if we do not get a response back in a timely fashion of February, an additional tabling to potentially either the February 19th meeting or to the first meeting in March may be necessary, but until we know what our Parks and Recreation Department their desire is as it relates to the dedication.

We do not know how long.

And so at this juncture, February 5th is what they had submitted.

That is what they are asking for, and we believe that it is possible should we get a response fast enough from our parks department, we could meet that deadline and bring forward to you the full staff report.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for staff on the tabling request?

No.

I'm sorry.

I know you said it.

Did we advertise this for public?

Yes, we did.

This was an advertised public hearing, and therefore it does require a formal tabling request.

Yes, gotcha.

Yes.

So I will open the floor if any member of the public would like to speak on the tabling request at this time.

Seeing none, we will close the floor to public comment and go to Commissioner comment on the tabling request.

Commissioner Stanton, did you have something?

Um I like my motion.

Please.

As it relates to case 49-202 uh six.

Uh I move to table this date certain February 5th.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Moved by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion to table this case?

Seeing none.

Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call?

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Commissioner Darr?

Yes.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Ortiz?

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

And Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

That case will be tabled to February 5th, 2026 for potential future action.

Our next item on the agenda.

Case number 32-2026, a request by Matthew Hawley agent on behalf of Matthew and Hope Holly owners to allow 903 West Worley Street to be used as a 210-night maximum six guest short-term rental pursuant to Section 29-3.3 V V and Section 29-6.4 M2 of the Unified Development Code.

The home has three one site off-street parking spaces and sufficient bedroom area to support the requested six guests.

The.27 acre subject site is located on the north side of West Worley Street, approximately 245 feet east of its intersection with Northwest Boulevard.

This matter was previously tabled at the January 8th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

May we please have a staff report?

You see me, Madam Chair.

Thank you for that introduction.

All that I need to add is that we sent out postcards on December 8th, followed by 55 property owner letters on December 18th, and a ad read on the Columbia Tribune on the 23rd of December.

Here is an aerial view of the subject site highlighted there in the center of your screen.

To the left side, that major roadway corridor there is uh West Boulevard.

It's located on Worley Street.

This is a front street view of the site.

This is the space where the three uh adequate parking spaces are along the left side of the home if you're looking at it from the street.

So the property is zoned RMF and is not the primary residence of the applicant.

It is a three-bed, one-bathroom home, which per the IPMC would have a maximum occupancy of six.

Uh it was offered as a STR since October of 2021, and seven of the 17 surrounding parcels within 185 feet, so our mailing uh buffer are used for rental purposes.

There are no additional STRs within 300 feet.

However, there is an approved STR 370 feet north northwest of the property at 608 West Boulevard.

Uh through our research, we found four code violations, two for solid waste and one for a health nuisance.

They also have the one for illegal short-term rental operation.

Uh they were sent letters on June 30th and July 30th of last year, but were not available to receive the letters.

I believe that the applicant said that they were out of state.

Um they are not currently being prosecuted by the Office of Neighborhood Services at this time.

The designated agent lives in Columbia, two and a half miles or about seven minutes from the subject site.

We received three letters in total as staff, uh, two in support and one in opposition.

The letters in support noted that the property owners took good care of the property and were responsible in their operation.

Although one of the letters did cite that there was a party that was a bit of a nuisance to the neighborhood early in their operation, but it was taken care of and there hasn't been a problem since.

The letter of opposition that we received cited concerns about parking, neighborhood character, uh noise concerns, and they did mention that party that they um were affected by as well.

Uh staff's conclusion is that the conditional use permit analysis supports approval for compliance and that the short-term rental regulations provide oversight and means to address any impacts.

If they have two violations that are confirmed by Office of Neighborhood Services, then they could potentially could get their license revoked if approved.

And approval supports the broad policies and strategies of the comprehensive plan.

So staff's recommendation to the commission is to approve the recommended requested short-term rental conditional use permit subject to a maximum occupancy of six transient guests and a maximum operation of 210 nights per year.

With that, 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 wish to speak on this case, please come forward now.

Good evening.

First of all, I'd just like to thank you for tabling this last week.

Uh my wife and I were having a baby, so appreciate it.

Um I just want to hopefully assuage some of your concern.

I've heard a lot of concerns coming to City Council meetings about outside investors.

And uh we, my wife and I are definitely not outside investors.

We're both born and raised in Missouri.

Um I've been a member of this community for 15 years.

I've gotten to know my neighbors.

I'm very invested in those relationships still, even as we've moved out of that um dwelling.

My children have been born there.

I have a lot of happy memories there.

Um and as we outgrew that home, we turned it into a short-term rental.

Um, as mentioned in the summary of the letters, there was one party early on that has been addressed by vetting.

Um Airbnb was sued for age discrimination, and they um for a brief time made it very difficult to vet based on anything that could be viewed as stereotyping.

So we figured out some ways to ask questions about why people are coming to town, and we only welcome guests that have reviews from other Airbnb hosts that can support our um assessment that they're going to be good candidates and not be disruptive to the neighborhood or the community.

Um this property was on the market for two years before we purchased it.

Uh we remodeled it heavily and we've upkept it since.

Uh again, my family outgrew this house and it we turned into a short-term rental, and that allowed us to purchase a bigger house for our family.

And if without the income from a short-term rental, that would not have been possible.

Uh, I think that this short-term rentals in general are a boon to the community.

It allows people a affordable option to come to our community for a variety of events uh for work-related, um, sports related, tourism.

Um we tried to be really accessible, keep our prices low.

Some of our prices are as low as $95 a night.

Um I I just want to speak my support for short-term rentals in general, and this one specifically.

I hope that you'll I also wanted to add one concerning um issue about the way that you're going about this with the signage.

Uh we were burglarized, and I think that uh it may have something to do with the giant sign that says we're a short-term rental right in front of the property.

And I know that we have to find a solution so that you can invite public comment and input.

And I appreciate your intention to support communities and neighborhoods.

Um, but I do just want to bring that to your attention that it may be a concern.

It could have been a complete fluke and a coincidence, uh, but I don't think so.

Um again, thank you for your time.

I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have if it helps in your decision.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Commissioner Stanton.

This evening.

Congratulations on your addition to your family.

Technically, I'm in full support.

I have a big problem.

Uh I know if you lived in this community, you know that short-term rentals was not a was a big topic.

Why did it take you till now to get compliant?

Umbid since 21.

It was a big decision.

Uh we thought about selling it numerous times.

We actually tried to sell it numerous times, and uh and then we decided to our finances changed a little bit, and we decided to continue it as a short-term rental.

So it was just some waffling on our part about whether or not to continue doing the short-term rental after the new regulations were instead or to sell the property and uh give it up entirely.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Speaker.

Seeing none.

I assume everybody is healthy or otherwise you wouldn't be here.

Yes, thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

Any other member of the public to speak on this case tonight?

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

Any Commissioner comments?

Commissioner Stanton.

I am chair.

I would like to entertain a motion.

If my colleagues are done with the discussion.

I believe we're ready.

All right.

Excuse me.

As it relates the case 32-2026 903 West Worldly Street, STR conditional use permit.

I moved to our put request requested STR.

CUP subject to the following.

Maximum occupancy of six transit guests.

Maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage.

Is there a second?

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Stanton.

Seconded by Commissioner Ortiz.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none.

Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call?

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

And Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Next item on the agenda, case number 56-2026.

A request by the City of Columbia owner seeking approval of an R1 one-family dwelling district permanent zoning, subject to annexation of a 4.64-acre parcel located southeast of the intersection of East Highway WW and L Chaparral Avenue.

The subject parcel is presently comprised of two lots zoned Boone County RS, single family residential, and CG General Commercial that is commonly addressed as 1020 L Chaparral Avenue.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, and me, Madam Chair.

Thank you for that interruption.

We sent out postcards on December 30th of last year, followed by 71 property owner letters on January 5th, and then an ad ran in the Tribune on January 6th.

Here is an aerial view of the subject site.

So it is accessed off of El Chaparral there on the west side of the photographs at the left side of the screen here.

So the applicant, which is the City of Columbia, is looking to have permanent zoning of R1 applied to this parcel upon annexation.

We're not discussing the annexation tonight.

We're only discussing the permanent zoning itself.

It's currently split zoned between residential, single family, and general commercial in the county between the two lots that it's comprised of currently.

It's got a county uh agricultural residential and city R1 to the north.

It has county moderate density residential to the east, county single family to the south, and county general commercial to the west.

It's contiguous by the Brook subdivision, which was annexed in 2017.

That is an R1 subdivision that's within the corporate limits of the City of Columbia.

Uh and the intent that the city is looking to achieve with this is to build a fire station and to utilize the existing structure as administrative offices as needed on the site.

As I said, it's currently developed with that office space, but the intent is to build a fire station once we've annexed the property into the city.

And we're seeking uh R1 zoning upon annexation, which a fire or police station is permitted by right within R1 zoning.

Uh doesn't create any nonconformities by creating a lot within the city.

Or not creating a lot by annexing this lot and zoning it as such.

Uh it's currently served by PWSD number nine for water, BEC for electric, and the City of Columbia for sewer.

As it stands right now, the county is serving uh emergency services to the property, but I figure that the city is going to cover the fire part of things if we build a fire station on it.

Uh we received one letter from uh the public following a phone call conversation that I had with an adjacent property owner.

Uh they have concerns about the traffic at the intersection of El Chaparral on Broadway and did express concerns that potentially a traffic light would be more appropriate at the site.

Uh that letter was distributed uh physically to the commissioners because we received it a little bit late in the cycle there, but we still were able to get that out to everybody.

Uh in conclusion, staff deems that the proposal is consistent with the surrounding land use, the existing use, and Columbia imagined and is appropriate for the use that is intended.

And staff's recommendation is to approve the permanent zoning request to R1 for 1020 South El Chaparral upon annexation.

With that, I would 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 open the floor to public comment.

If any members of the public are here to comment on this case, please come forward.

I really appreciate that.

Mr.

Robinson, could you give us your address for the record?

My actual physical address?

Yes, we need it for our transcripts.

I'm sorry.

Oh, that's so 1132, South Picos Court.

Thank you.

I am the trapezoid right against the uh the property there.

Thank you very much.

Please go ahead.

Thank you.

Uh will this be on the record as well?

So I don't need to take notes there.

Correct.

Yeah.

You you will be able to see a full transcript and a video.

Oh, excellent.

Yes.

I think.

As long as the camera is not here.

Um essentially, I believe I did hear that there weren't going to be no homes erected here.

It was just for the rezoning for the fire station.

That is correct.

The intent is for the city will own the property.

They will be constructing a fire station there.

That's the only intent with the property.

Okay.

Because I had 10 other things to go through, but I think we have just knocked out eight of them.

Uh but it still does.

I would still like to reiterate about the issue we are having with traffic.

Uh that person that mailed in a letter spot on.

Um I'm a resident of the City of Columbia for over fifty years.

I have lived in that particular home for 13 years.

So I have seen all the development that's going east, uh, Hawthorne, everything else going across the road, blah, blah.

And I've seen it steadily get worse the entire time.

And now, of course, we're not getting more homes in, but there will be congestion there.

And if there were homes, I was gonna be more concerned with doing this without addressing the traffic and road prior, but that's not what's going on.

It sounds like you're looking at probably possibly a stoplight if that were going to occur.

And that would be good for safety with the traffic.

And so I think that's really all I'd want to get at on that.

I appreciate that.

That was awesome.

Thank you so much.

I would like to bring up something though.

Uh we got the postcard and the letter, but uh the physical address for this is not on the postcard.

Ah.

Actually, I had to Google to find the physical address for the get to city hall.

So if yeah, if I would have not everyone's gonna be familiar, and if they don't read the letter and they just look at this, then they gotta Google it.

And some folks won't take the time or thank you for bringing that to our attention.

I appreciate it.

And it's nice being on the other side.

I work for the commission staff in Jeff City.

So it's nice.

Thank you very much.

One moment, please.

Any questions for the speaker?

Seeing none, thank you very much for being here tonight, sir.

Any other member of the public to speak on this case?

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

Any commissioner comments?

Commissioner Brodsky.

Um I actually did have a uh question for staff just in relation to the uh traffic light going in at that intersection.

Is that uh in the near future?

That is not something that is planned nor would be tied to the permanent zoning request.

It was uh something that was brought up as a potential solution by the person who sent in the letter, but that's not something that at this current time is planned for that intersection.

I'm not saying never.

I'm just saying not at this time.

Gotcha.

Yeah, and I totally understand that's not necessarily part of the uh rezoning here.

Um and then I did want to make a comment.

You know, there's um a lot of times the city makes developers or landowners put in sidewalks uh when there maybe arguably isn't a need for a sidewalk.

I I know we can't require that here, but I would this is more a comment for city council to see.

Um I do think a sidewalk, they they might want to consider that along El Chaparral uh in particular.

Um so I just wanted to put that out there for City Council to see.

Any other comments?

Seeing none.

I would just comment um, and I I know thank you, Curtis.

You you said this during your staff report.

But um I always like to get very clearly on the record that we don't make decisions on annexation.

We only make decisions on what it will be zoned if the city should decide to annex it.

So just so everyone knows we're not making a judgment on whether or not this should be part of the city, just what it will look like if it is.

Yes.

Before we move on, uh to add additional context to Mr.

Brodsky's question, and I believe the speaker's question as it relates to the signalization of L Chaparral and Highway WW.

Highway WW is a state route.

The State controls signalization.

We have a signal at the intersection of Elk Park Drive.

We have other improvements that may be being facilitated by future construction of the extension of L Chaparral.

And so, as Mr.

Ohrendorf has stated, there is no immediate plan and there is no knowledge to our city's staff that is involved in the processing of this permanent request that there is any effort at this point to put in a signal at this particular location.

It may not meet warrants based on MODOTs requirements, nor distance and spacing standards as is otherwise required on a state highway.

And so while the public may desire this, the State controls what occurs within their right of way.

And so I think we we have to look more broadly at what may end up happening with the broader transportation network.

As development has been built out, and then of course the other property that is improved on the north side.

So I want to make very clear that the city is not in control of what improvements get made on a state highway.

It may be valuable that we have some type of actuated flashing signal should the fire station need to deploy its apparatus.

That is something that may be considered, but that is not something that we are aware of at this point.

So I don't want any misperceptions being conveyed that a signal will be placed here.

That is a MODOT decision at this juncture.

Any other comments from Commissioners?

Seeing none, would anyone like to move approval of the zoning?

Commissioner Stanton?

Madam Chair, I like the intent of motion if you would like.

As it relates to case 56-2026, 1020 South El Shapura Avenue permanent zoning.

I move to approve the permanent zoning request to R1 for 1020 South El Sapora Avenue upon annexation.

Second.

Moved 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 Walters.

Yes.

Wilson is absent.

My vote is yes.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commissioner Gowway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

And Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

I will now go to public comments.

If any member of the public has a comment of a general nature, please come forward.

Yeah.

Again, state your name and address for the record, please.

Hared Robertson, 1132 South Pecos Court.

Thank you for the second opportunity.

That touched on exactly what I was coming back up here for.

Was is there a plan on how that fire station is going to access Broadway?

Because as of now, the only entry is straight across from the Caseys and that's not going to work.

I have not seen the I have not seen the site plans at this time.

I am I am assuming that given the access onto Highway WW is controlled through the State and the intersection placement to a potential driveway that would be out onto WW probably is not going to be sufficient.

So I am assuming that the access will come to and from the new fire station that would be developed off of El Chaparral.

Okay.

So it would have its own exit.

Yeah, it would have it.

It will have its own entry and exit, I believe.

I believe it is a looped bay that you are coming in from the back and leaving out the front, but coming back to El Chaparral.

Okay.

And then my second question is the development that is going on in the northeast corner.

Of that property.

Okay.

Is that simply to do with infrastructure, utilities?

So the existing, as I understand it, the existing former church is being temporarily, it's being renovated at this point in order to accommodate, I believe, some fire service purposes in in advance of the fire station being built.

So it is possible that what may be occurring in the northeast corner of the site may be in preparation for the permanent firehouse.

It is my understanding that the existing church would be retained for our fire marshal's office.

They would be moving our fire marshals out of the downtown fire station.

Okay.

My recommendation, sir, would be that you probably contact the fire department, potentially Chief Brian Schaeffer, or our public work staff and ask to talk to Kent Hayes, who is our our building construction manager.

They may both be able to provide you a little bit more detail with relationship to the building plans that are being considered.

Okay.

Because the concern on the surface is that it looks like development infrastructure is being put in place prior to approval.

The development infrastructure, that would be something that would be possible to be put in.

The property is considered legal.

It is a legal lot, and therefore infrastructure placement or site grading would potentially be acceptable.

We would allow that to occur.

The property is inside the county.

And depending on the arrangement that we have with our county officials, other building officials and our officials, it may be that we are self-performing the work, understanding that this would be fully under the city's purview upon annexation.

And I know the fire service has been eager to be able to get the renovation work started so they can start making utilization of the property as quickly as possible, given the service demands in this particular area.

And that's acceptable within the parameters, as you said.

So Kent Hayes, with our bill our public works department or Chief Brian Schaefer, maybe your points of contact if you would like to talk.

That was it.

I thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, sir.

Any other member of the public to make a comment of a general nature this evening?

Seeing none, we will close public comment and go to staff comments, Mr.

Zinner.

So your next meeting, as we talked about in work session, is going to be on February 5th.

And on February 5th's agenda, we have another two items.

And then we will have a CUP, not similar to CUPs that you often see.

This is for a commercial use in an RMF zoning district.

This is in the University Place Apartment Building.

If any of you are familiar, this is where the barbershop is located.

They are looking at expanding the commercial uses adjacent to the barbershop to add in a spa, spa services.

And therefore, in the RMF zoning district, we do allow commercial uses in the residential zoning district, nonprofit or profit, up to a maximum of 500 square feet.

The proposed expansion pushes it over the 500 square feet allowance in the residential zone.

Once you have reached that, you have to come get a conditional use.

So that is the purpose of this non-typical conditional use.

Parking and a variety of other issues will be discussed as a part of this.

And we will bring that forward to you.

So with that, here are our location maps and those are your items for the agenda.

As discussed this evening in work session, and we will bring back and complete our discussion on accessory dwelling unit changes.

And then we will see what else we have to bring to you.

As I indicated this evening, and for the purposes of the public, we do have our request out for public engagement and comment on the revised, the proposed revisions to the definition of family.

If any interested citizen is wanting to comment on that, they may do so through our Be Heard Public Engagement app, which you can get to from the icon from the main landing page of the city's website.

Leave a comment or the contact information for the project manager, which is myself.

Those comments are being collected.

We will analyze them, present them back to the planning commission, probably at the beginning of March, and then have further discussion as to moving forward with that definition of family.

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

Thank you very much for your attention and your time this evening.

Thank you.

Concluding staff comments, Commissioner comments.

Anyone?

Commissioner Stanton and then Commissioner Ortiz.

Oh, Commissioner Ortiz first.

Why me first?

I wonder.

I I just wanted to bring attention to also on beheard, there is the pedestrian safety ordinance that is also collecting comment until tomorrow.

So if you are interested in speaking up about the proposed pedestrian safety ordinance, do it today or tomorrow.

It will go before City Council on February 2nd.

That is all.

Thank you.

Any other commissioner comments?

Commissioner Stanton.

My colleagues had no further uh comments or concerns.

I would uh entertain a motion to adjourn.

Second.

Thank you.

Motion made by Commissioner Stanton and seconded by Commissioner Ortiz without objection.

We stand adjourned.