Do you have any abstentions?

Okay.

Um case 106-2026.

A request by Laurie Cook, agent on behalf of the Cook Family Revocable Living Trust to allow 2208 Concordia Drive to be used as a 210 night maximum eight guest short-term rental pursuant to Section 29-3.3 V V and Section 29-6.4 Section M Part 2 of the Unified Development Code.

The point 32 acre subject site is located southwest southeast of intersectional Concordia Drive and Lock Lane.

May I have a staff report, please?

Yes, you may.

Thank you for the introduction there.

To reiterate, this is a conditioning use permit for a short-term rental license for 2208 Concordia Drive.

The site is 32.32 acres in size.

And then an ad was ran in the Tribune on the 24th of March.

The subject site is located on the southeast corner of the Concordia Drive and Lock Lane intersection.

Concordia Drive is a local residential street that permits on-street parking, though does not have sidewalks installed.

The surrounding properties have single family residences on them and are zoned R1.

The property in question is zoned R1 as well and is not the applicant's primary residence.

This is a four-bedroom, two-bathroom dwelling.

With the eight requested guests, there are four parking spaces required to be on site, though the site currently only has three parking spaces until one additional UDC compliant on-site parking space is added.

Six guests would be the maximum that the property can support.

This property has not previously been offered as a short-term rental, nor are there additional short-term rentals within 300 feet of the subject site.

Eleven of the 19 surrounding properties also appear to be owner-occupied dwellings.

The designated agent lives in Columbia, 8.9 miles or roughly 16 minutes from the subject site.

We found no violations on file for the site, and we received three general information phone calls just asking what the request was about.

The conditional use permit analysis supports the approval of the request.

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

Staff's approval is to uh staff's recommendation is to approve the requested short-term rental conditional use permit subject to a maximum occupancy of six transient guests, maximum of two hundred or ten nights of annual rental usage, followed by a maximum of eight transient guests subject to the installation of one additional UDC compliant on-site parking space.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Okay.

Staff questions.

Are you aware of any uh conversations from the applicant on how the parking would look or the layout or have they provided anything?

No, that has not been previously discussed, though they would not be able to exceed 30 percent of their front yard uh to be paved.

So that'd be the one little caveat to an addition of parking.

Thank you.

Questions for staff.

We are talking as a group, we have six minutes or the oh yeah, one at a time, please.

I'm just we're okay I'm Lori Cook, and this is my husband.

Yeah, one's gonna talk to the other have to sit down to if you're talking as the owner of a group, you've got six minutes.

If you're talking as an individual, you have three.

Okay, please state your name and address for our recorder, please.

Okay, my name is Kent Cook, and that was my wife Lori.

Uh the properties of 2208.

We currently live at 4001 South Nebo Cemetery, Columbia.

Uh we've lived in the Columbia area uh since the 1980s.

Um first off, I'm gonna thank the committee for uh considering our application, and I ask your patiences.

This is the first time I've been up here, so uh bear with me.

Um we've owned the property since 2015.

It's been a long-term rental for most of that time.

Uh we recently last May converted to a furnished rental targeting mid to long-term rentals.

Our desire to get approval for the short-term rental is to have an available option to use as a gap between the midterm leases.

That's our intention.

Uh we don't intend to use it as a primary uh short-term rental.

Uh we currently have it listed on furniture finders for midterms and for the short-term rental, we would use the platform the Air Airbnb, which has a lot of rating functions in it that helps qualify uh people that would be renting their since we've owned it for over 10 years.

We've had a we've got a good stable maintenance group that we use that respond quickly.

Uh and I personally take care of the lawn care and the outside exterior maintenance of the property, so I'm on site uh pretty pretty regularly.

Um we did uh make an effort to reach out to some of the neighbors and talked with a few.

Uh the remainders we dropped off a letter stating our intentions and contact numbers uh in case there was any questions or issues that may arise questions for the speaker.

Uh it looks like you're requesting uh for eight transient guests upon installation of one additional site parking.

So have you looked at how that would lay out and have you seen the case.

Yeah, I think since we first started that process, I think we've decided that we're just gonna stay with the six and leave the parking the way it is.

Just you're okay with the recommendation for just the six.

Yeah, we're we're okay with that.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the speaker?

Thanks, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Next.

I don't really have anything to add, but if you have any further questions, I'm sorry, ma'am.

No, that's right.

We have a process and we have to get your name, your address, and so our recorder, so we keep this in public.

I'm Lori Cook.

And my into the microphone, please.

I'm Lori Cook, and our address is 4001 South Nebo Cemetery Road, Columbia, 65203.

Okay.

Thank you.

And the other speakers on this case.

If you want to come up and speak on this case, you come up to the mic.

State your name and your address into the microphone, so our recorder can hear you.

Hello, committee.

My name is Maria Hitt.

I live at 2207 Concordia Drive.

Um, I am an opposition of this proposed change in permit structure.

Um I have lived in the neighborhood across, literally across the street for more than 10 years.

Um the letter I received from this family indicated that the short-term rental would be an in-between medium and long-term rentals.

I feel this communication was simply to pacify any public outcry or opposition.

I've never known this property to stand empty for any length of time beyond repairs executed between tenants.

Our neighborhood is quiet, made up of equal parts homeowners and long-term renters.

I have concerns about the impact on our community if short-term rentals occur.

There are limited housing options for families in good school districts, which this house provides.

I am worried about affordable housing in my community disappearing or being inaccessible to the members of my community.

There are also many children in our neighborhood.

We've had speed.

Um vouchers from the police setup.

We've had increased patrols sometimes because we were having so many traffic violations at this intersection.

Um I fear for a possible increase in traffic accidents and possible child injury.

Those are my main concerns.

Thank you for hearing.

Do you have any questions for the speaker?

Have you uh experienced any parking problems on the road at that location?

Oh, yes.

Um, it's not a very long street.

It's three houses on one side and two houses on the other.

Um, especially if the weather is bad at all.

We have a lot of difficulty getting our road maintained.

Um it's got a slight angle.

Um, people come around the corner really fast.

Vehicles have been hit in front of houses.

Um, even in my own home, we had a drunk driver like drive up over the sidewalk and into our driveway and hit a vehicle one time.

So I people speak, even though it's very little, um, and there's there have been many traffic accidents right in this area.

Thank you.

Yeah.

I have a question.

So, but you can't attribute that directly to this midterm or no, the locale is simply uh poorly designed as a pre-existing thing, but obviously increased traffic, people unfamiliar.

I do worry about incidents of a occurrence.

So at this point, they're using it as a mid-term, long-term rental as we speak.

Um one is living in the house currently.

Okay.

Somebody just moved out, and then my understanding is so that they could petition the community zoning board to change it to a short-term rental.

Have you had any problems with the renters before now?

No, um, the people who just moved out, they were there for like maybe eight months.

Just a family with children, no issues.

The people who lived there before that were there for four years.

They were very nice.

We had a relationship.

I saw them regularly.

They had children who went to school in our community.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

State your name and your address.

My name is Brenda Campbell.

Um I live at 20 2709 Jonquel Place in Valley View, Columbia, Missouri.

Um my mother, Joanne Bell, has lived in that corner house at 2211 Concordia for 64 years.

She is the original owner, and she has been in that neighborhood for that long.

She has never had to confront any problems with any of the homes being rented in that area because most of the time it was a long-term rental.

So my brother, my sister, my mother, and I are totally against a short-term rental right across the street from her on a very short street.

Our reasons are first of all, the traffic will be a problem.

My mom and dad put in a half-driveway so that the six of us kids could actually park on an on-site driveway without interfering with the cars going through on the street.

And there's six of us.

So when my mother has an event, six of us park there with and with our husband and spouses.

Umly, I don't know what survey they took about the neighbors being in favor of this, but their answer on their form is totally incorrect unless they've done a survey, because most of the people that we talk to are totally against it.

I'm also concerned about the noise.

Um people that we have talked to when they have the short-term rentals, they have people that party until 2 a.m.

in the morning.

My mother is 92 years old and lives directly across from this house, and her bedroom happens to be on the Concordia side of the street, and I do not want her sleep disturbed on whatever nights these parties are occurring.

And of course, we don't know that for sure, but experience has shown that that happens.

I will say that if it is approved, I will not hesitate to call the police department and check the noise and the traffic and whatever else is going over, going on in that house.

And I realize that with two violations, the city is supposed to do a fine or cancel the permission for them to have a short-term rental there.

I've also talked to a lady this evening, she's reported that at another short-term rental, and nothing has been done.

Nothing.

So what my question is, why do you even have the rule if you're not going to follow the rules that you make?

And I don't want to have to have a problem where I have to get a lawyer involved, or whatever it takes for my mother to live peacefully in her house for the rest of her life that she has, the little bit of life that she has left.

Thank you.

Any questions for the speaker?

I think regarding this which you reported from someone else who has experienced difficulties with an STR.

And she's going to speak.

Okay, well we'll talk within that because we don't we we would not be a party to that, but that is the mechanism to keep this from happening again is for these complaints to be and typically not directed towards the police department.

Of course, there's an enforcement number or contact person that they should contact.

But anyway, when she speaks, we'll bring we'll talk about that further.

Okay.

Well, Ross Halligan, I don't know which one of you is him.

Told us our options were to call the police or to call the agent.

Noise violations are addressed by the police department.

They are not addressed by the neighborhood services department, which deals with the enforcement component, our neighborhood services department deals with the uh reported violations as it is associated with other STR-related issues, such as uh potential overoccupancy, uh over uh excessive parking off-site from the actual uh dwelling unit itself.

Uh but there are limitations as to and limitations within the municipal code as to who addresses what infractions, and all infractions must be verified before action can be taken upon them.

And so without supporting collaborative uh evidence of a uh particular violation, uh it is possible that uh a simple report of just an event occurring uh cannot be acted upon.

And that is unfortunately the way that the enforcement processes work for most of our violations within the City of Columbia.

Uh and this particular activity is one that is uh unique because of its nature.

It's short term, uh, and often when a report is made by the time if there is not collaboration or collaboration or uh cooperation with the violation, the ability to enforce upon something that cannot be experienced or evidenced uh exists.

And so the city is not out at uh midnight on a Friday night.

Uh the police department would be, so what Mr.

Halligan has indicated is is that report would either need to be made if it is a noise violation or some other type of traffic infraction.

That is a police department-related matter generally.

The designated agent uh is the individual that is responsible to react to any violation, and that designated agent would need to be uh they have to be within Boone County, they have to be responsive, and that is part of the way that our ordinances are set up.

So the information as it relates to the designated agent in this application is the cooks.

Uh it would be our suggestion that should this item be approved or recommended for approval by this body that you coordinate with the cooks to get their contact telephone numbers, uh, and that you be contacting them directly when you see an issue occurring that they need to take care of because that is their regulatory obligation.

But if it is something that warrants calling the police, such as a noise or a parking violation, the police do need to be called.

That is how the legal process is established.

If the cooks do not approach, uh, do not come out to address that, that is something then that needs to be cited as a violation reported, and it does need to have cooperation in order for it to be a verified complaint.

And that would potentially take a couple of different avenues.

It could be a signature of an affidavit that this is in fact a factual complaint submitted to our Office of Neighborhood Services.

And those are the types of complaints that when there are two, there is the option by which the uh director of our housing and neighborhood services division is empowered by the ordinance uh to seek revocation of the license.

Uh and the certificate of short-term rental licensure, and then there is also a business license that potentially would be revoked uh accordingly.

That does not mean, though, that the long-term rental license that may exist on this property if it is duly registered uh would be revoked.

There is a separate violations procedure and an enforcement procedure for long-term uh rentals.

So there are slightly different provisions that would apply to a long-term rental having recurring violations, which from the testimony that I've heard this evening, apparently it's not a problem with long-term tenants.

It is a concern that you all believe will arise just because of the short-term usage, which has not occurred yet, and so we can't uh it it's speculative that that is what will happen.

The cooks are hearing your concerns and hopefully they would react accordingly to ensure that they do not become facts.

We haven't had my mother's not had a problem with long-term can you speak into the microphone?

Thank you.

My mother has not had a problem with long-term rental at that house ever.

Um there was a house in the neighborhood that my father did report because of drug activity, and the police came out and took care of it.

Um so we know that if there is a good reason, our police department or in that case the DEA showed up and took care of the problem.

Okay.

Thank you.

Questions?

Thank you, ma'am.

State your name and your address since the mic, so our recorder can hear us.

Absolutely.

My name is Christina Edholm.

I live at 2237 Concordia Drive.

So I am on the opposite direction of this specific requested property.

I will also state I am also in disagreement with allowing this to go forward.

And some of the reasons I would be in disagreement.

I was one of the three who called this the neighborhood um office and asked about the specific.

There are already there is one licensed SRT already in our neighborhood.

It is more than this than the 300 feet.

It is actually 600 feet.

However, if you go by your own rules, as the crow flies, it is within a reasonable distance.

That is the only licensed one.

There are four others that are currently unlicensed, and I've provided information to Lee regarding those other four.

And that will be up to them to be able to uh attend to that particular report.

I also want to point out just in your own report that on in C alone, there are 19 family single family homes in this neighborhood.

Of those 11 that are directly in that neighborhood, if you go the opposite direction around the corner, all of those are short, those are all single family homes as well as I have lived in mine for 20 years.

As pointed out, the traffic pattern, that particular house is on a corner.

It has a very large lot to the right hand side of it.

Um prior occasions, other renters have had parties in that, including college parties and other such, where footballs, basketballs, and other uh events spilled over into the street on more than one occasion.

So I want to make sure that that is aware that that particular intersection could come become dangerous even more than it already is.

I'm also going to look at um as noted in your file that the owner lives 18 minutes away.

The owner I've never met.

Um they do not live in our neighborhood, and they do not know the culture of the neighborhood, the people who walk their dogs, the seniors who walk our streets, and all of us who hop in and say hi and know a lot of us by name.

I will say that there is an informal neighborhood association in that area.

We've held block parties, we've learned to take care of each other, and adding someone who is repeatedly in and out of that residence would not be beneficial to the neighborhood.

So in concluding of all of that, I would say I am not in agreement, and I hope you uh would vote against doing such a question for the speaker.

I have one question.

Um you support SDR in general or just not in your neighborhood, like there is the STR that is closest to the stadium Rollins, they are very quiet.

We don't come in and out.

Um, the one that's next the informal one, the illegal one next door to me, for the most part, they've been fairly nice, but again, the parties at two o'clock in the morning, the increased traffic, the unknown people who are wandering through our neighborhood, the 30 people backyard barbecues that are occurring, those become um detrimental to the rest of us, especially the traffic, because our street is a 25 mile per hour, and I will tell you there is no way they're going 25 miles per hour.

So I am not in disagreement overall to answer your question, Mr.

Stanton.

Thank you.

Any questions for the speaker?

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Anybody else like to speak on this case?

State your name and your address in the microphone so our recorder can get you.

My name is Sarah English.

I live on Fortin Lock Lane.

Um I too am opposed to the short-term rental for this place.

I will say the renters that have been there for the long term, we have never experienced problems with them.

The short-term turning into Airbnb with our proximity to Mizzou campus, especially with football and basketball all starting back up.

I am concerned that the partying will be held at that place.

Just do we are not even three miles from campus.

With that, the amount of cars that will be, let's say it's six people if they all have a guess.

That's 12 cars.

Where are we parking 12 cars on this street?

There's not even 12 cars that live on that street.

And then again, just the noise ordinance is truly my concerns.

Any questions for the speaker?

Thank you.

Dr.

I'm blind.

Dr.

Gray?

Sorry.

Hi, thank you so much.

Um, in this hypothetical scenario where there are 12 cars, I don't know if you heard there are um uh provisions around parking, so that would be a violation.

Do you are you aware of how you would report that?

No, I was just simply saying, like if if it has six people that are allowed there and they all have a guess, just the influx of cars is where my thought was.

Yeah, they wouldn't be allowed to have that many cars.

So it would be like six is the only that could be there.

Um Mr.

Zen, can you remind me of the number of parking spaces that are on site?

There are three parking spaces on site.

The requirements within the code are one on-site parking space for every two transient guests.

And so uh that is derived in essence from our our general parking standards.

Um if six individuals came individually and three of them were parking on the street utilizing that short-term rental, uh that would be considered probably a violation, but that is also something that the operator needs to inform their guests of that all vehicles must be parked on site.

Um so it it creates a different set of enforcement issues if they're going to park all six vehicles if they were all to come individually.

Uh they would be parking in the front yard or on grass, which is an illegal violence, it's a violation of our municipal code.

Uh again, there are a variety of different scenarios that can play out with every single uh permutation of a short-term rental.

Um if this were a standard residential home uh and one chose to have a large gathering, uh, you could have the exact same number of vehicles with six of your friends that came in three different vehicles and parked on the street and three that parked in the driveway.

Uh we have risen the bar of enforcement and regulatory rules with short-term rentals to address many of these questions.

And that is that is something that unfortunately has not been uh it has not yet to this point been adequately, I think, communicated to the community uh and those that are concerned about this type of activity, how they go about reporting and what it takes to have a verified complaint.

And that will ultimately hopefully uh be addressed as we continue to move through uh the uh roll-out of this overall regulatory process that we are in.

And if I may, Mr.

Uh Vice Chair.

I think it would be an opportune moment to remind both the public and the commission under 293.33 V V, view specific standards subsection eight, uh dwelling unit usage, uh dwellings licensed for short-term rental usage shall not be used for special events such as weddings, corporate events, commercial functions, large parties in parentheses, greater than eight persons and parentheses, and other similar events or activities otherwise prohibited by this code.

Thank you, Council.

Yep.

So what I'm hearing.

The STR is set to a tighter standard than even you are as a resident.

Correct.

So any other questions for the speaker.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to speak on this case?

State your name, address into the microphone so our recorder can have it.

Hi, my name is uh Nathan Hopkins.

I live at 2209 Concordia Drive, so directly across the street.

Um I think that most of my concerns have been voiced by my neighbors.

Um so I mostly want to reiterate most of those concerns.

I've been living at 2209 for uh approaching four years with my wife and two children.

I agree with the uh assessment of my neighbors that the long-term renters have never been a problem in the previous couple that was there with their children before.

Um I would say good neighbors.

Um I have concerns that I share with my neighbors, which include concerns about safety and noise, um, as well as sort of the neighborhood culture.

I think that almost everyone would agree that a neighborhood is most desirable when it's both safe and populated by residents that are invested in that neighborhood, which I fear the transient renters would not be.

Of course, the owners should be, and I believe that they may.

I have no I have not interacted with them previously.

I also think that there are two other items that I have some concerns about.

One is the availability of affordable housing in Columbia, which the city has addressed recent years and the reports, investigations, sort of a study to assess that.

I worry about the rise of short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods in Columbia and how that might preclude affordable housing to those in Columbia who would like to own their own home, and this neighborhood is both reasonably affordable compared to some aspects of Columbia, as well as a fairly nice, generally pretty family-oriented uh community with very good schools.

And the last thing I want to raise, which I don't know if this is true, but I have some concerns about material impact to neighboring homeowners and how the rise the presence of a short-term rental within close proximity could affect potential property values.

Um I have some concerns regarding.

Those are sort of the quick highlights of my thoughts.

Questions for the speaker.

Thanks, sir.

Anyone else on this case?

Sure.

Close in public hearing.

Commission.

Let's talk about it.

Secretary?

I just had a quick question for staff.

Um I know to the northwest of this site, we had the one on WEEWEND that we recommended approval, I believe City Council voted down.

And then there is the approved short-term rental.

I believe it's closer to Rollins.

Do you recall where that's located?

One of the speakers said it was, I think 600 feet.

So there's if I am not incorrect, there is an admin, there's an admin on Bourne, and then there is an actual ST, there is an actual CUP also on Bourne, but further to the north.

Ross, do you have the actual address of the admin?

Because that would have been No, just the admins to the south and the CPs to the north, both located on Bourne within like the one to the north is about 600 feet.

I believe the one to the south around 400.

Okay.

Thank you.

I believe it's 210 born is the short-term rental CUP that backs to stadium, and I believe the admin also backs to stadium.

Uh and just for the public's benefit to understand, there is a differentiation between the permitting processes for short-term rentals.

Uh and owner-occupied uh short-term rental uh is limited to 120 nights of annual rental.

Um, and it has it does not require uh it's administratively approved because of the lesser number of nights and that it is the resident's principal residence.

Um however, it does not require that the resident be present when it is being rented.

Um the short-term rental that requires the CUP for which we are here this evening uh applies to all investment-related properties that are owned by somebody that is not the primary resident, and uh uh also a primary resident seeking to have greater than 210 uh 120 nights of rental to a maximum of 210.

Uh so this particular request does seek the 200 A, it's not occupied by the primary owner or resident, and it is capped at the 210 nights.

Um so that is why this is a CUP.

Um the concerns that have been reported to our Office of Neighborhood Services of operating but unregistered short-term rentals, uh, just so I can make sure that we understand how the enforcement process works as it relates to those particular types of operations.

There is a very deliberate notification process that is sent out to those operators, uh and uh they are provided a window of time for compliance to be um uh achieved uh or to be beginning compliance with the way that the ordinance is structured.

Uh if there is another short-term rental within 300 feet of this particular property uh that would be seeking a CUP, there is criteria within the review per uh the review standards and in the purview of both our planning commission and our city council to where that 300-foot spacing uh could result in that secondary uh short-term rental not being approved.

Presently at this time with the way that the ordinance is written, if it were a owner-occupied short-term rental, an owner-occupied property being used as a short-term rental, which would have to be verified, it would be capped at 120 nights, but the presence of being in within within 300 feet of another short-term rental does not apply.

It doesn't apply because it is the basis of this ordinance was derived from the fact that if an owner occupies the property for uh greater than two-thirds of the year and is using it for roughly a third of the year, the impact was not perceived to be as great.

There is an impact, but it is perceived to not be as great because the owner of that property would still be part of your neighborhood.

So those are I just want to make clear that that's the that's the landscape of the process.

Um the two other dwellings that are off of borne, yes, are legal.

Well, we did process those.

Uh and then the others that are in the neighborhood, we will continue to uh work toward gaining compliance uh if not uh taking appropriate enforcement action uh in order to have them cease an operation.

That does take a period of time, though, to be able to to mount that case and to be able to process the requests.

So uh I I can tell you I have not received any additional applications along Concordio or any other streets within this area for licensure.

Uh and if we did receive one, we would be identifying uh to those applicants that uh this is the scope of what you are going to experience.

You have got another one that's already been licensed, uh and they will then be left with a choice.

Either put it back into maybe a long-term rental, uh long-term midterm rental, or cease operating the short-term rental entirely and executing a different option for the property.

Thank you very much.

Quick follow-up question uh just to make sure I understand correctly.

So if this applicant wanted to do under 120 nights, they could get it approved administratively, and it would still trigger the 300-foot or it would not.

They wouldn't they could self-restrict to 120 nights, but because this is not their primary residence, they have to go through the conditional use process.

Okay.

Anyone that is not the principal residence of the property must go through the CUP, and it automatically attaches 210 nights.

Okay.

Thank you.

So just thank you for the clarification, Mr.

Zenter.

Um just to get to my comments.

Um came in tonight, I was generally going to be supportive of this one.

Um I looked back at the Wee Wind um example.

Uh I don't think I was here for the for the one on Bourne.

Um, but we all voted unanimously for the one on Wee Wind, and then City Council uh denied that request, uh, which is uh fairly similar.

Um, there was uh I I don't think the site itself had any thing that made it less uh uh attractive for an STR, but there was a lot of neighborhood opposition.

So I'm not sure where I'm gonna land on this one, but just wanted to call that out.

Any other commissioners?

Comments.

Dr.

Gray?

Sorry, this is a question uh for Mr.

Zenter.

Um given what we heard about the parking spaces, could we modify this or apply a condition to say that it is six transient guests rather than subject to an additional parking space?

So with the three on-site parking spaces that presently exist, that is the max.

And if I understood what the uh what the applicant indicated, the first speaker you heard from this evening, is they have reconsidered their desire to seek the extra two guests, and therefore the last bullet on this slide could be eliminated provided we understood the applicant correctly, and you probably would like to confirm that by reopening the hearing that they are no longer seeking eight uh subject to the addition of the parking space.

And if they are only going to be allowed what their parking capacity is, that's the way the two bullets to the top would be what would be appropriate to make motion on.

Great, thank you.

Okay.

I heard the same, but do you want me to open up public hearing so we can tell you again or I would appreciate it.

Open up public hearing.

State your name and address again, sir.

Kent Cook, 4001 South Nebo Cemetery Road.

And yes, we we would just we will not change the parking six at uh yes would all would be the maximum that we would accept there.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay.

Can I ask that?

Oh excuse me, sir.

Can I ask more than a question?

Yes.

Unrelated to that.

But this case, right?

Yes.

Yes, sir.

Um we should have asked this earlier.

If if your major intent is to have the option of having rentals in between long-term rentals, why go for 210 nights?

I think that was the only option we had, given that we don't live there.

I think that was my understanding.

But here's a question because I'm newer to the, you know, I should know more than this, but could we if we recommended uh approval up to like 120 nights, would that hypothetically be acceptable to you?

Yes.

Yes.

Our true intention is not to have this as a full-time Airbnb.

Okay, thank you.

Just the way the midterms go, there are there are times when it could be a two or three.

We've we've had it open uh I think last May, it was open for two months.

Okay.

So we're just trying to look for a gap in between.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the speaker?

Thanks, sir.

Well, we got you here.

So if we were to limit it to 120 nights, you guys would be okay with that.

We'd be okay with that.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Any other questions for the speaker?

Going once.

Going twice.

Thanks, sir.

I'm closing public hearing.

I'm gonna weigh in on this.

So the automatic trigger because he doesn't live in a house, it's basically treated like a commercial business.

So that's why it's 210.

We had talked about this of this shooting for the max because the cases that we were coming in, and you know, they were like the shooting for the stars anyway.

So that's why we made that distinction between the 120 or is it 120, Mr.

120, your house, you're staying there, you just renting it whenever you're not there versus someone that's got investment property that doesn't live there.

We just made that because 90 percent of the case everybody was shooting for the stars.

So that's why we did that.

I disagree with changing the number of days.

I I uh I think that just muddies the water up.

The process is he's uh he doesn't live in the house and automatically shoots for 210.

If he doesn't hit 210, that's great.

I don't think that really to me solve any of the issues that the residents have personally.

Um I just think it kind of just muddies us up a little bit.

That's just my point of view.

Well, I I was trying to think of myself as a neighbor.

I would feel even if I was opposed to its use period, I would feel more comfortable with knowing there is only 120 nights of possible usage as opposed to 210.

I mean it's four months versus seven months.

Anyway, that's just the reason I brought it up.

Commission?

Satis?

I also would not support limiting it to 120 days.

I think that's just messy and will be confusing to hand the city council.

Um and I think if the neighbors are opposed to it now, they're going to be opposed in the future.

Um but that's how I feel.

Mr.

Door?

I would be in favor of the reduction because I mean if if he's trying to sell it as a self-restriction, let's hold him to it, you know.

And I I think that's the purpose of this.

We have the discretion to, you know, approve less guests, approve less nights.

Um if it's what the if it's what the applicant is willing to restrict themselves to.

And like Commissioner Walters said, I think it limits the impact to the neighbors, which is a good thing because they were all opposed to it.

Uh I would be in favor of of doing that restriction.

So at these to clarify, we don't have the authority to approve anything.

We make a recommendation to give to council.

Thank you for that clarification.

Um I want to respond to that.

Uh Mr.

Darrell.

From a business negotiating point of view, he's already gave up the eight for the six.

Good work on making eight.

He's he's seeing kind of the vibe of the room.

He's willing to he's already compromised for six.

So now we're just taking more lunch money.

I mean, it's kind of how I'm feeling like we just keep he's I think he's already compromised for six, kind of quiets the the parking issue down, which came up.

Um I don't think two ten versus one twenty is gonna fix any other problems.

Anybody else?

Commission.

I would say just to see if we have support, I would make a motion to uh amend the recommendation.

Like how does that work where I just make a motion to to admit you won't it?

Yeah.

I would make a motion to amend the the recommendation from staff to be a maximum of 120 nights of annual rental for us to consider.

Is there a second?

Well, I would second that, but I don't know if that's is this a proper way to do that?

Yes, that's the that's that's a proper way to make amendments.

We could we could amend it before I actually vote.

Well, we have yet the motion hasn't been made.

So you we can make it we're not admitting the motion.

We're just making making okay.

But it'd be okay.

I was gonna say why don't he just make a motion like he just stated and we voted up or down?

That would be fine, yeah.

But this it's technically not amending.

Uh we've got a recommendation from staff.

There's no motion on the table, so it's not amending any sort of motion, but um, I mean, if we we could there could be a motion to take a vote, see the the Commission's appetite for amending the the amount of days.

So we yeah, proceed with that, sure.

So I second it's been moved and properly seconded.

Well, let's let's restate that motion.

Let's clean that up.

Let's let's uh if we could withdraw the previous motion, cleaner way and hope for some better guidance from council.

I'll state that.

Uh you could phrase the the motion in the um just simply to limit the maximum amount of nights uh for the annual SDR usage to 120 and then proceed from there.

I'll make a motion to limit the maximum number of nights uh from one from 210 nights to 120 nights of uh annual rented rental usage with a maximum of six transient guests.

He's just voting on the numbers.

And I second that.

Moved and properly seconded.

All those in favor of the amended amended.

The motion a motion on the table?

Yeah.

Uh let's do a roll call with that rather than a thumbs up, please.

Roll call, Mr.

Mr.

Sector.

We're we're this motion is just to change the nights from 210 to 120.

Yes.

Okay.

Commissioner Ortiz.

No.

Commissioner Stanton.

No.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Yes.

My vote is yes.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

And yes.

Motion carries four to two.

And are we ready to make a motion on the I'll I'll go for it.

Um regarding case number 106-2026 Concordia Drive STR conditional use permit.

I would make a motion to recommend approval of the requested STR CUP subject to maximum occupancy of six transient guests and a maximum of 120 nights of annual rental usage.

Second.

Ms.

Sector?

Can we do a comment?

Yeah.

I think this is really messy.

I I just I just want to put that out there.

I think City Council already has shown that in this neighborhood there's been pushback before.

And I think by amending it, and we're making it even messier.

So I just want that to be on the record.

Ready for roll call?

We are Ms.

Sector.

All right.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

My vote is yes.

Commissioner Darr?

Yes.

And Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Motion carries.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Move on to case 107-2026.

A request by Dirk May.

And a letla Ayana.

I'm sorry if I messing your name up.

I've been up here practicing and did this thing come out the way I practice.

But to allow property at 802 North 6th Street to operate as a 210 night maximum with six guests short-term rental pursuant section 29-3.3, subsection V V and Section 29-6.4, Section M, Part 2 of the Unified Development Code.

An additional on-site parking space will be required to accommodate six guests as existing parking currently supports a maximum of four guests.

The point 22 acre subject properties located on the east side of North 6th Street, approximately 190 feet south of this of its intersection with Wilkes Boulevard.

Have a staff report, please.

Yes, you may.

Thank you for the introduction yet again.

To reiterate, this is a short-term rental conditioning use permit for 802 North 6th Street to permit a 210 night maximum six transiting guests short-term rental.

Public notice was distributed via postcards on the 9th of March, followed by public hearing letters on the 23rd of March, and there were 77 of those sent out.

And then lastly, an ad was written in the tribute on the 24th of March.

Here is the subject site highlighted in red.

It is located approximately 190 feet south of the North 6th Street and Wilkes Boulevard intersection.

North 6th Street is a local residential street that permits entree parking and has sidewalks installed.

These surrounding properties are zoned RMF and have a mixture of one, two, and multifamily residences on them.

Furthermore, the property is within a thousand feet of two schools.

The subject property itself is zoned RMF and is not the primary residence of the applicant.

This is a three-bedroom, two-bathroom dwelling with these six guests uh requested.

There are three parking spaces required to be on site, though there are currently two uh spaces available.

Thus, an additional parking space must be added to accommodate the six uh the to accommodate the six guests, and without that, the maximum would be four.

The property was previously offered as a short-term rental, and there are no additional short-term rentals within 300 feet of the subject site.

Four of these 67 uh surrounding properties appear to be owner-occupied as well.

Or appear to be that would be rental.

Or no, it would be owner occupied, excuse me.

The designated agent lives in Columbia, uh 2.6 miles or roughly nine minutes from the subject site.

There was an illegal STR uh operation notice on file, though it appears that the uh notice was mailed not to the applicant's primary residence, thus the delay in the uh seeking of licensure.

The initial uh letter was sent out in uh September of last year, requesting compliance by October.

We received one letter in opposition in response to the request.

It just largely uh emphasized the preference that the SGR be a long-term rental instead.

In conclusion, the conditional use permit analysis would support approval for compliance.

That means that there are the short-term rental regulations, would provide an oversight and means to address any adverse impacts imposed by STR operation and approval would support broad policy strategies and actions of the comprehensive plan.

Staff's recommendation is to approve the requested short-term rental conditional use permit subject to the maximum of occupancy of four transient guests, a maximum of two hundred and ten nights of annual rental usage, followed by a maximum of six transient guests subject to the installation of one additional UDC compliant on-site parking space.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Before we get started, I would like to ask my colleagues if there's any expert information relating to this case that you would like to share with the rest of the commission, so we would be perfect to the same information you have.

Okay.

All right.

Questions for staff.

Dr.

Gray.

Thank you.

Um just to clarify, you said that uh there was a notice that was sent in November, but it was sent to the wrong address.

Yeah, it was sent in September requesting compliance by October, but it was sent to the not the applicant's primary residence.

It will appear to have sent to the actual STR property, so they didn't receive it, thus the delay.

And let me add a little bit of additional commentary to that.

And this is one of the challenges that our enforcement staff has as it relates to uh gaining compliance with our existing short-term rentals that we are aware are operating from our vendor that we have secured services for, as well as from other reports.

Um gaining the actual mailing address uh at times of the operator, uh, because these properties, this particular property actually shows that uh the address the the owners of the property, which are the agents, uh their mailing address on the uh local records is for 802 North 6th Street.

There was a separate violation, if I'm not incorrect, that was then sent later to which we did identify the correct address in a different state through a different source of information that we were able to acquire.

So often what you see what our enforcement staff is explaining to us from the administrative administrative side is the lack of immediate resolution within the time frames that we establish as a part of those initial notices is uh constrained by the accuracy of the information we may have available.

So the agent is a local family member as I understand it in reviewing the application.

I am sure that the mail is checked every once in a while by that individual because it is not the primary residence of anybody.

Um when it was probably picked up, the uh the owner, operator of the short-term rental, or the owner-operator of the home, the owner of the home itself is a California resident.

Uh they have uh business that they operate, which keeps them actively on the road, uh, as we understand.

And so that may have been a delay in them responding.

And then, of course, the secondary violation that was found as a result of another property, uh, not this specific one, um, is what resulted in the address being able to be uh correctly identified and the notice uh being sent out.

I know when we were contacted in regards to this particular property with the application originally coming in, there was a little bit of confusion on my part even in processing the application because it didn't it didn't appear as though this was originally going to be a CUP.

I had assumed it was going to be an administrative request because they live there.

And so part of the tactics that we would use to explain what the process is is well, if you are willing to take 120 nights, you don't have to go through the CUP, but then we came to understand, no, we don't live there.

Um so that is why there was a delay.

Um again, uh we often hear in the calls that we receive or the conversations we have.

Well, I really didn't realize that there was an ordinance that was governing short-term rentals in the City of Columbia.

Um that again, having had the ordinance in place since February of 2024, uh fully enforceable since June of 2025.

Um that says something as to how are we communicating actively to our residents uh and to our property owners.

So if you pay utilities within the City of Columbia, you are going to receive a city source newsletter, and we have to probably do a better job of making sure that all of our residents know that we have a rental licensing program for short-term rental, and that is something that again, as a part of the outreach process, we are trying to actively and uh better engage in.

And so we hope that we will start to be more effective as we utilize the services of our vendor and we utilize our other resources that we have available.

Um hopefully that gives a better explanation of why there was such a delay between an October 2025 request of compliance to now this period in time in 2026.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Open public hearing.

If you are the owner or organization, you have six minutes, and visuals three.

My name is Midday Marzoff.

I am representing my sister Ailea Martsov and her husband Dirk Mai.

They are the out-of-town owners for 802.

Um I do apologize.

I didn't bring um prepared material for the other speakers did.

Can you get up a little I'm sorry?

Can you get a little closer to the mic?

This needs to be recorded by our own.

So don't move that one down to your Yeah.

There we go.

Just as long as you are closer to it so we can get it recorded and you hear the reporter.

Thank you.

Better?

Okay, awesome.

Um but I'm really mostly just here to answer any questions I've kind of taken over as the designated agent in the last year or so.

So mostly involved in like the day-to-day operations, maintaining the home, but um not so much on this more, I guess, administrative side of operating the short-term rental.

Any questions for this speaker?

And I guess I'll say intent is to eventually move to Columbia.

Just the nature of their jobs kind of makes it difficult, and they wanted to be here, but they have got kids in school right now.

So, one more procedural thing, I think our current report uh pointed out before we go on with the conversation.

Did you say your uh state your address as well?

Oh, no, sorry, 351 Crown Point.

Thank you.

Media Martsov 351 Crown Point.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Questions for the speaker?

Mr.

Darr?

I see you're requesting a maximum of six guests if uh you were to install one additional compliant on-site parking space.

Have you looked at laying that out and seeing how it would uh actually be able to be fit onto the lot?

I think uh as of right now they don't plan on making any changes, so they're okay with the four-person occupancy maximum.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the speaker?

I'm looking right at Ms.

Dr.

Gray.

Uh thank you.

How long has this been operating as a short-term rental?

I think maybe like two years now.

Okay.

And were they aware of the regulations that were coming into place?

I'm not sure if the agent that they bought the home for from let them know what was happening um at the time of the purchase.

But uh again, I I don't know if there was like a miscommunication as far because it's not their primary address.

Um, but since they know now they're wanting to be compliant in that.

Um and again, like buying this house was kind of like a step towards moving to Columbia eventually.

Thank you.

So Tis.

Um so when did you start taking over the the being like the designated agent?

So all I I helped with like the original like remodeling, but I was not like a designated agent or anything.

They they've made like improvements to the property, but it's been about a year.

Um so I mostly just kind of make sure that uh grasses mode, uh fences that need fixing are fixed, um, replacing water heaters when they need to be.

So like if there's an emergency, they call you.

Yeah, I mean I'm on I'm on I'm on call.

Um, but also my husband helps too.

So I'm I might not be super readily available in the next couple of months, but my husband helps too.

Any other questions for the speaker?

I have a question.

Hey.

This has been a very hot topic in Columbia for like a long time.

This has been operating for two years.

Well, I have two red flags.

And I know you're probably not the one to answer them, but you're gonna catch the heat.

We have been compliant since Mr.

Zenna.

When did we go on to compliance?

Uh full compliance.

Full licensure was as of June 1st of 2025.

That was when full compliance was to be.

Full compliance 2025.

Mm-hmm.

So we understand that the mail didn't go to the right place, all that good stuff.

So that sends a red flag to me, like who's watching the property, who's watching the mail, who's getting that mail to that person in a timely fashion.

Yeah.

So those were really official letters, and you live in Columbia, I'm assuming.

I do, yeah.

Just a couple miles.

This has been a hot, hot topic.

And so I understand the distance and all of that, but you were still operating a business here for two years.

So you were still making money off of it.

You were still running an STR.

And so the it's hard for me to be forgiving of I didn't know.

Because you continue to operate.

And I know anybody that's run SCR, well, you know, I have a business.

I can't claim ignorance.

I do concrete.

I can't claim I didn't know a rule and get away with it.

I I I can't.

You know what I mean?

Right.

So I have a problem.

I understand the said the distance thing.

I have a problem with the attention to the property in a timely fashion.

So we're having a problem getting important mail to the owner.

How how often is the mail being checked?

How often is the grass being cut?

How often are you attending to this property?

And if we were to grant you this license and uh issue comes up, how quick is the response and how effective is the response?

How effective is the communication between the owner and the agent?

How effective is this as a business?

Thank you for coming to the light.

But I need to be convinced that there's attention to this property.

Right.

No, absolutely.

Um well, I'll say like I communicate like when mail comes in, a lot of it is um I think for their utilities it's all on auto pay, but as far as like mail that gets there, it's usually just like junk mail.

Um but when it is something important, I do communicate to her.

Like that's come in.

Um I was under the impression that they had started that STR paperwork um before March, but I think they were having a hard time navigating it, the the process of whatever it was and had reached out to neighborhood services a couple of times, but I I'm not I couldn't answer why there was such a delay on their part.

But um my husband does cut the grass every week.

And um Is it operating as an STR right now?

Uh not right now.

No.

No.

Not taking any new appointments or nothing right now.

No, we I mean we've met with like new, like we were like interviewing new cleaners and things like that just because like I'm not gonna be as available to like help flip the Airbnb, but that is so are you the agent when the So I asked this question, I haven't asked it all night.

When the stuff hits the fan and something goes down, who does who gets the call and how fast are they getting there to solve it?

So I get the call at you or somebody else.

It's me and I guess my husband as well, but we I mean we only live a couple miles away, so we have answered after hours calls at like eight, nine o'clock at night.

Um if like the pilot light went out on the water heater, but we're there within 10, 15 minutes with traffic.

How often do you visit Wilkes?

North Six, I'm sorry.

Um well, so nobody's been there for a while, so it's mostly just been like general maintenance.

Um, but usually it's every week.

So you've been there this week?

I have not been there this week, no.

When's the last time you were there?

Um they were just in town um two weeks ago, so two weeks ago.

You were trying to get at like how often are people there, yeah.

How often are you there?

How are you watching it, nurturing people?

I mean this is a business now.

Yeah, your illegal business.

So if it's not me stopping by to like check on appliances or something, my husband's usually there mowing the grass every week because it does grow fast.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the speaker?

Thank you, ma'am.

Absolutely.

Thank you guys.

Anyone else to speak on this case?

State your name and your address, please.

Hi, my name's Eric Nickerson.

I live at 800 North 7th Street, so just a block away.

Um I got the mailing, I was kind of concerned.

Had this come in as a long-term rental, I would not have had a problem with it.

Uh probably 90% of the single family homes on my block are long-term rentals.

And uh just to hear as a short-term rental of 210 nights, and you know, it just makes me uncomfortable, you know.

Uh it's, you know, I've lived I've lived at 800 North Seventh for 22 years on the property.

Love the neighborhood.

Um I've gotten to know my neighbors over the years, and like I said, even at long-term rentals.

Some of them have been there twelve, fifteen years, almost as long as me.

I'm just kind of concerned people that I don't even get to know.

Because they're only going to be there a third of the year, half the year.

It's just not something that I really like.

And to hear now that this was a property that's been operating outside the law for a couple of years, that gives me great concern too.

And to hear this young lady say that she's really not in the neighborhood that much that that's not something that I like to hear either.

So thank you very much.

Come on.

Any questions for this speaker?

Dr.

Gray.

Uh thank you.

So you said just to clarify, was the notice receiving the notice about this hearing the first awareness that it's in.

Yeah.

So in the past two years you have not noticed that it was an SDR.

Uh just I really couldn't tell you because good lord, there's a ton of traffic just because of the schools, just because, you know, there's apartments down North Six.

I've got apartments on North Seventh.

There's like I said, almost everything in that neighborhood is a rental property.

So it's very hard to tell, you know.

I uh I get a lot of traffic from Columbia College too.

There's a lot of people that park up Alton that go to Columbia College.

So it's very hard for me to tell who exactly is actually lives in the neighborhood or who's just using street parking for uh temporary.

I'm gonna be here for a few hours.

So um if I don't know my neighbors, no, I really can't tell you.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Any other questions for me?

The other questions from the commission.

Thanks, sir.

Thank you very much.

Anybody else want to speak on this case?

You state your name and your address clearly so that we can have our recorder.

David, it's so nice to see you.

It's been several years.

My name is Pat Fowler.

I live at North 606 North Sixth Street on the same street as this proposed.

It's not a proposed short-term rental.

It's been running for more than two years, Dr.

Gray, and I've been aware of it for more than two years.

Because I stop and talk to people and welcome them as being our new neighbors, and they tell me they're just there for the weekend.

So I have some pictures I wanted to.

Do I give them to Dr.

Gray or do I give them to the other?

Yeah, we'll just start with Dr.

Gray and call around.

And I gotta be quick about it because you're all getting right.

I'm gonna start my timer right now.

Okay, thank you.

So I have two concerns.

The first one I can't spend too much time on because I'm gonna run out of time, but Dr.

Gray has some pictures of flooding along North Sixth Street.

And so the idea that there would be more hard surfaces on our street concerns those of us who have already lived through a couple of flood stages.

Now it's better right now.

And the reason why it's better right now is because the school decided it wanted to put a gymnasium, and so their trenching across their athletic field meant the city was prompted to do something about a failing stormwater box at the corner.

So some of the flooding that you're gonna see there is something we experienced regularly.

We now we just had a week of heavy rain, my sump pump's been running now.

It just stopped, I think the day before yesterday, but it ran continuously for almost a week.

So water is a problem in our neighborhood.

So let me leave that aside because it's an accumulation of anything that changes in the neighborhood within a mile, land disturbance, all of a sudden the change of the water flows differently, and somebody's gonna have a problem.

But my more immediate concern is about the lack of available housing for our neighbors who need that.

So when I'm not at work, I often go to things like the voluntary action opportunity campus training, which I'm currently enrolled in.

And I learned two new facts that startled even me.

And one was only one in four families that need subsidized housing in Columbia are able to access it.

There's limits to our resources.

On top of that, Love Columbia reported that when we say that we have 309 unsheltered people in Columbia.

Conrad Haiges says you gotta model you've got to multiply that by seven.

And that's because there are so many people that are in unstable housing conditions that they're on somebody's sofa, they're staying with a friend for as long as they can make that work, because they can't find accessible housing.

So I've also listened to Jessica McNear, I hope you've met her, um, the uh shelter director for the opportunity campus, and she talks about the tsunami that's already here of unsheltered.

The fact that we have so many folks that don't have stable housing.

If this property can hold six people, then a family of six could live there.

And we already have seven short-term rentals in our neighborhood, and I have the addresses, you probably know what they are if you look them up.

But I got them from the map that Lee Cottwoods has.

Two of them are right across the street from each other on North Range Street.

I don't know how that happened, North or Rangeline Street.

So when you look at it, for generations, North Central has been one of the most, if not the most affordable neighborhood in our city for families, for low-income people, for people with kids.

And we're losing that already to demolitions.

In fact, right now we're pending the loss of 26 bedrooms and 9700 square feet of livable space with the four permits that the Columbia College has pending on North A Street.

Every single house is needed for people who live here year-round.

I honor all the concerns you've already raised.

Thank you, Mr.

Stanton.

But when it comes right down to it, we have to keep housing in circulation for our families.

I've lived on North Sixth Street for 16 years.

I've known some of the people that have lived there when it was a long-term rental.

It can go back to being a long-term rental again, and we will welcome that family.

Thank you.

Any questions for the speaker?

Just to clarify, didn't the applicants uh except four nights for the and not to add additional payments?

They're not gonna add a point additional park.

They're not gonna add the just regarding the flooding concern.

That takes one, but that's my my more immediate concern is where do our families go now?

Um I have what my friend calls a sharing shed in my front yard at the bottom of the street.

I call it a blessing box.

But we fill it with food because our neighbors are hungry.

And we help each other out to the extent that we can given our own resources for people that live on the street.

I do need to comment that your staff report is inaccurate on a couple of respects.

The distance between that property and Wilkes on the parcel viewer is shorter than 190 feet.

And the number of owner-occupieds that I counted in that, just that general area is double what they have on their staff report.

So I'm concerned about the staff report and the assumptions it makes about our neighborhood.

Can you explain what that means?

The assumptions it makes about the neighborhood.

So it makes assumptions.

I've heard this before when I've come to other hearings, and I once or twice have been here about short-term rentals, about the fact that we're mostly rentals means that our neighborhood is more appropriate for a short-term rental because we already have folks that are not as quote committed to the neighborhood.

So when they say that in counting 67 homes in the area surrounding it, they only found four owner-occupies.

I didn't know Mark, Eric, sorry.

I didn't know Eric yet.

I'm glad that I know where Eric lives now.

But without Eric, I counted eight.

So something's not right about how the data is being collected about our neighborhood.

And then I just feel the overwhelming need for accessible and available housing for our families outweighs all the other issues that are in your staff report.

Right.

But you saying that there's more owner-occupied, aren't you just reinforcing the stereotype or whatever that less owner-occupied means less investment?

No, I'm I'm trying to emphasize the fact that I think there's parts of your process that are flawed if you're putting out a staff report that says that I mean I looked at the parcel viewer, and the distance from this property to Wilkes is different.

And you know, if you're if you're saying that our our demographics are this, when in fact those of us who live here, our demographics are different.

There's something not right about this process in a place where we're already in a crunch for having available housing for our families.

Thank you.

Um I just want to clarify uh so you're not in support of STRs broadly.

I'm not in support of SDRs in our neighborhood.

I don't have I don't know.

I have issues with some other things that are going on with the ordinance, and you've heard from me about that, and you'll hear from me again about that.

But my concern is what Jessica McNear calls the tsunami of unshelteredness, that some of it is visible and some of it isn't, and we need to keep housing available for those families that right now are invisible to us but are out there and unable to find a place to live.

Okay.

And this is particularly pertinent to your neighborhood.

Because for generations, now I've only lived there for 16 years, but I knew a lot of folks who live there a lot longer.

They've since passed on.

But Betty Cook Rotman and Dan Cullimore.

Um, and the stories that they told me about the generational John Clark, who we've lost recently, the generational history of our neighborhood as being one of the most affordable places.

We've had an uptick in the number of children that are back out among us, which is good for us.

We love to see kids riding their bikes and interacting with the neighbors.

Um we have been traditionally that neighborhood where people could afford to live, whether they rented or they owned their small home.

And and I just want to make sure I understand.

And then the separate kind of entangled argument is about density and concerns about that.

Well, what's interesting about it is I've watched some of the hearings.

I'm not here every you know, twice a month when you all have a hearing, but I've watched some of them.

And we're a compact neighborhood, and we have small houses on small lots.

So there's more of us there already, which is a good thing.

In fact, I don't have a problem with how close our houses are.

I wish we could squeeze a few more homes in there because we need the housing.

But we have already in our compact little neighborhood, already seven short-term rentals approved.

And so that feels like there's a lot of short-term rentals being concentrated in an area where we have traditionally been one of those places where people can seek affordable and accessible housing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the speaker?

Thank you, Matt.

Thank you.

Anybody else to speak on this case?

Do you state your name and address?

Michael Martin and uh mailing address the city uses this P.O.

box 125 and Columbia 65205.

That's where all my notices came from.

Um we uh manage several properties on North Sixth Street, including the one right across the street at 807 North Sixth.

We've owned that home for 12 years.

And what's really cool is I didn't know until tonight that across the street from me there was a short-term rental.

Because they take amazing care of that house.

And guess who our last renters were?

Two years, two and a half years, they renewed twice.

And I gave him a hat, he wanted to be out in March because he was going to uh start a he was going to restart back in Kansas City.

The Capitol Bureau Chief for the Kansas City Star lived there for two and a half years and just moved.

And before him, one of the new directors of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, I think is the name.

She was there right before him.

And during this whole time, this was a short-term rental.

And believe me, when you have the Kansas City Star Bureau chief for the Capitol, I mean he commuted to Jeff City, renew your lease, and he also covered housing in Kansas City, which is very controversial.

If there's going to be a problem, I'm going to hear about it.

And I never did.

Not one time.

That house is immaculate, and I was over today.

I need to mow my lawn, because they just moved.

I was over there today and yesterday.

They were mowing the lawn.

I think it might have been him.

He was out in the yard mowing the lawn, and the sign had kind of fallen a little bit and they put it back up, you know, the announcement sign.

So when I heard that they're not going to do the parking, because when when Councilwoman Fowler uh led the charge to make sure we had better drainage there, I testified a few times in front of the city council about the need for better drainage there.

So this has been a big concern of mine.

And then when I found out they're not going to have that extra parking, I'm like, that's great.

That's that kind of takes care of all of my you know worries about this.

Um I also I did get into a bit of a discussion about the need for equitable application of ordinances in the neighborhood.

And I think it's important to point out that we have a very, very high impact organization in the neighborhood, and that's turning point at Wilkes Church.

Very high impact.

And they've been pretty much granted the red carpet to do whatever they want.

And I don't think on an equity basis on a legally fair basis, we should be up here telling these folks that they can't do what they want to do when we grant that kind of you know open borders sort of ordinance uh attitude toward you know another organization.

This is a very, very high impact organization on the neighborhood.

Uh we I've been on North Sixth Street, uh multiple properties there for 22 years.

I know every one of them, like the back of my hand, roof, all the way to the crawl space.

I've been at all of them, on top of all of them, under all of them, every room, everywhere.

And they are some of the sweetest homes in the area.

And I would love to have more Eric's who own them and not rent them.

But they are hard to sell because they are hard to take care of, and you want to know why that neighborhood's been so affordable for so long?

Because the city neglected it for decades, generations, because it used to be segregated, and they didn't put any money into it, and they still don't.

So I I want I'm I'm up here sort of trying to correct some mis you know guided thinking about the the what the neighborhood's about.

It's a one, it's the best located neighborhood in town.

I love it, I love it, I love it.

Um but you know, we need people who take care of their properties and who will do the right thing.

And that home, you know, that Peter Bartock bought it out of foreclosure.

He sold it to a a couple that had it for about six or seven years, and then I think they sold it to to her sister.

Um and I think she's had it since uh September of 23.

I I looked on the the uh um the Boone County website, and they have taken immaculate care of it.

It looks great, and it was all renovated.

It's probably one of the nicest homes on the street.

So I'm all for this.

I I think they've been great neighbors, and to know that this has been a short-term rental all along for the last couple of years, that's that's really reassuring.

So I want want to thank you all for listening to my uh screed up here.

Any questions for the speaker?

Do you think there's a parking issue on that street?

Um, you know, not really, because you know the biggest parking issue is shared parts, shared driveways, but they have their own driveway, and the apartments have their driveways, and um not really.

Um not on that street.

In fact, yeah, I mean it's it's all free parking.

Um there's been no issue with them since they've had this going.

So thank you.

Hey, thank you.

I also speak on this case.

Once twice.

Closing.

Public hearing.

Commission.

Let's talk about it.

Or in a tent of motion.

I am just going to say this.

Uh I see both sides of this story.

What bothers me the most is we have broke our back to make a system of accountability.

I am full support of people using their property.

I am in full support of the little guy able to get more use more value out of their property.

We have driven this policy for over four years.

It came in compliance.

We've been scaring people, we have been driving that there is enforcement and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, sending out letters short of knocking on every door.

And we're still getting people to act like they don't know, they didn't know about it.

That's my problem, because ignorance is not.

I forgot the little saying, but if I didn't see the if I didn't see the traffic sign that said 50 miles an hour and I was going 60, I can't say, oh shoot, I didn't know that there was 60 miles an hour.

I the cop isn't going to let me go.

I have a problem with the compliance part.

I have a deep problem with the turnover time.

It sounds like you've taken care of it, but I this is going to be a legal business, and I need, and I say this every time we talk about these.

It is essential that these first are successful because if they're not, we get the kind of testimony we hear all the time about there's like implicit biases about these.

They're party houses, they're this, they destroy the community, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

That I'm trying to avoid by supporting good run businesses.

Good run STRs.

In my business, I can't be two months late because I didn't get a notice from my customer, or I didn't get a notice from the government.

I can't.

Any other business that delay and lack of I didn't know is not acceptable.

It's just not.

So that makes me question your ability to run a business.

You should have been compliant or in motion of being compliant last year in June.

We're just getting on board now.

And it was only because you got a notice.

And if you've been running an SDR for over two years, you knew something.

Because you've been making money for two years.

And nobody said nothing about any compliance or any this is coming down the pipe or and I don't know.

I'm sure I I just I don't know how you can be in Columbia and not hear by SDR regulation.

I I just don't know how that happens, especially if you run one.

I just don't know.

Mr.

Darr.

I agree completely.

The owners do not instill me with a sense of confidence uh based on this.

Um they're not here to plead their case, which they might have a valid reason, but when I'm voting for something, I like to hear directly from the owner.

You know, I like to hear what they have to say about this and what Commissioner Stanton brought up.

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

Uh as far as the comment from Ms.

Fowler about seven STRs in the neighborhood.

Now I don't know how she is defining the neighborhood, but it can you is is there really seven in this neighborhood?

There have not been seven that have been approved, sir.

There may be seven that operate, and they may be cataloged by Ms.

Fowler, and if they have been reported or a neighborhood services department, there may be seven notices of violation out at this point.

But we have not approved, because I do all of the administrative approvals and I process every single conditional use approval.

And I can tell you we have not approved seven in this neighborhood, and we have not processed but this one conditional use request.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

Fowler.

Ms.

Fowler, you know we can't hear you from over there.

We have to have public hearing open.

And let me, I I I will respond to Ms.

Fowler's comment based on the fact of what she is claiming.

Ms.

Kopwitz uh received uh a data point collection map uh that showed where we had uh short-term rentals identified by the vendor, if I am not incorrect.

That map was shared at a WANA meeting, a West Ash neighborhood association meeting, and it has been shared with several other interested citizens within the community.

What I can tell you is is there is not seven licensed short-term rentals administratively or otherwise approved within this particular area.

Um so that data I cannot, I I can't verify that it is correct, because if there has been a business license issued without the city's staff being engaged, uh that is not a business license that has gone through our process as defined.

And so that is the point that I would like to make.

There is not to this effect that we have done that many in this neighborhood.

I I can I will stand behind my reputation as having worked in this community for 17 years and been the sole uh staff member associated with the short-term rental process.

I'm not familiar with the map because I have never seen it, but what I can tell you is is because all of them come through me, we have not.

Uh and so this is again an issue that we have to resolve as a part of an evolving ordinance process to address what may have been operating as a midterm or a long-term rental that may have been operating as a short-term rental in the absence or may have been operating prior to the adoption of our regulations as a short-term rental, and was informed at that point that if you want to register your property as a long-term rental, that's the way to do so.

And it may have been benoced to Ms.

Kotwitz that that was being operated as a short-term rental.

I I will be more than happy to receive Ms.

Fowler's map, and I will I will investigate that.

Uh and we will investigate why there apparently seems to be a uh misassociation of rental properties to owner-occupied properties, but we pull our information from the assessors' records that we have available to us that is address-based, and when you have properties that have multiple addresses, and those addresses are not going to the property.

They are attached to the property, but you have a separate address that is for an investor that owns that property that goes somewhere else, like Mr.

Martin.

He may have two registered addresses on a property.

That is a rental unit, and that then has a third address, which is the owner of record that pays taxes.

We go through a very, very deliberate process of validating that when we are getting all of our notices.

That is not to say that the City of Columbia's processes are perfect, but we will definitely work to make sure that they are more accurate to address the concerns that have been expressed this evening.

We can only do so much.

I would like to give that to Mr.

Zenner.

I want you to see it.

Well, because we don't have it at public hearing, so I don't want to open public hearing up.

But that because they were the owner.

So I will I would like you to wait until public comment, and then we can go from there, which is coming up soon.

But I'm not going to open public hearing up again.

You aren't the owner of the property.

That's why we opened it back up at that time.

So if you want to wait for public comment, and then we'll go from there.

Any other comments from the Commission?

Ready to make a motion.

Make it up.

Um I would like to regarding case number 107-2026-802 North Sixth Street.

SDR conditional use permit.

I move to approve the recommendation for the requested STR CUP subject to maximum occupancy of four transient guests, maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage.

Second.

I am just going to make a comment.

Can I make a comment before we am speaking to the public, but I am speaking this?

You guys have to do better with communication.

You have to do better with that property.

This is in my neighborhood too.

You get violations that people see something not have there's a system in place to report problems.

I'm still not comfortable.

Just gonna say that.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Commissioner Stanton.

No.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

My vote is yes.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

No.

The motion carries four to two.

Our recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Well, that concludes our public hearing section.

We will open up the public comments.

Please state your name and address for the recorder, please.

My name is Pat Fowler.

I live at 606 North 6th Street.

And what I have here is a list of information that I requested from the Office of Neighborhood Services that they provided to me.

And I don't know what the right answer is, but I'm disappointed that I, as a member of my neighborhood, can ask for information from a city agency only to have another part of the same organization say that though that's not accurate information.

So I I you can have my printout.

I would like you all to look at it.

It indicates not only the LLC, we have one short-term rental where Stacy actually applied for it in her own name.

We know Stacy, she is one of our neighbors.

But it tells the address when it was licensed and who the LLC is that applied for that license.

And so this was again was information that I got from the Office of Neighborhood Services when I requested it.

So let me give that to Dr.

Gray.

Dr.

Gray.

Our level of frustration for the neighbors that I spend time with as we try and take care of our neighbors about the confusion of information we get from the city is just continues.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Fowler.

Any other public comments?

Going twice.

Comments from staff.

Mr.

Dinner, what do you got for us?

So your next meeting will be on April 23rd.

As I explained in work session this evening, the presentation from CMT as it related to our complete street project, which was what was scheduled to be discussed at this upcoming meeting, has been delayed.

We will bring forward a different topic for the Commission to consider.

That topic will be determined.

And that use being a conditional use within the permitted use table.

So at this point, as a CUP, it does require a conditional use.

However, also discussed at Monday night's meeting for subsequent legislation to be considered by council was an administrative delay ordinance as it relates to any future data center authorizations.

And hence the reason why we need to work toward getting the use-specific standards and the conditional use criteria underway.

One of which we have been working on for a while, and one of which was a tabled case from two meetings ago.

And that particular case is 91-26.

This is at the corner of Grace Lane and Richland Road.

This was a PD rezoning request and a new plan.

It is possible that this request will be sought to be tabled again.

Applicant is still working with their client in order to resolve several outstanding technical issues associated with the project, and we have not yet received revisions.

Um we will have more information probably this coming week.

Uh and then the secondary item uh which is scheduled for public hearing and which we had completed work session discussion on are the UDC text amendments that will address accessory dwelling units.

This is the particular amendment that will remove uh the CUP standard in the R1 zoning district uh and provide several other um uh dimensional and uh use specific standard revisions.

Uh I am working right now with our building and site development manager, my comparable within our building department to ensure that the text uh as it relates uh to certain specific standards uh is uh properly described in order to ensure that there is clarity for future uh administration of the proposed uh ordinance.

Uh this would be a uh significant step forward, I think as many of us on the Commission understand uh in relaxing uh the conditional use standards in efforts to try to enhance the ability to see more construction of accessory dwelling units on uh compliant parcels.

Uh so the one parcel uh that we do have as a regular public hearing that would have mapping and advertising and signage associated with it is the uh the property that's at the corner of Richland and Grace Lane.

Again, this is potentially going to be tabled, and that is the only item we have for this evening, uh, or any additional matters for this evening.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Thank you, Mr.

Zenner.

Any comments from Commissioners?

I have a question.

Um, and this maybe maybe not tonight is the time to talk about this, and maybe it could be at the start of the future meeting, but I uh as a result of the first public hearing where the uh gentleman was primarily interested in a shorter amount of time and he assumed he had no other option than to do what he did to 210, and we then we discussed the 120.

So I'm looking at the uh their uh SDR application, and right now it says tier one, tier two, and tier two, tier two with 129th, tier two with 210 ninth.

And right now it says tier two, 129th, no CUP required, must be principal resident.

Why could why could that not, and again, if this takes too long tonight, we can postpone it.

Why could that not say tier two, 129th annually, C UP required in A R1, R2, RFM zoning, no CUP required if principal residents.

Right now it says must be.

I can see why someone could be confused by seeing, oh, I can't do that because if I you know I that doesn't apply to me because I was not a principal resident.

Why does that matter?

If you want to do 120 nights, why not let them?

And I don't have to reply.

Next time.

Commissioner, you won't get a 20-minute response because it's relatively the amendments that were approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in June of last year, remove that particular provision.

I I don't recall that.

Because we are unitizing, because as Commissioner Stanton had pointed out, everybody was seeking to go to the maximum, regardless if you were an investor or regardless if you were a primary property owner.

And so what we have chosen, what was chosen and voted on by the majority of the Planning Commission was to create a two-tier process, irrespective of the owner occupancy of a dwelling, enhance the conditional use criteria triggers, and the in the total number of nights for anybody coming in would be 210.

But you would be triggering a conditional use under an enhanced set of conditional use criteria, and that enhanced set of conditional use criteria basically incorporates what we presently do not incorporate.

All administratively, previously administratively approved short-term rentals will count towards the 300-foot spacing.

And today we do not count administratively approved short-term rentals.

So there is a major, there is a major departure from administration as to how we have done it.

Now, if somebody chooses to use their dwelling unit for less than 120 nights, that is their choice as an operator.

And we did not want to create additional layering.

I think again, questions that get asked by applicants may not get to what they truly need.

And if we had known what they really were wanting to achieve, we probably would have suggested, why don't you self-restrict to 120 nights?

However, that's not human nature generally, as we have gone through this process is not to self-restrict.

It is to succeed in getting the maximum number.

And so we don't spend a lot of time when we're dealing with applicants to go over every permeutation of what could or couldn't happen.

We look at the ordinance and we say, you're not the primary resident, therefore you're a 210 nights.

What happened this evening was the applicant was reading the room, the applicant was reading the commission, and the applicant thought that, okay, I don't need all of this because I really principally want a midterm and a long-term rental.

Therefore, it doesn't matter to me if I self-restrict myself.

I don't necessarily, in the way that the structure of the ordinance is right now, have that option.

You either come in and you make an application for an administrative approval at 120 nights, because that's all I can give you by the ordinance, or you make an application for 210 nights because it's not your primary residence.

Or you are the primary resident and you want 180 nights.

And if you tell me I just need a I need an extra 60 nights, I'm going to tell you, okay, send me your application with 160 or 180 nights on it.

And we'll write the public notice that that's all you're asking for.

But that's not often what happens.

Somebody just looks at the application and they say, okay, well, I'm it is my principal residence, but I want the maximum of what's allowed.

And so that's why that's why the ordinance is structured that way, and it is structured that way because that's how the text presently reads.

So, you know, to make the change that you're suggesting would require that we basically keep the model that we're currently using, which, at least based on the recommendation that was made by the Commission in June of last year, that's not the model we're wanting to keep.

We're wanting to get rid of the first tier, 30 nights.

We're wanting to consolidate tier two into one 210 night tier, and then we will have, and that will become tier one, and then tier three, which is 365, stays 365, but it becomes tier two with the same zoning classifications.

Uh again, I the the the context behind consolidating the tiers was to try to simplify the ordinance, but the increase in conditional use criteria was to ensure that those projects that needed to be reviewed by the Commission and needed additional attention, and then also needed additional attention by City Council would be being reviewed.

And those would be the ones that had any violation of any city code.

They were within 300 feet of any type of short-term rental that was previously licensed now.

And I think that that is something that uh has been an overlooked aspect of this ordinance.

Um, and that is a embedded requirement, both admins and uh previously approved conditional uses will count moving forward, which is a huge impediment.

So in the instances in in North Central around Ms.

Fowler's property, for example, if there are a series of administratively approved short-term rentals uh that were done by the property owner, they are 120 nights, and somebody else tries to come in post-the amended ordinance and wants to seek a CUP because it's their investment property, those previously approved administrative 120 night short-term rentals are going to block the ability for a new CUP to be issued.

Now, how other C how other approvals, if there's seven within this particular area and how there is an overlapping potentially of within the 300 feet, the only way the overlapping of the 300 feet would occur would be because they were administrative.

And so, not to not to frustrate and not to stoke a nerve, the conditional uses that have been issued within this particular environment, based on my recollection of what I have processed, and there have been some that have been on North Seventh, not necessarily on North Sixth.

So I mean we do have some within this particular area.

And I don't know how far and how broad Ms.

Fowler's exhibit was.

But we do have several that have occurred, but they're not within, they weren't within 300 feet of another CUP.

They may, however, have been within 300 feet of a licensed, a properly licensed, administratively approved one.

Out of the 150 that I have probably issued over the course of the last two and a half years, they start to blend together after a while.

And so maybe I am mistaken, and maybe there is not as much of a disconnect.

However, I I I find it hard to believe that I would have missed that we've done seven that would have qualified to go to the higher level of review.

And the higher level of review is where we're within 300 feet of a CUP, not necessarily the administrative version.

And so there is a possibility that we have more administrative than I recall, because those are so much less.

But to your question, Bob, I I mean, I think really we don't when we are asked questions, the information we provide back to an applicant is based upon the questions that the applicant is asking us and telling us what they want.

And often an applicant is just wanting to get through the morass of the process, and they don't want to be trying to ask for alternatives.

Now I will tell you that when we sense that there may be an issue because we're getting public feedback back as a part of the process, and they call back and they want to know when they receive a round of comments or uh and they want to ask, well, how can we maybe mitigate the concerns that we're hearing about now?

It is at that point possibly the staff would step in and we would suggest one of the staff members that prepares the reports.

We would step in and we would suggest, well, if you chose to self-restrict, that may help.

Um but that's, you know, we we take the application the way that it had come in, and that's why it got advertised that way.

But it's, you know, through the process of review, occasionally we have to we do have to pivot a little bit.

But it it's often not occurring at the very time that we take the app in.

It occurs more as we're doing the work, getting it prepared to come here.

Thank you.

Move to adjourn.

I have got something to say.

So that would kill it.

I have to use the restroom and we we don't have a we won't have a quorum if I leave, right?

So we can't conduct business.

So I would like this meeting to end.

Okay.

Go ahead.

I'm going to say my piece next week, and nobody has to join until I'm finished.

That was properly seconded, right?

That we got over the case.

Yes, it was.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.