March 19th, 2026, regular meeting to order.

Secretary of Roll Call, please.

May.

Commissioner Gray.

Here.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Here.

Commissioner Stanton.

Here.

Commissioner Stockton.

Here.

Commissioner Walters.

Here.

Commissioner Wilson?

Here.

I am here.

Commissioner Darr.

Here.

And Commissioner Gowee Jones is absent.

We have a quorum of eight.

Yes, sir.

Ms.

Zinnet, do we have any modifications to the agenda this evening?

No, we do not, sir.

And no modifications.

I entertain a motion to approve the agenda.

And move to approve the agenda.

Second.

Moving properly seconded.

All those in favor, thumbs up.

All opposed, thumbs down.

Time to look at the March 5th meeting minutes.

Any uh modifications to these minutes.

Move to approve the minutes.

Second.

All opposed, thumbs down.

Okay, we have a tabling request.

A request by Crockett Engineering Consultants LLC, the agent on behalf of the PD of PD and CJ property, seek an approval to rezone the subject property from planned development to PD and approval of a site-specific statement of intent, allowing development of a 34 34 multifamily units to be known as Bay Hills P D.

The approximate 3.5 acre subject site is located at the property addresses 3 and 21 Grace Lane.

A request to table this matter to April 23rd planning and zoning meeting has been received.

Can I get a staff report, please?

Yes, you may, sir.

So as we have indicated here, case number 91-2026 is sought to be tabled until the April 23rd, 2026 meeting.

The purpose for the tabling request is to allow for uh technical revisions to be addressed from our first round of comments.

Uh the applicant is continuing uh to work with their design professional to address those uh staff related comments.

Uh this particular project, not unlike the one that is immediately to the South and Southeast, uh, will have in a corresponding development agreement in order to offset uh transportation improvement costs on East Richland Road.

Therefore, we are in favor of the tabling to allow for the technical corrections to be made and to allow for the per preparation of that uh corresponding development agreement.

And just to ensure for the public for the purposes of the public record, um, and as clarified by me earlier this week with another related project, um, we are actually not rezoning.

This is uh a major amendment.

This is planned development uh in 2017.

Uh or prior to 2017, this property was zone CP if I recall correctly, and had some PUD associated with it in the very northeast reaches of the highlighted area.

Uh that was all converted to P D in 2017.

And so we are in essence modifying this is a this is what we consider a major revision to the PD plan.

Uh there was no PD plan submitted on this project site, um, but it is not formally a rezoning since we are not rezoning out of the district that is presently in.

It is a major amendment to the PD.

It will have a site-specific statement of intent to cover the acreage that's here, and would have actually a formal development plan.

We will correct that as we move forward.

Um this is a technical issue, at least as it relates to how legislation needs to be prepared, uh, since we have made a conversion.

If we were rezoning from CP to P D, that'd be a little bit different because we have converted everything to PD now.

It was a little bit confusing as we were preparing legislation for a similar item that we were referring to it as a rezoning, when in fact we are not changing the underlying zoning.

We are changing the statement of intent and adopting a plan.

Um so as a result of that, this is uh this follows a slightly different procedure.

We will because there is no plan on it.

There is brand new land uses that are being proposed.

It does have to follow our current um PD district standards, unlike other projects that we may be just modifying or we may be adopting a PD plan on, which then would be if they are changing anything, they are subject to the former standards to which they were approved under.

This, however, is in essence uh uh required to be compliant with our 2017 PD standards and will be when it gets presented to you formally.

With that, that is all we have to offer.

And again, we are supportive of the tabling to allow the technical issues to be addressed.

Thank you, Mrs.

Anna.

Um any questions of staff?

Mr.

If I'm correct, it is our tradition to open it up for a public discussion on the tabling matter only.

That is correct.

This was an advertised public hearing item in this tabling request came in.

Um not incorrect, it came in after we had done it, did come in after we did advertising, but it was advertised as a request for tabling, but the public does have an opportunity to speak on the tabling only.

Okay.

Um in our tradition, I'm opening it up for public discussion on the tabling matter.

We won't be discussing the case itself, but on the tabling, uh know where don't go if anybody would like to speak on that matter.

Please come up to the podium.

Three minutes for individuals, six four organizations.

Going once, going twice.

Three times, closing the door.

Okay.

Any discussions my fellow commissioners on this matter.

I wouldn't attend a motion.

I would move to table um case number 91-2026.

Regarding the Northwest Corner of Rolling Hills and Richland Road.

Second.

I am sorry, can we can we get the date on there as well?

So it's gonna be table two date certain.

Can we re restate that that motion with the with April 23rd in the middle of the road?

Okay, I I move to uh uh table case number 91-2026 regarding the northwest quarter of Rolling Hills and Richland Road to the April 23rd, 2026 meeting of the Planning Zoning Commission.

Second.

We moved and properly seconded.

Uh Ms.

Sector, can you give us a vote?

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Commissioner Wilson.

Yes.

I vote is yes.

Commissioner Darr?

Yes.

Uh motion carries.

Forwarded to City Council.

Uh okay.

First public hearing uh case is case 932026.

Uh uh 2020 2020 Valley View V road, SRT conditional use permit.

Um requested by Russell Boyd, the agent on behalf of Jan and Laurie.

Uh Garrick, yeah.

I don't want to put you this last name.

Thank you.

Seeking approval to allow a 2002 Valley View Road to be used as a 210-night maximum six guest short-term rental pursuant to Section 29-3.3, Section V V and Section 29-6.4, Section M Part 2 of the Unified Development Code.

The 1.2 acre subject site is located at the terminus of Valley View Road, approximately 360 feet west of this intersection with North Valley View Road.

Can I have a staff report, please?

Yes, you may.

Thank you for the introduction there.

As mentioned, this is a short-term rental condition use permit request for 2002 Valley View Road.

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

We sent out early notification postcards on February 16th, followed by public hearing letters on March 2nd, 11 of those.

And then we ran an ad in the Tribune on D 3rd of March as well.

As mentioned, the site is located at the terminus of Valley View Road.

Valley View Road is a local residential street that permits on-street parking, though does not have sidewalks installed.

The surrounding properties have uh single family residence on them and they are zoned R1, just like the uh subject site.

This is not the primary residence.

It is a three-bedroom, two-bathroom dwelling with the six uh guests requested.

There must be three parking spaces on site.

There are currently two parking spaces on site.

So until one additional UDC compliant parking space is added, four guests are the maximum the property can support at this given time.

This property it was not previously offered as a short-term rental, nor are there additional short-term rentals within 300 feet.

Identified in the mailing list, there are four uh the four surrounding properties appear to be all owner-occupied.

The designated agent lives in Columbia.

He is the neighbor to the north-northwest of the subject site.

There are no violations on file when doing research into the property.

We received multiple responses to the short-term rental request, three phone calls, and four letters in opposition, citing concerns about uh increased traffic and safety as uh well.

Additionally, a protest petition was received with 16 out of 18 signatures uh on uh being submitted for the properties on Valley View Road and North Valley View Road.

The two signatures not included were the property owner and the designated agent.

Uh given staff's uh review of the condition use permit, it would support a technical uh it supports technical compliance for the uh STR application has provided to us.

The short-term regular short-term rental regulations would probably provide an oversight and means to address any uh adverse impacts that were would be imposed by uh short-term rental operation and approval would support uh broad policies, strategies, and actions of the comprehensive plan.

Staff's recommendation is to uh approve the short-term rental CUP subject to a maximum of four transient guests, a maximum of ten two hundred and ten nights of annual rental usage with the condition of six well with a condition allowing up to six guests subject to the installation of one additional UDC compliant on-site parking space.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for staff?

I would like to ask if any of my colleagues have any experts information relating to this case.

Or would like to uh exempt themselves from this case.

You can do so at this time.

I see no takers.

Um questions for staff.

I will open it up for public hearing.

Others who want to speak on this case come up.

If you are in a visual, you have three minutes.

If you're acting as an organization, you have six.

Don't be shy.

You get up here, state your name and your address for the record, please.

My name is Alan Marshall.

I live at 810 North Valley View Drive.

I'd like to know if you all have received my letter and read it.

I think a lot of my opposition is entailed in that letter.

Uh, this is a quaint neighborhood.

I grew up in this neighborhood.

It's a family neighborhood.

I have a child in my house.

Um there are children living right next door to this property, young children living next door to this property.

I think it would be a travesty, a real travesty.

This is a small neighborhood, two cul-de-sacks, not designed for in and out traffic.

I noticed on the next case number that you're talking about uh limiting the number of unrelated folks in a house to four.

Isn't that the next case?

And we're talking about six if they add a parking spot.

Six people that we don't know would be unrelated or not.

And so your next case down takes into account that this particular place might have six underrelated folks if they just add a parking spot.

And so uh just speak in opposition.

I think it would be a real travesty to allow people in and out that we don't know in our neighborhood.

Young children in the neighborhood.

Thank you very much.

Hold this one second, sir.

Let's see if there's any questions from the commission.

Anybody have any questions?

I have one question.

Yes.

Are you universally opposed to short-term rental or this particular short-term rent?

This particular location.

I think there's places.

If if this was rented out uh long-term rental, I would be fine with that.

But we're gonna have we could have six people.

We don't know uh in and out of that place all the time.

Parties young kids right next door.

They play in the cul-de-sac.

We don't we don't want people we we don't know in and out of that cul-de-sac in our neighborhood.

I mean, I I just think it would be a travesty.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, sir.

Appreciate your time.

Anyone else want to speak on this case?

Step up.

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

My name is Miranda Moore.

I live at 2012 Valley View Road.

Sorry.

Can you repeat that our record couldn't hear you?

Sorry, Miranda Moore, 2012 Valley View Road.

Thank you.

So I have was the one that collected the signatures and sent them in to Mr.

Ross Halligan and also Miss Betsy Peters.

And I just have a quick statement that I'd like to read on behalf of my neighbors that are not here and my neighborhood that is here.

So I'd like to start today with a quick reference on your vision statement.

And I quote, uh our vision, Columbia is the best place for everyone to live, work, learn, and play.

End quote.

From the statement, I would like to ask you to uphold your vision of a place where this is truly the best place to live, where our neighborhoods are preserved along with our public areas to allow those who live here to thrive to grow and to seek peace and solace when needed.

Today, a neighborhood is asking you to maintain just that a place we have created that tries to seek the same things you pledge in your vision statement.

We as a neighborhood strive uh to care for the safety of not only our homes and our environment surrounding us, but all that dwell within it.

We have families of all types and ages within our neighborhood, and each deserves the peace of mind that they have a say in what happens not only to their homes but around their loved ones.

We have aging neighbors that enjoy walking our streets for their health with their grandchildren, with their pets.

We have young families that have the comfort that they and their children can be in their personal space or that of the neighborhood and still feel safe.

We have many in between that that simply enjoy the comfort that someone around them is always keeping an eye on things in our small part of the world, and there is a relief in that, especially needed in a time with so much uncertainty.

This is a comfort that has been lost in many neighborhoods these days because we don't care to know who we live around.

This neighborhood does not live that way.

I myself am fairly new to the neighborhood still, having only lived there a few years, but I can attest to the peace of mind it gave me as my first few days just clearing up my yard at my new house, several of my neighbors came by to talk with me.

They welcomed me, asked me about myself, about my family, um, that would soon be joining their little community.

Just you don't have that nowadays.

Um for me, I know, and for many that live in my neighborhood, my home is a place where I can decompress, feel safe, and recharge.

I have a job that can sometimes weigh very heavily on me as I care for others.

Um but knowing I can come home, sit outside, watch the peace and quiet of the nature um around me truly helps in that.

Um so I ask you today, along with my neighbors who have signed a written statement of opposition, and those present with me today to please reject this application for this house in our neighborhood to be turned into a short term short-term rental facility.

The instability of such a business in a quiet neighborhood will only hurt those who have worked for in some cases generations to keep it as it currently stands.

If you truly stand with integrity and want to uphold your vision for this community, I ask that you do not approve this application for conditional use permit case number 93206 or 2026.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions for the speaker.

Dr.

Gray?

Hi, thank you so much.

Um I just wanted to follow up.

Uh you mentioned safety and peace of mind quite a bit.

And can you tell me just a little bit more about how uh approving this is a threat to your safety?

Um, so as Alan suggested, just having inconsistent persons in the house.

I live two houses down.

Um I also have a child in my home.

Um it concerns me because I do know people that have these type of rentals, and I too am not opposed to a longer term rental, but knowing that every other weekend or so there could be new faces, new people.

Um I know a neighbor has tried to contact the owners to just reach out to them, you know, as a neighbor to say, hey, you know, we we are concerned about this for our our kids and our well-being of our neighborhood and have been denied any access to them through their agent.

Um and that's also concerning.

You know, if there's a problem, who do we contact?

You know, what do we even do about it?

Um and as much as I know Airbnb and and different uh facilities try to put rules and things in place.

We all know in real time that that that's not gonna do much for us as far as something happening situationally in the moment.

Uming that I have neighbors that have very young children that live right next door.

Um being a mom myself, I would be very concerned of who's in and out.

I mean nowadays you have no idea, and just because somebody signs a contract for that house doesn't mean that that's the person that's you know gonna be responsible for other things happening around that house.

We have beautiful wildlife preserves behind us, you know.

Um we have trails behind us and things.

I'd hate to see that be a detriment to someone that's coming in, they're not gonna care for that home, they're not gonna care for us.

Um they're not gonna care for the space around them that we have cultivated.

Um, you know, as a close-knit area.

Again, like I said, neighborhoods like this don't exist.

Um, and we'd like to keep it this way.

Um, I know that my neighbors look out for me, I look out for them.

Um, you know, if there's somebody that's in our neighborhood that is not notified, well, we're all kind of on the lookout.

Um so yeah, the just the constant turnover of people and having no way to really manage that or what's you know going on or even having contact with um owners of this business would be thank you.

Um and I have a follow-up question.

Um other than having the contact information of the designated agent if this were to be approved, are there any uh other actionable steps that the owner or the agent could take to make sure that you feel safe?

And if you don't mind, could you mind speaking into the microphone because I feel like thank you?

I I don't know.

I mean, you can't stop that many people from coming in.

You have you know the ability for 210 nights of the year to have a different person in that space.

Um I know a lot of people have good intentions, but some people don't.

Um so there's no guarantee that they can say they're gonna know who's personally renting that, that they're going to take care of that space, that they're going to be a safe person.

Um I don't know anyone that would want different neighbors every other week of the year.

Um, I know we already have a lot of rentals in our town.

We already have a lot of influx of students in and out.

Um, you know, we have somehow managed to keep this little space our own and a safety net for our kids for our elderly population.

You know, we have some people that you know come in and out that walk around our neighborhood um that are not in the best of health, to be quite honest, and it concerns me that people would not be mindful of them, which we very much are.

Um we've are I've already seen a couple instances of someone new to the neighborhood um driving very quickly down our road, not being mindful of those around them.

So that in and of itself is just very concerning to me that there's really no way for you to say that this is going to be a safe situation at all times, which I know you can't guarantee in any situation, but um knowing that you're going to make it this type of turnover rental um is all the more concerning.

Got it.

Thank you.

Anybody else have a question?

I have one ma'am.

So in your testimony you had discussed reaching out to the owner.

Has has the owner made any contact with you being that you're how close are you to this property?

Has the owner or their agent reached out to try to get by in, let you know what they intend?

Any of that.

No.

I have only seen the owners at the property one time at I'm assuming the sale of the property.

It is so hard to hear you.

I'm sorry.

I I have only seen the the owners of the property one time.

So and I'm assuming that's when they purchased, so but I do know there is a neighbor also just next door to the property that has tried to reach out, and to my knowledge, has not heard anything.

So thank you, ma'am.

Any other questions?

Um just counting the number of houses uh in these two cold sacks.

I counted 18, I think.

Um and I added up the addresses on the petition that you circulated that folks signed, and then the individual letters that we had.

And it looked like it was unanimous.

Every property except for the one in question and the neighbor who is the agent.

Okay.

Thank you.

You have questions.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Any other speakers on this case?

We minister for individuals, six organizations, state your name and address clearly into the microphone.

Hello, I'm Bill Kalinkos.

I live at 2004 Valley View Road, which is immediately next door to the property that we're talking about today.

Um I share many of the concerns that have been raised already by my neighbors.

Um I also have a statement here from Noel Feldman, who is my neighbor across the street.

He is within the 185 feet of this property, and he is sick today.

And he asked me to read this.

Is that okay if I read the statement on his behalf?

My concerns about rezoning this property extend beyond the decreased safety, property values, and quality of life it would surely bring to our neighborhood.

I also believe it would expose a low loophole that the City of Columbia likely doesn't want exposed, one that allows local real estate investors to sidestep the city's short-term rental regulations and thin the supply of affordable housing.

As the regulations are currently written, there is a limit to the number of short-term rental properties one can own, but there is no limit to the number of rentals that one can manage.

In this case, local real estate broker Russell Boyd has partnered with an Iowa-based investor to purchase 2002 Valley View Road.

Russell is not the owner of the property, but he is managing every aspect of it.

As far as we know, the owners plan to spend little to no time residing in the home.

Since Russell refuses to provide us with their contact information, we can safely assume their primary reason for owning this home is passive income.

What is stopping Russell along with other local investors from following this blueprint and again and again taking affordable homes away from local families and turning them into investment opportunities for people who don't even live here?

Our neighborhood is overwhelmingly opposed to the rezoning of this property.

In addition to considering our quality of life concerns, please also consider the precedent you will set if you allow this loophole to be exploited.

Thank you for your time, Noel Feldman.

That's all I have.

Do you have any further comments on your own?

I do not questions.

I have one.

Yes.

Do you concur with the previous speaker about contacting?

Hey, we try to contact the owner, they try to contact you in relation to this case.

Yes, I don't have the owner's contact information.

I did have a talk with Russell, and he did not pass on their contact information to me when I asked for it.

So thank you.

Thanks.

The administer for individuals, six four organizations.

State your name and address clearly into the microphone so our recorder can hear it.

Maris Ashby, 2003 Valley View Road.

We are directly across from the residents in question.

I'm actually here to just follow up on a few questions that have been asked just as part of this community.

So, Commissioner Stanton, and I'm so sorry if I address you incorrectly, first time here.

Um, Commissioner Stanton, you asked a question very appropriately.

Do we have an issue with short-term rentals as a whole or this residence in question?

Um we have a covenant, right?

This is important to our community, and as we know it is not um is not meant to be taken lightly.

The first covenant of our residency of our community is that there would be no commercial business.

So to reiterate what our neighbor Noel just has stated, um, we do fear that these new owners would not only not reside, but it is meant to be a cash property.

We don't inherently have an issue with rentals.

Rentals have happened in our community before.

That part's welcomed.

But the issue actually lies with part of um the answer to a question that Commissioner Gray had asked, which is that what could help us feel a little bit more safe if this were to move forward.

The problem with short-term rentals is that there's no security measure in play on who would actually be renting that property.

Example, if this were to be managed or registered or rented out via something like Airbnb or Verbo, there are no protections for Bill's children who are right next door playing outside to prevent someone with ill intent to rent the property, even if it is a beautiful property.

Um there is no protection in place to prevent that.

If measures were taken that we could very well very well and truly feel confident and comfortable we're being upheld, I think that that could help some of the concerns.

Parking seems to be somewhat addressed, but it's also important to understand that our cul de sacs are of a smaller size, which means if there is ample parking, if there are visitors, which I'm sure you've noticed, we are close proximity to downtown and the stadium, meaning we are attractive, we will lure a lot of visitors.

It's probably why this is a really, really, really enticing business venture.

But the more traffic in that cul-de-sac, the less likely an ambulance turns around to help our elderly in the community effectively.

The less able we are able to have our own visitors here that we've sought so hard to protect.

I think that if we can put strong measures in place to ensure that the values of of our neighborhood are upheld, some of these could be quarreled, but without the ability to communicate with the owners without putting aside the conflict of interest that does exist.

I'm sorry, and respectfully, Russell, the conflict of interest being agent right next door.

It doesn't provide us a safe place to be able to share our concerns day of, right?

If a conflict comes up, where are we turning?

Russell is sitting next to the owners.

That doesn't put us in a position that allows us to state that we're having issues with visitors, that we're having issues with parking, that we have concerns about security.

If we can address those matters, I think that that would also be very helpful.

Oh I can see questions.

I have heard a couple of times that you have a person to connect with the designated agent.

You know who they are.

You know that their role is to address your concerns.

That is their role.

So I don't think that they are trying trying to thwart your efforts to get to the owner.

Their job is to address your concerns, and they're just wanting to address those concerns with you and with the neighbors.

Is that something that you were understanding?

I guess I'm trying to understand why do you want to go past them trying to do their job to get to the homeowner?

Thank you.

That's a good clarification.

That is not the ask.

It would not be to circumvent.

It is that the comfort and what we've already been met with has not helped us to resolve or even address the concerns that we have.

For that reason, we can only sit here wondering what our continued experience might be, right?

Will we not be able to raise our concerns in a way in which we have a solution?

Will they simply be taken and not actioned upon?

Um we've not had the ability to effectively present these to the owners.

I am not one of those individuals, so I want to make sure that that's clear.

I did not specifically seek time with the owners, and I was not rejected, but as we saw or as we heard residents here have felt that.

If we can ensure and we understand what happens if we are feeling unsafe or if we are feeling like our concerns aren't being felt, if we can address the ways in which we can move forward with propelling those concerns, I don't want to speak on behalf of my entire neighborhood, but I know that that would help with some of the concerns that I have that wonder of if our voice is not heard due to that conflict of interest.

Can I ask a follow-up?

Um my follow-up is the designated agent a neighbor?

He is.

So when we were drafting this, our concern in terms of time that it takes for someone to respond was if they did not live near and they needed to come from some place that was a certain amount of time away.

With this person being a neighbor, unless they are simply not home.

Response time should be instantaneous because they're right there.

I very much hope you're correct.

And I'm not suggesting otherwise.

I want to be very respectful to my neighbor and of course to the business that's in the room.

There's still a concern that that would be true.

Just to address Mr.

Walters, I'm sorry.

Okay, I just wanted to expand on this a bit between a concern versus a violation.

Like um and we'll have an opportunity to talk to, I assume Mr.

Boyd will speak here shortly, and we can ask him about his history of communication with the neighbors up to this point.

But uh the fact that he's present there, as Ms.

Wilson pointed out, is instantaneous response.

But if he's not home, that's not instantaneous, I get that.

But if there are issues that come up that you feel that he's not responding to, or the agent is not responding to, you can still contact the City of Columbia and register a complaint.

And if there's a violation, particularly like noise violation or parking violation or whatever, then or try or trash collection, anything that would that would you know adversely affect your your livelihood your your lives there, you can file a complaint.

And uh if if the city then, and I'm paraphrasing and my fellow commissioners can correct me, that if the city will then will then uh uh study the study of the complaint, review it and determine whether or not it's a valid complaint, and if it is, they can register it, can uh they could make a note on the applicant's uh rental uh SDR agreement.

And if they have two, two such complaints, then there is uh a method for which the license can be revoked.

So you have those, just to clarify, you a concern is one thing, and I'm not dismissing your concerns.

But if you feel like you're not and if you feel like you're not your concerns aren't being uh uh taken seriously, that's one thing.

But if there are absolute violations, that's really different and very serious.

And so you do have you do have options to pursue those for what it's worth, a little bit of perspective.

Thank you.

No, that that is very helpful.

And again, I I certainly don't want to assume that I am speaking for the masses here.

I am speaking to my own heart, the concerns that we have.

Um we are just very worried.

I'm sure that that's very evident, number one, by the population here and by the petition as well.

Um it's easy for us to think worst-case scenario.

Of course, if best case scenario happens, wonderful.

That absolutely wonderful.

But as I'm sure that you can recognize there are a lot of ways in which this could really impact us as residents, as families, as the community that we've built.

Um, and every even little notch, not necessarily a violation, hampers our ability to be our best selves, our truest selves, our most present selves in the in the neighborhood that we've built.

Um it is a little fear-based, but it's also statistically based.

And I'm sure you're all very well aware, but there are those statistics exist for a reason, right?

And more times than not, unfortunately, people are exposed to dangerous and scary things when it comes to these short-term rentals, and that is because the agencies, not agent, but agencies that are finding these guests, don't do in-depth research as to who we are inviting into those commun in into these residences.

Um it's just it's a very large concern, especially with you know the children that play on Bill and Megan's lawn every single day.

Um it's it is fear-based, but please also read and understand that it's not misguided.

Um it's very No, and I don't mean to imply that at all.

I'm just I'm just saying just pointing out in the case you weren't aware that there are options to to pursue in case you feel that the agent handling the property is not doing an adequate job or is uh ignoring obvious violations.

Deeply appreciated, and I think that that does help add some reassurance just to know that we don't have to have our hands thrown up if we do get truly concerned.

So we will absolutely use the appropriate avenues.

I do mean it.

We're here with respect, but um thank you.

I think that's all I have.

Any other questions from the commission?

I have a couple.

Oh, so one or more of a statement.

Uh this body, nor the nor the city gets involved in the local property covenants that you have in your neighborhood.

Doesn't mean they don't have teeth.

What that means is that your neighborhood needs to seek legal counsel and discuss that covenant with said owner.

We don't get in that fight that's your neighbor's neighborhood fight.

That's number one.

Um, the follow-up my colleague, yes, there are mechanisms in place.

I happen to have been here from the beginning of this process.

High flash now talking about it.

But there are things in place to have your voices heard, and to ensure that this business model is appropriate, run properly, and all that.

Your neighborhood army has the mechanism.

You already look out for each other.

That's good.

Continue to do so.

Have a new neighbor.

And just to file because I've asked everybody, you have reached out, or you haven't reached out to the agent or the owner and have got response or no response or haven't tried.

I have not tried.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else speak on this case?

Clearly in the microphone, so our recorder can hear you.

I am Frank Ray.

I live on the other circle at 806 North Valley View.

I have been there almost 50 years now.

And what I am concerned, what I don't understand is you can go into a single family zoned area and change it.

The planning and zoning does that.

Is that what we are doing?

Taking this single family residential area and rezoning one house.

I don't understand exactly what is happening here this way.

F you want to direct that question?

So, Mr.

Gray, what is being asked by Mr.

Boyd and the owners is to be to have a conditional use approved.

That does not change the underlying zoning of the land.

So it is still, it is still our one zoned land.

It is still a single family home.

That was how it was permitted.

But the conditional use, just by the nature of conditional, uh requires special permission.

And so we're adding a use on top of the single family.

We're not changing the zoning.

So if this does not get approved, the owners of the property can continue to use it as a single family home.

They could register it as a long-term rental and use it as an investment property in that means, but with a permanent, more permanent resident.

But the conditional use process has additional regulatory standards that get applied to it.

So if this were just a typical long-term rental, some of the same standards about you being able to report violations as the commercial activity of the short-term rental don't apply.

So what the Planning and Zoning Commission and our City Council are doing are they evaluating is this particular use and our staff evaluates is it does technically comply?

Does it have the parking?

Does it have the bedroom area?

And so we're reviewing it from that.

Our planning commission, and the reason for the questions that they are asking our audience is to gain an understanding of what is your concerns.

How does that relate to a set of criteria that they are using as not necessarily determinative criteria of approval or denial?

They are more informative.

And so the Commission has to weigh the impact that the use has.

And that is why we go through the conditional use process.

If the conditional use is not approved, the home still exists.

It's still a home.

What ends up happening?

The conditional use still stays, but it's not being used that way.

Single family home could be sold.

If it's sold, the conditional use doesn't go with it.

So a future owner of this property does not get any rights that may be conveyed by an approval of a CUP for a short-term rental.

They'd have to go back through this exact same process all over again.

And at that point, it is possible that the impacts into the neighborhood that there is concern may exist, may be established.

There may be more evidence to support that.

At this point, what the applicants are doing is actually what we hoped would end up happening by our citizens and our operators.

They would come and ask for permission first.

And by asking for permission first, this commission and our city council has the ability to engage with the residents that have concerns and the operator to understand how are they mitigating those express differences?

And that is why this is an important process, but it doesn't change any of the underlying zoning.

So it's not a rezoning at all.

Well, yeah, that just was not clear to me how that worked.

Not at all.

And and uh being a long-term resident.

Could you have to talk to microphone?

Being a long-term resident, I just, you know, uh, it just seems counter to our neighborhood.

It's been that way.

I watched Alan grow up as my neighbor, you know, good friends with his dad.

It just seems uh and it's at the back of the cul de sac.

If it were like on the corner on Old 63, it might be a little different.

That house is already busy, everything's busy there, there's a sidewalk there.

Here there are no sidewalks.

There's no, you know, there's some trails, things like that.

So it's it just seems quite it just seems kind of oddly placed to me.

But I think the commission can not can you know, not along with our community.

I think that that's relevant information that you've just shared with us for the commission to take into consideration.

Okay, okay.

Well, thank you much.

Question second, please.

I was well, uh Mr.

Zinner took my thunder, but I was going to say what you just said is like very relevant data for us to consider, and that's exactly what I'm looking for when community members are coming to speak to this commission.

What about this unique property makes it not suitable for a short-term rental?

And what you just gave us, I think is information that will help inform our decision.

The earlier information for me personally wasn't very moving, but the information you just gave for me moves me in a direction.

Okay, hopefully.

So thank you.

Good, good.

I'm glad.

Any other questions for the speaker?

That's how I'm asked the generic question.

Have you tried to reach out to the agent or their owners and had you had any success or not?

I I have seen the neighbor, I wave to him every once in a while.

That's he's uh uh not to not to be snotty or anything, doesn't seem very friendly to me.

Hey, sir.

Kind of I kind of sometimes they get a wave.

That's it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Good evening, everyone.

Um I am Stephen Ashby.

I live at 2003 Valley View Road across the cold stack from the uh the uh residents in question.

So to provide some more information, um no, we do not have any uh sidewalks on this street.

There is also only one um street lamp for this cold sack.

It's kind of dark.

Um don't know how that pleased into it.

Um I think there's only three street lamps total for this entire street.

So um personally I like it to start, but that might not be very conducive to short-term rentals, lots of people in and out.

Um hope hope that helps.

Um, my my opinions, I think um, at least for me, what we're all trying to do is we're trying to stop that worst case scenario from even happening.

Um a long-term rental might be a better option if that would be if that were to happen, something where um you know, vetting of who's gonna be residing there would happen.

Uh if if it's like Airbnb or Verbo, there's no vetting, there's no background checks, um, anything can happen.

And it takes only once.

Um, you know, if it were the case, if if it were the worst case scenario.

A I don't even know what exactly that would be.

Bodily human harm, something very bad.

Um lodging a complaint with the city council isn't gonna do much good in the moment.

So hopefully um, hopefully we can just stop this from getting to that point or even having the opportunity uh and we can you know implore them to look at other options, especially if they're not even Columbia residents, somebody out of state trying to you know make money off a property.

Not not sure if that's the case or not, but here we are.

Any questions for the speaker?

I'm gonna still hear a question.

What had you had the opportunity to reach out to the homeowner?

And by the way, I know it's old school, but letters are effective still, the mail with a stamp.

Um, we may not be able to actually speak to them, but I'm just asking if some of these suggestions were even made through the agent that you know maybe we would rather see a long-term rental.

Any kind of contact with the agent to share what you're sharing on the record this evening.

No, I have not personally reached out, but I have also not been reached out to by the agent.

And I think that's that's something that's getting left unsaid.

It's not.

We have to wait for them to come up for us to say.

I mean, I mean on this side.

Like we haven't they haven't reached out to talk to us to see how we feel about it.

Granted, a lot of us haven't reached out to them either.

So understood, but yeah, hasn't gone the other way either.

So thank you.

Any other questions for the speaker?

Mr.

Wilson just stole my whole thunder, rain, and everything.

Uh any other speakers on this case.

Six minutes for organizations, defend individuals.

I'm assuming you're representing the owners, yes.

I'm Russell Boyd, the agent, neighbor, and not to be confused, real estate agent that did help them buy that, but also the agent and property.

So I've got a statement I wanted to read, but I address uh 2000 Valley View Road.

Um real quick to address the uh the big elephant in the room.

On uh March 3rd, Bill and um and I communicated via text.

He reached out and said, Hey, I had some questions for the owners.

Could I get their number?

And uh and I said, um has had a medical emergency, and he is been in the hospital for a few days recovering.

I am gonna be taking care of the day-to-day management.

Um I'm next door.

If you have any questions or concerns, I'd love to help out.

So the next day, Bill and I met, I don't know, about 20 minutes at his house.

We we spoke.

Um and I understood its concerns, and and quite frankly, I personally would have some of those as well.

So I tried to alleviate those as best as possible.

Um on March 8th, uh Megan, I think she spoke here earlier too.

She reached out via text and asked if she could get the neighbors or John and and Laurie's number, said the same response that he's recovering, um, but I am the local contact, I'm next door, I'll be managing this doing the day-to-day and overseeing all aspects.

Please feel free to ask, how can I alleviate your questions and concerns?

And I got no response from that.

Um I was quite surprised, a little bit turbed, uh, but it's okay.

I completely understand the neighborhood's concerns.

Um when the petition was filed, and I saw everyone's um signature on there, I did not know that there was the questions or concerns.

I would have loved to have been at this meeting to address and answered questions.

Also had the ability to sign it or presented it to my wife.

So that being said, um I'm available, and I would love to answer those questions and answer all of these issues that have come up.

So I'm gonna read the statement really quick, try to make this uh very brief.

Um so this home was purchased by John and Laurie in September of 2025, after more than 120 days on the market.

The home was purchased for 450,000 and has been continuously remodeled and approved for both personal and future rental potential.

Um I think some of the neighbors have met John and Laurie while they've been there, they've introduced themselves.

So relatively speaking, this home does not fall within the boundaries of what we considered affordable housing, as all the homes in the neighborhood um are of equal or higher value.

And we understand, I understand this is a consideration of the P and Z kind of an unwritten uh uh rule for consideration.

John and Laurie are deeply rooted in the community.

John stayed at the home and recently enjoyed his 50th Rockbridge High School reunion.

That was the weekend after my 30th Rockbridge reunion this last fall.

Both John and Laurie are also uh Mizzou alumni, and they are season ticket holders to sporting events.

So I don't know if it matters, whether that's volleyball, wrestling, football.

I don't know if there's any sway.

Um they are very, very um embedded in the community and have been for their entire lives.

They purchased this home for personal enjoyment for their frequent visits back.

Secondly, behind that, it was an investment.

So while they're not enjoying the home, they've tasked me with finding a property in a very specific price range of neighborhood and a location with the desirability for only higher-end Airbnb.

Now, this will be starting out with an average nightly rate of four to five hundred a night during the week, higher for weekends with two-night minimums.

The rates will have a strong impact on the type of guests of those who will be staying in the home.

The driveway currently has two recognized parking spaces.

We're going to be adding a third in the very new near future.

And the home does have a carport and a driveway that's over 68 feet long.

It will have the potential for the real parking of four spaces, even though we can only count three for the use of this application.

We're trying to ensure there will be no on-street parking.

It will be all off-street.

So I'm not on the property manager next door.

I'm going to handle all the day-to-day scheduling maintenance, as well as being the contact for guests and/or the neighbors.

I live right next door.

I've got 20 years' experience as a real estate broker, worst job in the world sometimes, a property manager, a contractor, and my response time will be swift and immediate with an iron fist.

Personally speaking, I live next door and do not want any of the same things that the neighbors have concerns with.

And it will be my job to ensure that for me first for property values, and second, because I represent them as their investment.

It's a win-win for us both in that scenario.

No leniency will be tolerated for off-street parking, excessive noise of any type, or anything that would impede the quiet enjoyability of the neighbors or the neighborhood.

All guests are going to be required to have a verified government ID prior to booking.

That is through the system that they will be booking with Airbnb, VRBO, or if we're doing longer-term, not long-term rentals, but 30 days to nurses.

So they will have updated or uploaded an ID so that they have halfway been vetted.

I'm not necessarily doing a pr a background check, but they will not have had prior complaints on those booking platforms, and it makes it much easier to ensure insurability.

The home has multiple exterior cameras that will allow for 24-7 oversight and proactive enforcement.

If I'm not there and there's a guest there, I'll be able to check and ensure that they're complying.

Again, I will rule with an iron fist.

So we are close, it's very close proximity to this absolutely great location close to downtown.

That's why I purchased a home there and have been remodeling it for three years.

So the quiet enjoyment is the golden rule for all guests, and I am entirely confident that I'll be able to enforce that.

So no large gatherings of any type, no uh yeah, no aborigine bonfires in the front yard, no loud parties, because all of these things can be uh reported for violations, overcrowding.

Um we do not want six individual guests there.

So I'll be quite um selective on the people that can stay there.

Families, gatherings of families, uh not six individuals.

If there's a sorority reunion, they're unless they're celebrating their 50th reunion, they're not gonna be allowed to stay there.

So that's all I've got.

Questions for the speaker.

Wilson.

Oh, yes, this is the moment.

Um I have a few questions and some notes.

I want to make a note on the record of really it's just for the people in the room, that short-term rentals are less than one percent of the housing stock in Columbia.

So the concern that we are going crazy with short-term rentals, they're less than one percent of the housing stock.

Number two.

Um I hope that it's not lost on you that the reason that they failed to contact you back, as you have heard this evening because is because they felt that there was a conflict of interest.

So they didn't think that they would be able to get what they needed through you specifically.

That's what I'm hearing.

I hope that's what you heard.

Number three.

And this is the one.

Um, so with this, because it's not meant to really feel like a hotel operating in a neighborhood.

It's really meant to feel like another neighbor, right?

So like a good neighbor, even though you're not Jake, the expectation is that you would have been preemptive and taken the initiative to share all of the great things that you've shared with us on the record this evening with your neighbors and given them the opportunity to give you some feedback prior to a moment like this.

That would have given us all some comfortability, and it would have given them some comfort.

Now they may have still came out with the pitchforks, but it would have given them some comfortability.

Do you understand that?

Oh, I absolutely do.

Hindsight's 2020.

I didn't have a question.

I just had a whole diatribe.

And I honestly try to communicate that in my text with with both Bill and I'm saying, please, any questions, concerns, I would love to meet, discuss, and alleviate those.

And I communicated that on both of those instances.

I I honestly didn't know there was that much feedback or that much pushback from it.

So I mean, I mean, I think for you, because you live there, right?

So if someone else were to come in and want the same thing, you probably have similar questions.

And you knew your plan.

Absolutely.

Which is a great plan.

I think your plan is amazing.

They didn't know your plan.

And so now they know your plan, and now they know you.

And they you guys can like get together and talk and all kinds of stuff, you know.

It would be great.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um You said that you're uh you know neighbor, you live next door to the next one.

Directly next door, yes.

Uh how long have you lived there?

I think May will be three years.

Okay.

And do you own this property as well?

My wife and I do.

Uh we plan on being there a long time.

It's a very special, we love that neighborhood.

I grew up in Columbia, so I was we had a bidding war on day one.

Okay.

Um and just curious, what is your wife's name?

Amber.

Okay, cool.

Thank you so much.

Um I just want to make sure that uh there is a differentiation between midterm rental and like long-term midterm, short-term.

Yes.

So it just it goes less than 30, 30 days is short term.

And then we would consider it verbal just to say midterm would be 30 to 45 days, and then long term would be a 12 months at a time.

So yes.

So when they're not staying there enjoying the home, the I mean, John did have a medical emergency, couldn't enjoy watching Missoula lose, he would have been there.

Um the goal will be in between when they're not there using the home.

Um, and uh they're both in the medical field and um have connections that we anticipate we might have those traveling nurses stay there a lot.

And so um again, they've invested a great deal of money.

It's my job to one, help protect it and then um be a good steward of it when they're not staying there.

So it's already dressed up in the inside is quite personal.

It's it's covered with Mazoo.

Um there's one picture with the Jayhawk on it, but we'll see how long that lasts.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the speaker?

I have a couple, sir.

Your presentation was fabulous.

You are technically eligible for this business.

But this is why we're here.

It is a conditional use.

So technically, you're sound.

But this is the soft stuff that matters in the conditional use thing.

It's the interaction with the community.

So a successful, the most successful applicants for short-term rental, have a symbiotic relationship with the neighborhood.

Like they the neighbors and you exist as one, like you were like there.

Like all this information that you just dropped on us right now was beautiful.

Somewhere that didn't get to your neighbors to the point.

And if you're from Columbia, you know that Columbia is full of very smart people with a lot of time and are very activists.

If you're from Colombia, you knew that.

Oh.

So even though you're technically sound, you have my to win my vote.

Tell me how you're going to address these things.

And you're already, you're in strike too, because the communication with the neighbors wasn't there.

I mean, commun and I'm not talking email.

I mean, should I mean it should as a successful candidates, successful, our most starling candidates, commission to pull me back from line.

Commission to pull me back from line.

Have reached out and touched the neighbors, at least the immediate ones, have had a discussion up or down, if they agree with the with it or not, they know.

They they they know before they get in here how the neighborhood feels about the situation.

And I think you addressed all their fears in your presentation.

They should have had that same presentation.

I think we would have been in a different ballpark, and our mindset up here would have been different if we knew that you did your due diligence to get with the neighbors and get their thoughts, buy-in or blessing or curse before you got in there.

If I could turn the clock back, I absolutely do that.

And I communicated majority of that, I think 90 or 95 percent of that with Bill when we first met.

But you know, we're with this Columbia.

This is the Midwest.

We do handshakes, we look people in the eye.

This is this is this is the success.

We're still we're still early in our short-term rental life in Columbia.

We're trying to learn from the good things that other cities have done and the bad things that other cities have done.

And for this to be successful here and for you to have future successes as an agent of other STRs, if that's what you do, or other people want STRs, is the communication in the it has to have communication in a residential neighborhood.

It that communication is paramount.

It just is.

You see what I'm saying?

So the success of the ones that we approve is detrimental, is is important for the success of this program long term.

I mean hindsight is absolutely 2020, and I wish that some of the messaging that I'd passed along would have been shared.

I think maybe there was just miscommunication that I was not withholding.

I was trying to, I would love to answer this question.

So I'm let me get to another question.

So I my my fellow colleagues who won't have to beat me with a stick.

Okay.

It seems like there's a gap in communication.

If you are going to be the face of this property, you're the corporate veil of the of the owners, right?

Which we love to talk to the owners, as you see, people are trying to get to the owner to hear their thoughts.

If you're gonna be that person, how are you gonna be different from what you have proven already?

At this point, from our perspective, put yourself where I'm sitting.

You have not communicated clearly or openly, or even presented yourself as an open book as it relates to this property.

How are you gonna convince me that you're gonna be any different than that if I give you this license?

Or you get my vote.

How you're not gonna make me look like a I think at this point having kind of let the cat out of the bag and expressed all of those things, and I hope I don't come across as uh uh a-hole that I'm approachable, otherwise I'm in a the wrong business, but my my numbers available and I I would love to uh uh address any issues and concerns before they even come up again.

I will be ruling with an iron fist, watching that place like a hawk.

So there's not a concern which will have to be addressed by a neighbor because I will have seen it and taken care of it before it even happens.

So I hope that I come across as wanting to be a great number neighbor.

I would love to have the neighbors unanimous support, not unanimous rejection of it.

Um absolutely.

So you're gonna how are you gonna fix that?

If you get sure there's never a complaint that can ever be followed.

I don't want to make a bad decision, and I say good.

How to be a good neighbor?

You're keeping the same bad communication.

How are you going?

What's what would you prefer?

What would be tell me what you're gonna do, baby?

The perfect answer for you.

You're winning my vote.

Win my vote based on my concerns with communication and I I'm I'm convinced you'll run a good business, but how are you gonna convey that to the neighbors?

I would like to communicate.

I promise to be the best steward of the neighborhood to ensure the protection.

I have a stepson that lives in the house.

I have a daughter that graduated Hickman.

I love this community, and I don't want anything negative to ever happen there.

I'm also on the CID of downtown.

I apologize.

I've been quite busy here with all the communities that I've served on.

I'm on two a week.

And so I I have not had the chance to go door to door because quite frankly, I hate the cold.

It warmed up today, but it was cold spells.

So short of going door to door when people are on different schedules, I I wish I had the time to do that.

I would love to be able to communicate and talk.

I waved all my neighbors.

I see Frank half the time.

Sorry, Frank, you think I'm mean.

But I set back he's uh he walks the loop and it goes away.

So usually um because my when we remodeled our house, I put a large eight-foot glass wall.

So Frank can see me every morning in my kitchen having tea, and I wave.

Most times when I see him.

So I I don't cross paths, but I try to be personable and wave and be interactive.

And it's you're conducting business, he's not.

You it's your if I want to sell my wares to you, it's my job to present my wares and to make that I do concrete.

So I understand the cold and all that.

I'm up at four or five o'clock a morning.

I mean, so you know, business is business, and we do what we got to do to have a successful business.

So I want to be as available 24-7, uh 365 days a year to answer questions and actually address them before they were even an issue or a question that came up and just be available all the time.

So I'm not sure how to phrase that differently.

Um I would love to have everybody's support.

So what I would do is be nice and and hopefully gain their trust and and we don't have any issues, and this is a non-issue if if we get approved.

So you have the questions for the speaker.

So you said short of going door to door, I don't know what to do, but I think going door to door would be a good start.

I would love for you to make that requirement on the application process.

I would love to see any and every scenario.

But um I I I don't know in what um way that is it required?

I I I don't know.

I've had haven't got to this part before.

Is it required to have the unanimous support of the neighborhood?

No.

No.

I mean, so if I had spoken to a few neighbors of the immediate neighbors around there and kind of assumed it I uh it was my fault for assuming it wouldn't be a a big issue, or it was my fault for assuming maybe somebody would stop or reach out or um I mean I'd love it for it from if you had waved and said, hey, I got some questions about that, I would have been glad to meet or ask.

So I I met with Bill in person.

I would have loved to have met everyone at that petition if had I known it existed and that meeting was taking place, I would have been there in a heartbeat.

But uh hindsight's 2020, so but if there's a requirement that that that would help for future people applying, I I would say absolutely put that on there that you have to have a petition signed of of you've met the neighbors.

It's not a requirement, but like I said, successful, successful applications do their due diligence to be good neighbors.

That's it's not a requirement.

I'm telling you what's successful, what gets an A, what gets?

I mean, I uh it was my fault for assuming because I'd lived there for three years, almost three years, and have been part of the neighborhood and and improving the house and always out doing different projects and I just kind of assume uh it was my fault for assuming that maybe I was more approachable than I apparently am.

Okay, first of all, let's all take a deep breath.

I feel like we're just we're we're going at it m not really, but I'm also like a little bit anxious right now.

But taking a deep breath, did you fill out the paperwork or did the ownership?

Okay.

So there is a question on the supplemental conditional accessory what is it called?

The application, yes.

Uh, have you told the neighbors and I that I checked after a conversation with John and Laurie, they had met so they how many guys met that bill next to the neighbors next door.

So yeah.

Okay, cool.

Um I'm not coming at you.

I'm just saying so this is part of the criteria of things that we can look at for a short-term rental application.

But it's not like do or die, like, oh, you don't have neighbor support.

So any one of us can say neighbor support doesn't matter, or it does matter.

You know, it's subjective, and that's the point of having this commission, right?

And then our decision is not the final decision, right?

This will go to city council.

So even if we in a hypothetical situation where we all say no, that doesn't mean it's a no.

It'll go to city council.

So there's still that time for repair and trust building with your neighbors.

Um even if we're all a no.

Like there's still that time.

And I think that what Anthony, what commissioner Stanton is trying to get across is that part of being a good neighbor is building trust.

And as you know, I'm sure if you're doing like CID stuff, you know the importance of being a politician sometimes and uh shaking hands and kissing babies.

And I think it it in a respectful way, um like maybe I'm thinking that's what Commissioner Stanton is trying to suggest.

Um just repair repairing those relationships.

However, um that is just one criteria.

For me, it's not the major like well, for me, it's not like the major thing that's going to decide this case.

I think you presented really well.

Um I am a Jayhawk, so I don't know why we're getting so much Jayhawk eight tonight.

I'm sorry, but Jayhawks can be very committed to this community and serve on boards and commissions.

So I just want to put that out there.

I didn't talk about it.

But um I think ultimately, well, now I'm getting into my own comments, but um I just wanted to clear that up with you because I feel like there was like I don't know.

Okay.

Thank you.

I I understand this process will evolve, and if after every hearing, there's notes and tidbits that make an improvement.

Um I would just imagine that 99% of the application processes kind of have neighbors that stand in opposition.

So it's I I just kind of assumed just that would have been a small thing out there, but I also assumed wrongly that I might have been approached or that I was more available than uh apparently I was just to clarify, do you or the owner um have any other short-term rental properties in town?

I don't own any other short-term property.

No, they don't have any other short-term rentals.

They do own other family property, but no, it's not they're not short-term rentals, and they have no intention of not even a possibility to be a short-term.

Okay, okay.

So I mean, going back to I think one of the the letters in opposition was that it's in an LLC.

Uh we Pat put that on me.

I think I had about one day literally, we had it in their individual names, but as a short-term rental, as getting a business license for liability and tax purposes, we filed and put that in to the LLC.

I think he was on vacation on a Friday, so he let me sneak in in to make this meeting's quota.

So that's why it's an LSE.

It wasn't to hide and it wasn't a it's not an evil corporation trying to make money.

They're just trying to protect their investment and have some rental income while they're not there.

And to clarify the weight of uh the community input, as you heard from Mr.

Wilson's questioning, we are we are seasoned enough to differentiate between a fear and a legitimate quantified problem.

We're seasoned enough to do that.

So I'm trying to I'm trying to give you some help to Was there a legitimate fear that you saw pop?

I don't know.

Was there like a concern of like uh probably reflected in my vote?

Um I mean I hope we addressed them with the the policies and procedures that we'll put in place on who's allowed to stay there.

I mean, there's can't do a full background check, but it's gonna come pretty close.

Technically you were sound and I think your presentation was great.

But it takes more than that.

Really?

Okay.

I I would love the this uh see the process if if there's an issue, uh if there is a a way of uh having an extended checklist of these are the things that you must achieve.

Um because I would have worked on those diligently to have that done in advance.

I think our application does it.

Any other questions?

Mr.

Walton.

Can we move on?

Yeah.

If you all have any other questions, and I'm if I'm done.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Good evening.

I'm Laurie Gurkey, one of the illustrious unknown owners.

I'd like to introduce my husband, Dr.

John Gurkey.

I will take responsibility.

Address, ma'am.

Sorry.

I'm sorry.

I would like to take responsibility.

Address for this.

Oh, oh, oh, well, 2002 Valley View.

We own that.

We live at 1604 South Park in Oscaloosa, Iowa.

We are from Columbia.

There is a really good chance that this will not be a short-term rental in a few years when we live there full time.

But I will take full responsibility for the fact that we were off the grid for the last couple of weeks because two weeks ago, we were still in the hospital at the University of Iowa.

And we no, well, we weren't.

And I had asked Russell, I said, we kind of got to go off the grid.

We can't have a whole bunch of calls.

And we didn't really realize everything that was going on with the neighbors.

I can solve this problem.

We will give the neighbors our phone number and our contact information.

But when they call, the first question we will say is, have you talked to Russell?

If they say, hey, you rented, somebody's parking in the street, and it's a problem.

Have you talked to Russell?

If the answer is no, I'll direct them back to Russell because he is the on-site manager.

That's the only reason that we're involved in a short-term rental.

There is no way we would try to manage it for Moscow Loose, Iowa.

It's a place that when we want to come to Columbia, where he was born, where three of our kids were born, and we want to go to a basketball game, we want to go to a swim meet, or yard was on the swim team at the University of Missouri.

We want to come down, we've got a place to stay.

We can bring our dog, and it's not a problem.

So I would say as far as alleviating this problem, it's not an issue.

We will give our information to the neighbors.

We're not hard to get hold of.

And I would also say I'm the mother of six children.

I raised my kids on a cul-de-sac.

I understand neighbors and neighborhoods.

I get it.

We didn't buy a place with the thought that we would bring in a bunch of rat boys to party.

It's one of the reasons that we purchased the house that we bought because it's special.

But I also can't assure that there's not going to be somebody on that walking path behind that might be dangerous.

I don't know.

Never know what's safe.

You can't control what's outside of what you have.

I can live in Oscaloosa, Iowa, which is a small town.

I don't know who's going to move in next door.

I don't know.

I can't control it.

But I can tell you as the owners of Alley View.

We have no intention of that property being torn up.

We have put a great amount of money into it.

We have no intention of any tolerance of any of that.

So I would take your questions.

Any questions for the speaker?

Ma'am.

Commissioner Wilson?

I think you're sensing a theme here.

So thank you.

Appreciate it.

And I appreciate your willingness to share your information with the neighbors, talk with the neighbors.

They want to be heard.

That is the same thing.

And we want to listen to what they want.

We want to be heard too.

You know, we want to know something going on.

We want to know.

And everything that you have shared.

We appreciate it because it brings a full picture.

Yes.

You've made an investment.

It is a home that you care for.

It is an it is a city and a town and a neighborhood that you care for.

You don't want somebody there tearing up your property.

You don't want somebody, right?

So all of that brings a full picture.

It brings a full picture for us as a commission.

It brings a full picture for your neighbors as well.

So thank you.

I appreciate you sharing.

I appreciate that.

Any other questions for me?

I think the gray haired man's coming.

Thank you.

My name is John Gherky.

I'm 1604 South Park in Oscaloosa, Iowa.

I'd like to thank the Commission for letting us talk to you and our story.

I grew up in Columbia, was born at Boone Hospital Center, went to high school, went to college here, like Lawrence.

My wife was the trauma coordinator at the University of Missouri between 1990 and 1996.

She's seen plenty of things, plenty of traumas.

I was a resident at the University of Missouri and Orthopedics and subsequently wasn't attending there.

Now I'm in a small critical access hospital in Southeast Iowa.

I uh enjoy my work there, but I'm 70 or close to 70 now and uh always wanted to come back to Columbia.

This was an opportunity to do that.

And so this gives us the opportunity to come down and participate in sports, visit friends and so forth.

Uh it's a big investment for us.

This is not a small thing at this point.

Uh and uh when I see I have to say that when I see patients, and I'm gonna operate on somebody, I give them my phone number.

And I will give every neighbor my phone number tomorrow or tonight.

Uh write it down for every one of them.

I am always available to my patients, and I'm always available to my neighbors.

This cul de sac hopefully will become wonderful neighbors, and we can be wonderful neighbors for them.

So I I don't know what else to tell you.

Is there any questions I can answer for you guys?

Thanks so truly appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you.

Once, gone twice.

Three times.

Close in public hearing.

Comments from Commission.

Oh, I do.

I think it's worth on the uh the letter that uh Mr.

Kalinko's written.

You have an old filmman and a couple other people talked about.

It's being unusual for out-of-town people to own rental property.

That's I don't think that's an accurate way of looking at, nor do I think this is a loophole.

I think that this commission, prior to me being on it, put a lot of time into getting this uh ordinance in effect.

And uh accountable.

So I just want to uh think it's also it's not unusual for uh someone like Mr.

Boyd to manage more than one property.

Um it's what it is his line of work.

So it's not unusual for someone he can manage five or six different SDRs as long as you're not owned by the same party.

So anyway, um that may be redundant and unnecessary, but um a couple of people mentioned that in his letter brought it up.

So I think it's worth mentioning that um these things are not loopholes and they're not they're not really that unusual.

Mr.

Walters, thank you for that information.

I think it's very important to be kind of clear the air.

I'll see.

Any other comments.

Um this case has some similarities to the case that we had on the north side of Stevens Lake Park.

Uh say Dead End Street, Cold-de-Sec, no sidewalks, a lot of neighborhood opposition.

Um so my my initial inclination coming in here tonight was um uh leaning towards uh towards a no vote.

Uh but I I think the difference maker for me is the fact that the registered agent is right next door and is a homeowner in the same neighborhood.

Um I I hear the neighbors' concerns.

Um I did want to make one one clarification um uh about the neighborhood opposition.

It's not so much or at least the way the code is written.

It's not so much the validity or um uh veracity of those fears or concerns, but just neighborhood opposition or you know.

Um so uh for me, like I said, I was I was kind of leaning towards a no vote.

I try to be consistent with my votes.

It beared a lot of resemblance to that case uh at Stevens Lake.

Uh but uh the difference maker for me is gonna be that the registered agent is uh Gray?

I'm sorry, uh Commissioner Brodsky, could you clarify?

You said it is not the it's not the validity or like the quality of the neighborhood opposition.

Did I mishear you?

The the way it's written, I was just trying to look it up again.

It's whether or not there's neighborhood support or neighborhood opposition.

It's not so much if you think that that opposition is I mean I I get we it's all subjective, so we all have to make our determination on that.

But it's it's the way it's written in the code, it's just support or lack of support.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Oh.

Um yeah.

I I feel very sorry, I went to the restroom.

I feel so I might be repeating things.

I feel very torn on this.

I do.

Um I feel like the neighbor I love a petition.

And the fact that it was unanimous, um, I think really speaks volumes, and I'm also thinking.

What is City Council going to do?

Because when they see a petition, they like to vote no.

Um just speaking plainly.

But then these homeowners are so responsible and so kind.

It's it's hard.

It's kind of one of those things where I think if they would have gone first, a lot of the problems that the neighbors had would have been alleviated.

Um regardless of how we vote, this will go to city council, and I would just recommend speaking first.

Um because I think you all did a great job of alleviating some of the questions and the problems that your neighbors had.

Um I feel torn on this.

I think there is problems with the infrastructure.

Um the applicant did say he lives right there.

He can look.

I don't know.

I'm torn.

Sorry, I'm just asking follow-up questions of people's comments now.

Uh you said you're torn because of the infrastructure.

Can you say what you mean by that?

Yeah, well uh no sidewalks.

And then if people do use street parking and there's kids, first of all.

I'm pro-sidewalk, right?

Um there's children in the neighborhood that are using the Cultus Act as like a play space.

Um and I think streets should have children and people in them.

Um and I think that with no adequate sidewalks for kids to hang out on or travel on and older people.

I also live very close to this.

Um so I I'm very familiar.

Um I think oh my God.

Let me go back.

Okay.

So I think I think that because there's not sidewalks.

Um people are being forced into the street regardless, um, if they're playing or what whatever they're doing just to get around.

Um and I think that with increased traffic and um more vehicles, more people in the neighborhood, even if they're not parking on the street, I think that for me, um, it would be an infrastructure issue.

Any other commissioners?

Commissioner Gray.

Dr.

Gray.

I will actually say my comments.

Um I'm I'm not really torn on this.

Um I had some questions and some curiosities, but for the most part, those have been answered.

In terms of I love looking at the criteria because it's the thing that we apply evenly across all the cases.

Does it align with the comprehensive plan?

Is there adequate access?

Yes, is um there sufficient infrastructure minus the sidewalks?

Yes.

Um and uh significant adverse impact.

I understand, and also along with uh the neighborhood uh support or opposition.

I understand um that when we talk about uh the opposition or the support, the fear of the unknown and the uncertainty.

And when you invest in a property, you uh want to believe that you are investing in a particular amount of certainty.

Again, as a person that lives next to uh two Airbnbs, and again, villain origin story for being on this commission, uh I have a really difficult time subscribing to uh the anticipated fears versus the uh most probable reality.

Um I think that you know uh when we look at why we are passing or hoping to pass an amendment, it is to get as many people under this regulation as possible.

It seems like we are anticipating doing that regulating by denying them if we uh have any kind of concern.

So by my logic and my discernment, based on the criteria before me, I plan on supporting this.

Um I agree with everything said.

I think my position is I want everyone that we approve to be successful so the program will continue to be successful.

I don't want uh I don't want bad apples because one bad apple will hurt four years of work on this thing.

I want this thing to be successful.

So my filter is I want whatever I approve to be successful, I want to be a win.

I want to be a beacon of success.

So everything was sound.

Presentations are sound.

I I'm just gonna say this and I'll I'm gonna hold what I'm gonna do, but how do you have a commission if you lived in the neighborhood and a whole commission, a whole neighborhood has a petition sign you don't know?

How do you not know how the neighbors feel if you live next door to the property and 18 neighbors around you you don't know how they feel?

That's all I'm just gonna say.

I make the motion and just to inform the audience, all motions are made in the affirmative.

I uh uh in in regarding case number 93-2026 22 2002 Valley View Road SDR conditional use permit.

I move to approve this recommendation based on the following bullet points, I guess.

Approve the requested STR or C UP, subject to maximum occupancy of four transient guests, maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage, maximum maximum of tr six transient guests, subject to the installation of one additional UDC compliant on-site parking space.

Second.

Roll call, sir.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

No.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Stockton.

No.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Commissioner Wilson.

Yes.

My vote is yes.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

The motion carries 7 to 2.

6.

6 to 6 to 2, sorry.

Move on the case.

101-2026.

Family definition revisions, UDC text change.

The City of Columbia proposed revisions to Chapter 29 of the City Code Unified Development Code that will revise the definition of family as shown in Section 29-1.11 definitions.

The proposed amendment would eliminate the difference, the difference in the number of unrelated adults permitted within a drill within dwellings in the R1 and R2 and RMF zoning.

Districts in favor of a single maximum imitation of four unrelated adults revised how a family is defined to allow non-traditional and multi-generational family formations to occupy a drilling.

Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen, can we move that out to the outside the chambers, please?

Thank you.

IP IPMC standards such that overcrowding is approximately is appropriately addressed.

The amendments are proposed as a means of addressing recommendations presented within the 2024 Bone County City of Columbia Housing Study.

I have a staff report, Mrs.

Ener.

Yes, you can.

Mr.

Chairman and Commissioner, sorry for the lengthy advertising notice that we just had Mr.

Stanton read through.

So as we are aware, the City of Columbia is proposing a definition revision to Section 29-1.11 of the Unified Development Code, specifically related to the definition of family as it presently exists.

It is to set a single limit on unrelated adult occupancy within our dwelling units.

It is to incorporate occupancy standards that are found presently within the IPMC, our International Property Maintenance Code, that are only applicable to rental housing today.

We advertise this particular notice on March 3rd of this year in the Tribune as a general text amendment.

So the background associated with this, as many of you were aware from this research and from the conversations that we have had.

This topic came up as a part of our 2024 Boone County City of Columbia Housing Study when it was adopted.

The study specifically recommended that there be removal of all occupancy limitations related to dwelling unit use.

That is on page 177 of the study specifically.

Between April and July of 2025, the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff after having several meetings with the joint housing task force that Mr.

Smith talked about this evening during work session to where the city, the county, uh, and our city county officials are together.

There was continuing discussion and desire that we begin conversations at the regulatory level to move forward with said change that was being recommended.

So that occurred between basically April and July of 2025.

Mr.

Smith's predecessor, Tim Teddy, our former community development director provided you all a historical overview of the definition, as you may recall, and that was also provided as a part of this planning commission packet, as well as what was produced for public comment so the public could understand the evolution of the definition of family.

At the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission, after the completion of our last work session in July on this topic, the staff, obviously there was a gap when we were busy working on a number of other things.

But we finally were able to arrive at getting together the public uh outreach component associated with this amendment, and we began that January 21st of 2026, closed that on March 3rd of this year.

Through that process, we have received roughly 21 uh comments or uh likes to comments that were made by others through the Be Heard engagement app that the City has.

And we also received about uh half a dozen to a dozen social media comments that were provided to us by uh Chairman Gowway Jones's uh private social media asking the same question, and it was a very narrow uh segment of representatives that responded to that.

But the responses in general uh between all of that public comment were very, very similar, and is summarized within the staff report.

Many said a very good start, not enough, and why don't we go back to the 1935 definition, which had no real occupancy limitations based on zoning or uh family formation or any familial relationship?

And we will get to that here momentarily as why the definition that is being proposed is the appropriate for the current time.

So what are we considering?

Um I ponder this, and that's what the image is meant to show.

What were we considering?

So we want to simplify, simplify, simplify how we determine what a familial relationship is.

As many of you were aware from going through the work session, we have a big flow chart.

And it says, well, if you know your Uncle Tom's friend, maybe that's poor relationship here, but you know, so if Uncle Sam is your i is your uncle, how are you related?

And we had to go through all of these gyrations in order for our neighborhood services staff.

Terrible.

Um we have we're trying to simplify this by eliminating all of that garbage in complication out.

Uh so that's one of the first primary considerations when we began this process.

How do we open, how do we simplify it for our staff that's got to administer this definition?

Secondarily, how can we allow more related people in a dwelling unit?

And this is for cost-sharing purposes, and it's a lot to deal with.

Why are we concerned about saying, well, you can only have your best two grandparents living with you, not all of them if the house has enough space.

So basically that was our second major consideration here.

And then the following two are really eliminate this craziness of a variability of non-related adults based on zoning classification.

Um that applies to our R1, which only allows three, as all of you are familiar with from short-term rental reports, and then four in our R2 and our RMF zoning districts.

And third, and finally, we wanted to address the issue which came commonly through the entire public engagement process over occupancy.

And why are we not considering just an occupant load?

Uh and so the amendment then, the changes that will be made through this amendment, do just that.

We basically simplify the familial relationship criteria.

It is very streamlined.

Blood, marriage, custodial responsibility of your adopted children or who you have control of.

And I want to make very clear, and we will as we move forward.

Children do not count in the definition of family.

So this is adults and unrelated adults.

There's nothing to do with children.

Now, children will count when we look at occupancy, but they do not have anything to do with how many adults can live within a home.

We are proposing through the amendment that a maximum of four unrelated adults across the board, R1, R2, and RMF, are permitted.

And in the packet you received, and I meant to include this in the PowerPoint this evening, there was a map of all of the R1 zone property within the City of Columbia, and that that is zoned R2 and RMF.

The R2 and the RMF zoning district, as I just stated, allow a maximum of four unrelated people.

The areas that are most impacted by high density, student-centric related rental property are already in our R2 and our RMF zoning districts.

This change would have nothing to do to impact that environment.

And that is maybe a controversial statement because it does not open up enough housing choice or opportunity.

However, the unintended consequences associated with not having a cap has an equal amount of concern.

And so, in order to make an incremental change, increasing and unifying the total number of unrelated adults across all of our zoning districts, is that step forward?

Is that the end?

Potentially not.

But it is the first step.

And then we can continue to address the issue of occupancy if we want to increase it as it relates to other zoning factors and other evaluation criteria.

But we are trying to make movement in order to increase the opportunities available within the community at this point.

So this ordinance and this ordinance change and this definition revision simply modifies really the R1 district.

Roughly 80 percent of the residentially zoned land within the City of Columbia.

The other 20 percent is either R2 or RMF, and RMF is probably the little piece that's left in that 20 percent.

So we are not impacting those that may live in more dense environments.

And finally, as we found, we needed to address occupant load.

Occupant load is addressed within our short-term rental regulations by utilizing the IPMC standards, which utilize bedroom area and square footage, and then it deals with a couple of other variables, such as combined living dining room spaces, in order to arrive at a total occupant load within a structure.

Under our current building code requirements, occupant loads are not assigned to a structure at the time of the certificate of occupancy issuance.

We don't do that as part of our residential housing permit closure.

However, IPMC standards are used for all of our rental housing that is subject to Chapter 22, Article 6, which is our rental unit conservation law.

And so all of the all of the properties that are in long-term rental are already regulated by this.

Because an expansion of occupancy in an R1 zoning district may be by an owner-occupied home, not necessarily in long-term rental, by including the specific reference to the IPMC standards for occupant load.

It affords the opportunity for our residents that are concerned that there are too many people occupying a home that is a primary residence of an owner, our staff will then have the opportunity to be able to verify that that structure is safely being occupied by the people that are living there if they are all family.

So if we have occupancy that only allows for 10, but we have 15, because that may be how culturally that family is accustomed to living, we will conclude that that home is overoccupied, and a change may need to be made.

That is the intent of why we are tying in the occupancy standards of IPMC.

And finally, as we figured out as we went through this process, since 1935, we have never defined, but we have constantly referred to the idea of a single housekeeping unit.

And so we have proposed a definition, addition to family that defines what a single housekeeping unit is.

So we're really taking care of four things here with this amendment.

The highlighted text is what I really want to draw your attention to, and I even made bigger the plus their biological children so it stood out.

This is the definition of family with no red line in it.

Um the red line version was included and it wasn't red, it was black, because we have to make it ADA accessible now, so I can't do anything in color.

Um we do have the the cross out version, and basically the entire definition that exists is being eliminated, and we are replacing it with what you see here in front of you.

Maybe not as bold and as yellow, but it will be this definition.

Again, we've simplified how we do the familial relationship here.

It's not grandma, aunt, uncle.

It's basically you're related by blood, marriage, adoption, or custodial relationship, and you all live together in a single home.

That is a single housekeeping unit.

And we'll get to single housekeeping unit on the next slide.

And or it's up to four unrelated persons, and we don't say adults here, so that's something that the Commission can consider if you want to add instead of persons unrelated adults to inordinately make it clear that that's what we mean.

Plus, as I point out here in bold, big text, they're biological and adopted or foster children.

Children do not count.

And so that is you could have four single parents with all of their gaggle of children, living in the same place.

And if they have enough area by bedroom, stack them and pack them in the bedrooms in bunks.

They will all be allowed.

And this is the whole idea of trying to open up opportunities by which we can increase cost sharing opportunities.

And finally, we add the caveated text down here that no maximum occupancy of a dwelling unit shall exceed that that is permitted by our adopted edition of the International Property Maintenance Code.

So some may ask, why did we want to define single housekeeping unit?

And I remember we discussed that at great length as a part of our work sessions.

We surveyed other communities that had single housekeeping units.

We hemmed and we hauled and we decided, well, we're going to merge two different definitions together to blend them because Columbia is unique.

And yes, we are.

We have a we have an occupancy tenancy around the City of Columbia that we have about 52% of our housing stock is in rental.

And a lot of that rental is rented by the bedroom.

That's probably not necessarily characteristic of many other communities, probably more characteristic than we'd like to admit.

So the top half of this definition is very consistent with what you will find in many other communities, and we struggled as a commission, if you recall correctly, in trying to say, well, how does a family function?

And what is a family?

And so, you know, it the way we're defining a single housekeeping unit basically is they're living together as a relatively permanent household.

So you take four college kids, you drop them into a house, how do they function?

They may share responsibilities of cleaning, buying food, you know, sharing the duties of the house.

That's typically how a permanent household works.

Uh, and therefore they bear the general character of a family.

But they're not.

And so we wanted to clarify for the public here is what a single housekeeping is meant.

The extra highlighted text here deals specifically with the concept of buy the room rental.

And quite honestly, this is something that is unique maybe to us, and because we are an academic community.

We are an academic institution rich community.

This basically allows for the idea that a landlord is going to maybe lease a bedroom off to somebody else, but all occupants of that structure share in the responsibilities and the enjoyment of all of that common space.

Some may not say that that's really maybe what a single housekeeping unit means to them.

That is a single housekeeping unit as it is defined in the City of Columbia, because that's how it exists.

That is what we do.

And it's very possible that four couple or four individuals with their children may have a very similar arrangement with a landlord.

But they all enjoy all of that common space.

And so that's what the highlighted text is really meant to point out here.

Um, and it is more unique than what we find.

But what we did find when we researched single housekeeping unit definitions, which we did do as a staff, and we shared that with the commission, and it was shared on beheard.

This definition was a merge of two.

So why this definition?

This definition is consistent with our peer examples.

However, it's tailored to Columbia.

Our housing, as I've said, is heavily influenced by academic institutions, and where that interface is most prevalent is where we have to be most precautious about overallowing occupancy.

We already have intrinsic problems within those areas that could maybe potentially be exacerbated.

As I point out here, this change in the definition creates the least amount of impact in our R2 and our R F zoning district, but it allows that incremental increase in R1.

It removes the limits on related adults, recognizes the non-traditional and our multi-general, multi-generational household family formations that are now becoming more and more prevalent, and it opens up the sharing opportunities that I've spoken to.

We address the overoccupancy for both our related and unrelated by introduction of the IPMC standards, which as I said only currently apply to rental properties.

And the single housekeeping unit definition is tailored to the buy-the-bedroom type of rental situation that we have here in Columbia, being the type of community we are.

Why not just an occupancy limitation?

This is what we heard repeatedly through comments through be heard through Facebook.

The 1935 definition, when you want to go back to that, makes reference to family and a single housekeeping unit.

The proposed definition is retaining that, but it is making it stated in a more modern way.

We are bringing our definition up to current times.

Each time we amended the definition since 1935, it added limits on relationship status, with the most complicated being introduced in 1991 when we started to differentiate between zoning district.

I'm not going to go into the reasons for why that may have been done.

There are many.

But we have made very few revisions since 1991.

Some of them have been nothing to do with the familial relationships.

They have been more to deal with will we allow a second kitchen in a home and a variety of other things.

They have nothing to do with the differentiation that was created in 1991.

This definition will remove the confusion with respect to unrelated adults.

Unique to our community that have evolved.

In 1935, if I'm not incorrect, the University of Missouri may have been here, but was not what it is today, and our community was not what it is today.

And over time, as our issues and our environment has changed, so too had the definition of family.

And to jettison that out does not respect the history.

It doesn't respect why we have that.

And we are making the incremental change forward.

We are trying to do so in a respectful manner to those that are most impacted by the campus environment that they are surrounded by.

The occupancy limitations that we would also propose to incorporate into this are more while using just the occupancy limitation, could create a more inclusive and a more conforming definition to what the housing study does recommend.

It may result, as I said earlier, in greater unintended consequences in our most urban areas of the city that we are not yet prepared to really evaluate or address.

And therefore we start slow, as we did with short-term rental.

We don't open the floodgate open.

We slowly meter the water out.

And as we see success or failure potentially with this particular addition, we may want to expand it in the future.

This does not preclude us from doing that.

And finally, as many of you may or may not be aware, Boone County is amending its regulations.

They are considering amendments that will be driven more by the IPMC standards.

If those revisions are approved, choice will exist.

If somebody needs to have more people in their home or in their family formation, yes, it may be inconvenient if you live across the street in the county and you have city regulations on the opposite side of that street, but that choice exists.

And the issues between the two jurisdictions are significantly different, and our definition reflects the uniqueness of the City of Columbia, not a unitization across both jurisdictional boundaries.

So in conclusion, the definition simplifies and is more inclusive with respect to family formation.

It removes the limitations on the number of related persons living within a dwelling.

It creates a single limit on non-related adults across all of our zoning districts, and it expands sharing opportunities within the R1 that presently don't exist because we limit it at three unrelated.

So now you have an opportunity for four single parents with their children if the home has capacity to be able to share in the costs of a larger home in an environment that is supportive of the demands that that may create.

More parking, more lot area, and all of the other trappings that go along with increased occupancy.

And finally, we address the issue of overoccupancy in a manner that we are currently using, and that is by applying the IPMC standards.

Yes, it is different from Boone County, but that is based on our unique characteristics of the City of Columbia and our residents and the concerns that they have expressed, and how we have managed occupancy since 1991.

We maintain the status quo in our most impacted neighborhoods, i.e.

our R2 and our RMF adjoining the campuses of all of our academic institutions, and then we are making the incremental step forward that could be further revised and amended in the future if we need to.

We are recommending that the planning commission adopt this text change as it has been written.

It was revised by law before we have sent it out for public comment in order to address some word choice and some structure.

But the content that you discussed during your work sessions is there and has been described this evening and was what was presented in our public packet for the public's consideration.

If you have any questions, I'm more than happy to answer them.

Any questions to staff?

Senna?

Sure.

Let's use Uncle Harry next time.

My apologies, sir.

This is this for work.

I should have taken the I should have taken the cue from you when we were doing Black History Month, but that was that wasn't even Black History Month.

You referred to it as you confused us all.

American history.

Thank you.

Because it's all history.

It's all history.

All right.

Any other questions of staff?

Dr.

Gray?

Not in line with that conversation at all.

So you mentioned a uh potential change would be uh adult versus person.

Back to that.

So we're talking about here.

I can't do that in this because I am in the PowerPoint.

But you are correct.

So that would be up to for unrelated adults, because that's what we are driving at.

This is adults.

Children can't rent homes.

Oh.

So I mean, I, you know, it's persons, adults.

I'd ask Mr.

Craig to chime in if he feels that there's any concern if we were if they were to amend to adults instead.

I think it means, you know.

Well, yeah, inability contract.

Yeah, yeah.

So I I don't I don't know what those fears are are you know reasonable.

So yeah.

Wouldn't make it any clearity.

By by its nature, it is someone 18 or 18 or older.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Is that the question?

Did I answer the question?

I mean an adult is considered 18, correct?

Yeah.

Yeah, it's the the the age of uh uh capacity contract in most circumstances.

Great.

Um my second question, you uh uh said there is some differentiation between uh what Boone County is recently doing, um, but the particularities of it are with like the college town uh for Columbia, but the spirit of it, the move toward um the spirit of the direction is the same, yes.

It is to expand housing opportunity uh by and it's taking a different approach.

So instead of the city's approach, which would include a cap based on our our more our a cap across all of our residential districts, the county is not applying a cap on unrelated individuals or related for that matter.

They are going to go solely to a definition that is only drawing upon IPMC.

Thank you.

I have questions to staff I'd open up for public hearing.

Anybody wish to speak on this issue?

Come up?

Three minutes for individuals, six organizations.

All once, going twice.

Three times, close the public hearing.

Commission discussion.

As a lively bunch this evening.

I would entertain a motion then if we're not going to talk about it.

I make I would be happy to make a motion.

Mr.

Regarding case number 102-2026, the family definition revisions and UDC text change.

I recommend an approval of the text change to Section 29-1.1A as presented.

Second.

Should be 1.11A.

I apologize.

Oh, Mr.

One.

Approve the text change to Section 29-1.1A as presented.

1.11A.

All right, I'll try that again.

I think that's a good thing.

All right.

Approve the text change to Section 29-1.1A as presented.

Didn't I just say that?

Don't look at that.

Don't look at the screen.

Look at the paper.

Don't give up on Mr.

Walter.

Hang in there.

It's getting late.

You get it right.

Okay.

I am in my prior mistake.

And recommend approval of the text change to Section 29-1.11 as presented.

Good enough.

I appreciate moved and properly seconded.

Mr.

Secretary.

Take a vote, sir.

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.

The motion carries.

Recommendation would be forwarded to City Council.

Any comments from the public.

Any comments from staff, Ms.

Senna.

Well, Uncle Pat will talk now.

Your next meeting will be April 9.

And it will begin with a work session, which will not be nearly as humorous as this last end of the meeting.

I'm just going to feel our way through that.

On the April 23rd meeting, I can inform you that you will have a presentation, another presentation.

And that will come from our consultants from CMT as it relates to the Complete Streets Project.

After they've done some public uh outreach, some additional public outreach before the 23rd.

And they're going to come to you with some recommendations and some findings that they have been working on for the last year or so.

And we will follow our April 9 work session, however, by a regular meeting.

Those are both short-term rental requests.

So we continue to beat that drum with uh compliance.

You have one at uh 2208 uh Concordia Drive.

I kept reading 2202 tonight, and I'm thinking, wait a minute, did I get the wrong address?

2208 Concordia.

It's an R1 uh request for a 210-night short-term rental.

And then 802 North 6th Street, uh again, another uh 120 or 220, 210 night.

Uh RMF request uh for short-term rental approval as well.

And these are the locations.

Um out on the west side of town, of course, west of uh uh uh Bourne Drive is our Concordia property, and then up on North Sixth Street, uh just a block south of Wilkes Boulevard, or not even a half block south of Wilkes Boulevard in the high school.

That is all that we have for right now, and I I in the way of uh business.

What I will inform the Commission is is the meetings uh adjustments that we have uh talked about previously due to the renovations of this space and conference rooms one A and one B.

Uh those changes are now reflected on the city calendar.

Uh we will be meeting on June 4th, which is the first Thursday of uh the month following the council meeting.

We will then, because the June 18th meeting would uh need to be canceled.

We have moved and scheduled uh our regular work session and our regular planning and zoning commission for June 11th.

Um so we will put two meetings in the month of June.

They will be a week apart.

Um we have secured space for both of those.

I will not be here, so I will let my uh very competent staff run both uh work session and this meeting, uh, so we can continue to move forward.

The July 9th meeting, both meetings have been canceled in their entirety, as we had discussed previously.

Uh enjoy your 4th of July holiday, if you would.

Uh and we will see you on the 23rd then of July at our regular times in our regular space, uh both back in 1A1B and in the council chamber.

And that will then consolidate uh applications from the July 9 meeting and the July 23rd meeting into a single uh application or single meeting.

So it may be double what we are currently seeing, so anywhere in between four to maybe six projects maybe before us that night.

Um with that, again, that is all I have to offer this evening.

Thank you for your time, your attention.

Please respond to Leland uh if you have comments about the CAP and its updates, uh they would greatly appreciate that.

Any comments from the fellow commissioners?

I didn't attend a motion as such.

Move to adjourn.

Check it.

I was in favor of adjournment, thumbs up.

Thumbs up.

I was opposed, thumbs down.

Radically.