To the Thursday, May twenty first, twenty twenty-six planning and zoning commission meeting of the City of Columbia.

Commissioner Brodsky, may we please have a roll call.

Commissioner Walters.

Here.

I am here.

Commissioner Darr.

Here.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Here.

Commissioner Gray.

Here.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Here.

Commissioner Stanton.

Here.

And Commissioner Stockton is absent.

We have a quorum of seven.

Mr.

Zinner, are there any changes or adjustments to the agenda?

Yes, there will be, ma'am.

We are going to um move case number one thirty-five dash twenty twenty six forward in the agenda under public hearing.

So it will become the first public hearing with ninety-one dash twenty twenty-six being heard as the second hearing.

With that adjustment, is there a motion to approve the agenda?

Move to approve.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Gray, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz.

Thumbs up approval on the agenda.

Does anyone have an objection to that course of action?

Commissioner Stanton.

Moved by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on that motion?

I know it's a little unusual, but I think that there are significant issues.

Commissioner Gray.

So just to clarify, we will send the adjustments to whom?

Mr.

Zinner.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none.

Is thumbs up approval okay on this motion?

All right.

Thumbs up approval to table.

Very good.

And everyone, please do review those minutes.

We are very grateful to our staff for doing those minutes.

And this is just an unusual circumstance.

So thank you.

Very good.

All right.

Our first case for the evening.

Case number 135-2026, a request by Engineering Surveys and Services agent on behalf of Jeffrey E.

Smith Investment Company LC owner for approval to rezone 3.15 acres of property from the RMF multiple family dwelling district to the MN mixed use neighborhood district.

The subject site is located directly northeast of the intersection of Bethel Street and Diego Drive and is presently unaddressed.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may and thank you for the introduction.

Again, this is directly northeast of the intersection of Bethel Street and Diego Drive.

It's around 3.15 acres in size, and the request is to rezone it from the residential multifamily district to the mixed use neighborhood district.

Public notice was sent in the form of postcards on the 20th of April and public hearing letters were sent to owner occupants and tenants on the 4th of May, and an ad was placed in the Tribune on the 5th of May.

There were 118 uh letters sent out.

This is mostly due to the uh we'll say prevalence of multifamily dwellings in the area, and we send out letters to everyone who has a unit within a multifamily structure.

So highlighted here in red is some Google, excuse me, Google area imagery of the site that we're looking at here.

Uh prominent intersection really mostly includes uh grindstone, Naiphong, and um Bethel Street here directly to the south.

You can see gentry estates, um, and directly to the north you can see Bethel Ridge, both uh independent senior living communities.

Directly to the south of this site is Cherry Hill Dentists and a financial institution.

Uh here is uh illustrated from the Boone County parcel viewer.

Um again, this is all currently one lot.

It was final platted back in 2009, if I'm not mistaken, um, and has remained vacant.

Uh it's never really been developed at all.

Um here is the surrounding zoning of the site.

Uh this site is zoned multifamily.

You can see a prevalence of multifamily zoning on the west, or excuse me, the east of this across Santiago Drive.

Um to the west of this site, there is a City of Columbia Pump Station as well as a detached single family subdivision that is planned development zoned.

Um the PD zoned lot directly to the north is part of Bethel Ridge as well, but was developed under PD rather than open zoning in the multifamily zoning district.

A little bit of background more about how this uh lot became what it is.

Uh this property is lot 2b of Bethel Ridge Plat 2.

Um it was originally part of lot 2 of Bethel Ridge Platte 1, but was replatted in 2009, which created lots 2A and 2B.

2A is the multifamily structure that exists to the northwest of this site currently but constrained within Santiago and Bethel as this property is.

Um there would not be subdivision required to get a building permit.

It's a legal lot.

Um and both lots to the north are developed with multifamily dwelling structures as previously noted.

And this site has always been vacant.

Uh it was previously zoned R3, um, which turned into residential multifamily with UEC adoption in 2017.

Uh so as far as frontage is concerned for this lot, uh it's fronts uh to the west of this site.

Uh it is classified as a neighborhood collector in the Katsu major roadway plan.

Um in this scenario, the the verbiage we have around access for uh collectors and arterials is that newly platted lots cannot have direct driveway access if they have fewer than 300 feet of frontage.

Um although this would not need to be newly platted, it would not be encouraged for direct driveway access to be derived off of Bethel.

Um Santiago is directly to the east of this site.

It is classified as a local residential street and approved to such standards.

Uh and Diego is directly to the south of this site.

It has points of ingress and egress for the two PDs that are directly south of this.

It is improved to local non-residential standards.

Um so that's a little bit of increased paving and increased ride-of-way dedications.

Um this can accommodate commercial vehicles.

That's kind of the intent of it as a local non-residential street.

Um and this is the the street ultimately where staff would encourage ingress and egress to be located at a time of development for this site, should it be rezoned.

Um again, the immediate surrounding zoning, we have residential multifamily and PD to the north, which is both for the same development.

Again, that's Bethel Ridge.

Um it's R1 and PD zoning to the west, which again is a city pump station and a single family subdivision.

Residential multifamily, which is all multifamily development to the direct east of the site, and PD zoning to the south, and the bank to the southwest or south, but the western of the two lots.

The SOI allows most all commercial office uses, with some exceptions, like drive-through restaurants were not permissible there, adult retail things that more or less they caveat it out of that.

And the Cherry Hill dental PD SOI, which was adopted in two things or revised rather in 2022, does allow all mixed-use neighborhood uses.

So it would be consistent in terms of what could be pursued without an SOI modification necessarily with what could be developed on this site, although this wouldn't require site-specific plans approved by city council in order to be developed.

So some purpose of the mixed-use neighborhood zoning district.

It's intended to provide commercial shopping and service facilities in or near a residential neighborhood.

The principal land use is a shopping center area with sales and services oriented to the needs of a local population.

And the district is intended to accommodate pedestrian-oriented shopping areas with walkable connections to surrounding neighborhoods and small auto-oriented shopping centers convenient to low density residential areas.

This is directly from chapter uh 29 2.2 of the Unified Development Code for the defined purpose of the zoning district.

So if new uses uh well, rezoning this site into mixed-use neighborhood would introduce a handful of new uses.

Uh the most prominent uses are going to be commercial uses, uh but does include residential uses and some public and institutional uses.

On the following slide, I'll have the commercial uses listed, but just for reference, these are the residential and public and institutional uses that would be uh permissible by right if rezoned.

Um rezoning would allow again various new uses, um, and we do not evaluate rezonings based on what a particular end use may or may not be.

It's about the suitability of the zoning district when considered with the surrounding uses, um, utility capacity, uh, as well as its its designation and um whether or not this comports with um the future land use map and the comprehensive plan in general.

Uh this site is designated in the neighborhood district in the future land use map.

So here is just the new commercial uses that would be added.

Um, for example, we'll say offices can be added, a restaurant could be added, uh, indoor recreation or entertainment facilities, physical fitness centers, personal services, um, so per potentially less intense uh commercial services, at least not as auto-centric potentially commercial uses as what you would see in the mixed-use corridor zoning district.

Excuse me.

Um, uses in introduced with uh an MN rezoning would be consistent with the PDs to the south again.

Um the PD to the south contains a financial institution and personal services slash medical offices.

Um so allowing um these uses that would be allowed in the MN district does not believe to be inconsistent or incompatible with what has been developed on those planned developments.

Um there's also no residential development opportunity lost if it's rezoned to MN.

Um MC, for example, you can't do deep catch single family dwellings, but in MN you can do all residential uses within the city.

Um streets also provide buffers from residential uses from the east to the west and the commercial uses to the south.

Um and it's not believed that um, well, there's believed to be enough of an adequate buffer um between the properties to the north.

Also a rather large structure, so it's not believed that this would be too intrusive to those who live in that development.

Um it's also being requested by the person who owns the property to the north of this as well.

This rezoning request is that way.

Um we also uh have reduced concerns about commercial drive traffic driving past residential subdivisions.

Um commercial traffic may go on Santiago for a little bit, um, which may not be ideal necessarily.

Uh it's unlikely that they would head north beyond the intersection with Diego.

Um, so we believe that it wouldn't create too many conflicts with uh commercial vehicles driving through residential areas.

Um also wanted to note that if a use is pursued that generates more than 100 trips at a peak hour factor, uh transportation impact study would be required and it would identify potential off-site improvements.

Um but again, that would be something that would be evaluated at the time of a building permit being requested.

Um this area is designated within the neighborhood district in the future land use map uh in the neighborhood district, is uh intends to accommodate a broad mix of residential uses and a limited number of non-residential uses that provide services to neighborhood residents.

Um I'd say or argue that mixed-use neighborhood can provide all type of residential uses in any mix and some less intense non-residential uses to accommodate surrounding residents.

Um as far as how this comports with the comprehensive plan, uh, believe it it accomplishes policy two of livable and sustainable communities, which notes that um we should encourage allowing smaller scale commercial uses to be integrated into existing neighborhoods.

I do believe that would accomplish this, as well as policy three of land use and growth management of the comprehensive plan, which uh is more or less prioritizing infill development.

Um this is, I guess, further proven by the fact that this site lies within a tier one growth priority area.

Uh so it does not require extension of public utility or street for development, and it does lie within the city's um urban service area, and I suppose the United States of America, but that's not what that stands for in this abbreviation.

So to conclude, the site is site is vacant uh and currently has residential multifamily zoning uh and uh addition of commercial uses um through the rezoning would be supported by the future land use map as well as comprehensive plan goals and objectives.

It lies within a tier one infill area and the urban service area for the city.

Um and then the uses added through the mixed-use neighborhood rezoning do not um uh create conflict with surrounding uh entitlements as far as how those PDs uh what their adopted SOIs are uh or the developments as they currently exist.

Um and uh staff did not receive any concerns uh regarding infrastructure capacity if this were to be rezoned.

Um so staff's recommendation is ultimately to approve the request to rezone the 3.5 acres um from residential multifamily to the mixed-use neighborhood district.

And if the commission has any questions, be happy to answer them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my fellow commissioners have had contact with parties to this case outside of a public hearing or have reason to recuse themselves from this vote, please say so now.

Madam Chair, I would like to recuse myself.

Thank you, Commissioner Darr.

Uh, you may be recused.

Please leave the room and we will call you back after the vote has concluded.

Anyone else?

Seeing none.

Any questions for staff?

Seeing none, we will go to public comment.

Is there any public comment on this case?

Please come forward.

My name is Sarah Thompson.

I work for engineering surveys and services at 1113 Faye Street, and am the representative for Jeffrey Smith in this um rezoning case.

I want to thank staff for preparing all that information and going through that so quickly.

Um and all the history of this site.

It is important to note that it has existed since 2009 and it is still vacant.

So there's definitely a need for development in this area, especially since it already has all of the utilities applicable to development.

Um I think the most important thing to prioritize in this rezoning is the infill opportunity for the city, and along with that, that it is in a high growth priority area in what's provided in this area and how it can benefit and service and support the neighboring communities.

So I wanted to just state that this is being rezoned to help improve the markability for the site in the future.

Um if it for whatever development it is, there isn't any plan right now, but hoping that by rezoning this, it opens up the opportunity for more to benefit the community.

So we're asking for your support for this request and appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none, thank you very much for your presentation.

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

Please state your name and address for the record, and then please continue.

I just live north of this area.

I mean, adjacent, I look upon this.

And I would just like to say we have lots of drive-throughs, and they don't go slow in our through our parking lots.

So if this is developed in an aggressive way, there's going to be a lot of drive-throughs.

And then we have semi-parking on the other side, as it is right now, two semis park on Diego Drive.

And I don't know if it'll be more or less or whatever.

But that's the situation it is right now.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

I do.

Commissioner Walters going.

Are you saying there's more cut-through traffic on Santiago Santiago Drive?

No, no, the parking area.

The parking area that's just north on the north perimeter there.

So it's the parking lots of the apartment buildings.

I live in this near uh neighborhood too, and I've seen those trucks there from time to time, and they just need to be reported.

Someone just needs to report that they're illegally parked there, I think.

Oh, I thought I thought they were allowed to park there, that's all.

Well, I for short term they are, I think.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

Any other questions?

Seeing none, thank you very much.

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

Hello, my name is Pamela Hildebrand.

I live at 3850 Bethel Street.

I live in apartments that are just uh to the north.

And uh does anybody know what they plan to if they're gonna use it for?

Um, you know, a business or offices or we would like to know because we're the ones that are affected by it.

There there is no plan here.

This is just saying what it could be used for.

They will have to go through um uh building codes and all of that stuff when someone purchases it and it and plans plans to develop it, but right now there are no specific plans.

Okay.

All right.

Well uh as I understand it, fairway management or JES, Jeff Smith owns that property.

And uh my concern is is that I lived in one of his developments, and um we get no service, and our place is going to heck in a handbasket and cleaned it up.

So um, you know, my concern is is that it needs to be maintained whatever they build.

And uh because that will affect us.

Thank you.

Um any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none, thank you.

Thank you.

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

My name is uh Cheryl Barbero, and I also live at 3850 Bethel, apartment 201.

And that is like right in our front yard.

And my concern is my concern is uh there's a lot of like drainage, like sewer systems in that little culvert area, that that little grassy area.

And I know I was talking to another lady who said it was her understanding when she moved in that it wasn't ever going to be built on, and that those because of those culverts and the wastewater.

Where's that wastewater going to go?

Um if somebody builds on it, there's you know, there's a lot of water that runs through there, and uh I'm wondering where it's gonna go into our apartments because like she said, they're not taken care of, and if this company builds on that site, I'm kind of you know afraid of what else we aren't going to get done at our place.

And we are all older people, we're 62 and over.

And uh, you know, we deserve some respect.

And I I don't think that's usually taken into account what it's gonna do to the people who live right there.

And you know, we have we have a nice, we have a nice apartment, but you know, some of the stuff is falling apart.

But there are cars that drive through between Bethel Street and Santiago through our parking lot.

And I won't even park on the on that side of the in that side of the parking lot because I don't walk very fast, and I'm afraid that somebody's gonna come racing through there and knock me down.

And that is a real fear, and that is a real feel fear for a lot of people.

My friend Pam, she doesn't uh she doesn't walk very fast either.

So, you know, we're kind of concerned about the traffic that will be going.

I mean, that's private property, but it doesn't stop people from driving through there anyway.

Didn't stop, you know, those criminals who drove in there really fast thinking they were getting away and you know had to abandon their car and run.

So you know um I'm just concerned about that the traffic and the wastewater, and you know, isn't isn't there some you know, ordinance that says that those sewer systems have to stay?

That's it.

Thank you, ma'am.

And to answer your question, the building codes will tell them they have to do wastewater management, and that will be part of that process.

Any other questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Walters go ahead.

I have a question.

You and uh prior speaker, you live in in this uh and a Jeffrey Smith development, correct?

Yes.

And um do you have uh do you have an advocate for you in terms of do you have an on-site project manager that you can communicate communicate your concerns to?

We don't have any property management management.

We haven't had property manager for a long time.

There have been I've lived there six years, and I've had ten different managers at least.

I it may be more than that.

I don't even keep track of them anymore.

I don't even learn their names anymore because one was there for two days.

One was supposed to be there and was uh no call, no show.

Uh and then if we do get somebody good in, there's a really hateful manager, um, middle manager who fires them.

So we can't get anything.

We can't it took me four months to get my lease signed because there was no manager.

You know, that's unacceptable.

Uh my point was going to be maybe um well, do you have uh uh any traffic calming, any traffic bumps through that this area that people are speeding through?

Well, perhaps, and this may be naive on my part.

You could circulate a petition and get it to the management to request that at least.

I know that's really funny.

We've been trying to uh I've been trying to get an ice maker for six months.

Well, maybe if sixty or eighty people signed a letter, maybe maybe it'll pay for the maybe I'll get my ice maker.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you, ma'am, for being here.

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

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

Are there any commissioner comments on this case?

Commissioner Gray?

Um, can I ask a follow-up question of staff?

Yes, go ahead.

Um in this uh zoning, drive-throughs are not a buy right use.

That's correct.

It's a conditional use.

Um so there would be another public hearing that would be necessary should a uh drive-through facility be requested for any use that is developed on the site.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Any further Commissioner comments?

Seeing none.

What did anyone oh sorry?

Go ahead, Commissioner Brodsky.

Also, have a quick question for staff.

Um I reading this correctly that with the proposed MN use and the RMF to the north, and I know one of them is a PUD, but will they be required to do a level two screening along that entire northern edge?

Um I believe it uh that's a good question.

I think it's level three if it is commercial to multifamily residential uses.

Okay.

So I believe it would be level three.

What was that, sorry?

It's not considered MN is not considered mixed use.

Um, the applicant use, I don't think it necessarily says mixed use.

I think it is just like residential commercial industrial, maybe, uh if I'm remembering correctly, and the applicant's use, uh it ultimately would end up depend on what's developed.

Because if there is no residential component to it, then it wouldn't be mixed use.

Okay.

Thank you.

If if I may, Commissioner Brodsky, there's a difference between the zoning classification named mixed use and an actual mixed use of the property.

So that it has to be the actual use before the screening changes.

Any further questions or comments, rather, from Commissioners?

Would anyone like to make a motion?

Commissioner Walters?

Yeah, regarding case number 135-2026, I would move I would uh make a motion to approve the request rezoned a 3.15 acre site from RMF to MN.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none.

Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call?

Commissioner Walters.

Uh yes.

My vote is yes.

Commissioner Darr.

Oh, I'm sorry, he is recused.

Uh Commissioner Gowway Jones.

Yes.

Uh Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

And Commissioner Stanton.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Uh Commissioner Darr, if you can hear me, please return.

And at this time, I would like to excuse Commissioner Stanton for uh personal reasons for the rest of the evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on back up the agenda to our next case.

Case number 91-2026, a request by Crockett Engineering Consultants Agent on behalf of PB and CJ properties LLC owners for approval to rezone 3.5 acres from plan development PD to plan development PD.

And approve a PD development plan and an associated statement of intent.

Approval would permit 34 multifamily units and two two family units to be known as Bay Hills PD to be constructed.

The subject site is located northwest of the intersection of Richland Road and Grace Lane and is addressed as 3 and 21 Grace Lane.

Maybe please have a staff report.

Yes.

Thank you for the introduction there.

This request was originally sent out for early uh notification postcards on February 16th, followed by public hearing letters on March 2nd, which we sent out 112 of those.

Though this request has been tabled twice, and these postcards were distributed for each tabling.

This request needed re-advertisement as the most recent tabling date certain exceeded uh two months of the original public hearing date.

So this uh request was readvertised on May 5th.

The request is comprised of tracks one and two of a uh rezoning request or rezoning from 2005.

I'll briefly touch on those on the slide to come.

But the site has St.

Augustine Drive to the west, Pebble Beach Drive to the north, Richmond Road to the south, and Grace Lane to the east.

It's uh on the uh Richland Road and Rolling Hills intersection, which recently saw the Vantage uh project as well.

So the property consists of lot 84 and lot 85 of Bay Hills Plat Number 2, which, as I mentioned, was rezoned from R1 to CP and created two tracks, those being La 85, which is Tract 1, which permitted all C1 uses, and La 84, which is Tract 2, which was designated as a PUD 16, and with that uh track two was an approved statement of intent and development plan.

The original PD plan uh proposed seven buildings and five detached garages across lot eighty four, which also depicted uh two required access points as the uh proposal would have exceeded, I believe 30 dwelling units, so it would be required to have two access point points per the IFC.

Later, lot 84 was replatted into lots 84A and 84B, followed by 2007 minor amendment, which reduced the buildings to six and altered slash remove some garages on the site.

The development was then completed on Law 84, but law 84A but La 84B remained undeveloped.

In coordinating with the fire department, as I mentioned, the required secondary access was never completed as Law 84B, which were was where the second access is located, uh was later sold to the current owner.

And I coordinated with our record discussed with the fire department that they could also uh install an ISC turnaround, which would kind of suffice for that second uh required access point, but that does not seem to be constructed at this point.

The condominium owners declined installation of the secondary access when offered by today's applicants, and staff considers this issue a private matter, and the condo owner should coordinate uh further with the fire department regarding that situation.

Getting into today's request, this is the development plan and statement of intent would apply both to lots 84B and 85.

This re uh new PD zoning is required to remove lot 84 from the prior ordinances constraints, which include the which is because the existing maximum building count is exhausted.

So nothing could be developed on 84B without either an amendment to the original uh statement of intent or rezoning it out.

Today's request is for 36 dwelling units across 84B and 85.

The development includes two seven-unit buildings, three six-unit buildings, and two two unit buildings, all of which will contain three bedrooms.

The rear setbacks are proposed to be reduced to ten feet, though all other setbacks are per the UDC standards.

This is in conjunction with a maximum building height of 35 feet.

The site will be accessed largely by uh 26-foot wide private drive connecting Grace Lane to St.

Augustine.

Those six units will have access directly off of St.

Augustine to the west, and two units to the north will have direct access from Pebble Beach.

A future roundabout is planned at the Grace Lane and Richland Road intersection, though that timeline is still unknown.

A proportional monetary contribution by the developer will be documented in a development agreement to come when the uh request is proposed at City Council.

Adequate right-of-way has been previously plotted, so it's already in place, and sidewalks are proposed along all street frontages that the uh project uh fronts.

84 parking spaces will be required with this development.

Each unit will have two parking spaces, and there will be additional parking spaces shown along the private drive to meet the parking standards for the uh unit count.

Eight bicycle parking spaces will also be required.

The project is proposed to be project's density is proposed to be 10.26 dwelling units per acre, which is below the UDC maximum of 17 dwelling units per acre.

15% of the property will be landscaped, and the street trees will be provided per code.

In conclusion, with the site sitting vacant for 21 years with no commercial interest, this request will address uh multifamily housing shortage and will be consistent with the livable and sustainable communities uh portion of the city's comprehensive plan, and will it be compliant with the UDC uh provisions regarding uh PD development?

Staff's recommendation is to approve the request to rezone the three and a half acres from plan development to plan development, as well as the PD plan for Bahills PD and the associated statement of tenant subject to technical corrections.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

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

Seeing none.

Questions for staff?

Go ahead, Commissioner Brodsky.

Um couple questions.

So I'm looking at the original PUD plan, and it looks to me like they go.

So they built the the three units on the north side of the parcel.

And then it looks like they went ahead and combine those two smaller buildings on the south side and just built that one large building.

So the in the red, what we're left with was originally going to be three units and they're now just showing two units on that part, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Um I just want to make sure I had that right.

So even though we've kind of got this issue with the um two access points that we're not increasing density above and beyond what was already approved.

My second question in uh uh Mr.

Zenter, this might be more uh for you, and and not looking to assign blame, but just how does this happen?

How does that PUD get built and that driveway doesn't get built per code?

I mean a developer chooses um when to make improvements to the project site and this particular development so the property was subdivided, um it was still left according to the PD plan.

Well, you subdivide property, new property owner buys the subdivided portion, decides he doesn't want to follow the plan.

Um we don't control the timing of development.

The development, the extension that would have gone through the newly created lot would have been required at the time that that building were built.

And so the builder, the new owner chose not to build on that lot.

Um I believe Mr.

Crockett representing the applicant today can explain some of the efforts that were made uh in order to try to work with the condominium association.

Um again, as the fire services pointed out in the communication with Mr.

Um Halligan, the installation of a fire compliant turnaround, a what would be an ostensibly a T is possible, uh, but that would be a private matter for our fire service if they really feel that it's necessary, given that there has not been a connection point here for years, probably close to a decade.

Uh is it warranted and do they really want to force that issue?

Um at this point, we can't force a new owner to connect into a property that they are not willing to participate in.

Um it would be in essence creating uh a private access into a private driveway situation.

And so it's just a course of events, um, not that really are controlled by staff, because we would have facilitated the original PD plan if they wanted to build that three unit building.

And the only way they would have been able to have built that three unit building, given the frontage that is left on Pebble Beach Drive, is they would have had to have likely fronted it along the driveway that wasn't constructed.

Instead, they chose not to, and we reduce the total impact of one dwelling unit to be able to front onto the existing public street, thereby saving some additional uh infrastructure costs, but really not necessarily at what the fire service believes to be uh a significant detriment because other options do exist to resolve the fire access.

No, and that makes sense that you know we permit hundreds, if not thousands of developments and construction uh sites every year in Columbia, so you know that we had one slip through isn't the world or the shocking thing.

But I more just wanted to discuss this and get this on the record for council to see this so that you know we might need to look at what kind of um mechanisms we have to uh hold people's uh hold them to their intentions on the PUD plan.

In my opinion, all of these buildings, if they were going to build any of them, you know, they would have needed to meet fire code.

Um project I've been involved in.

You know, that turning around a fire truck is a big deal.

Um so to see someone through slide of hand be required to do that is just any other questions for staff.

I do have a question.

Um I understand it is a private matter.

But is the fire department saying that lot 84A is currently noncompliant?

They haven't come out and said that specifically.

Okay, have indicated that a fire compliant turnaround could be installed.

How they want to pursue getting that fire compliant turnaround, given that we have property that has been sold and is being proposed to be developed by others at this time.

This is just a common, this is not an uncommon occurrence uh throughout the City of Columbia.

And if we're wanting to move forward development patterns and proposals that address particular broader community objectives, we have to acknowledge at times certain things like this do occur.

Um they're not saying, though, that 84B would be noncompliant the way that it is on this PD amendment.

Not at all.

84B has its access directly to Pebble Beach, which would be consistent with all of the fire code requirements.

So we're not creating a new noncompliance, we're just not fixing an existing noncompliance.

Correct.

And that the the balance of the development, which is to the south of 80, what is 84B today, that actually is fully compliant with the through the through private street uh between St.

Augustine to Grace Lane.

Um the access to Grace Lane actually was adjusted from the original plan submission uh to be aligned further to the north from the intersection uh to ensure uh that it actually uh uh provides a greater separation from the future roundabout.

The original plan also had shown a right in write out only, which this plan was originally entitled to along Richland Road.

Uh at the recommendation of staff as it looked at this project in initial design, uh we were able to work with the applicant to have them remove that right in right out as well, uh, further reducing conflicts along Richland Road entering and exiting the roundabout.

I appreciate that, because that that's been an issue.

I noticed there's a stub up near where there's the connection with the Grace Road, Grace Lane, Grace Lane.

That actually this what appears to be the stub, so where the curve is, I believe that's the same.

Am I just blind?

That's parking.

That's parking.

Okay.

So that answers my other question, which is my other question was this PD plan laid out in such a way that if the condominium complex in 84A sees the light, they could do a through.

I I would imagine it is possible.

We'd have to look at what the parking, if there is a parking overage, because we need the guest parking that needs to be provided based on the multifamily nature of this, it may be very tight.

Uh however, I think authorizing uh an amendment of that nature, given the added value, uh, is something that we probably could easily get behind.

Uh in order to do that type of connection, however, would require coordination between two likely future entities.

Yes.

No, I I absolutely understand that.

I just if we have an opportunity to leave that door open, it seems prudent.

I do not disagree.

My my original review of Mr.

Halligan's report actually was going to make a statement that the new road alignment actually provided access, and then I looked at the plan again and I said, Oh no, it doesn't.

It's actually just parking spaces that are in a green space.

But it does, as you have identified, there would be an opportunity.

Uh and I think it's really we're only looking at probably a 20-foot driveway connection that would be needed uh to ensure fire access is Matt.

Would that be a difficult amendment for us to make tonight from the dais to say that they may reduce it by three spots or however many are there if it provides that connection?

I think that it could be easy, it could be made.

Uh it is a it's a forward-thinking amendment that would allow us latitude for a minor adjustment at that point to the plan.

Um I think it probably would be worthwhile just in case uh an opportunity does arise.

Uh it would definitely allow us that ability uh then to streamline the modification of the existing PD plan uh here for Bay Hills.

Okay.

What we would basically do is say that the parking may be reduced, further reduced by three spots in that location if it provides for the purposes of providing a connection to lot 84A.

Does that make sense what I am saying?

Yeah.

No jury suggesting a note on the uh on the PD.

Sutter, do you want I'm just confused as to what precisely you are requesting that they actually be removed or a note be added that I think just a note to say that at the applicant developer's choice, if those three spots are reduced, it doesn't take them out of compliance somehow with their PDSOI.

You would in essence be approving a three-space parking exception uh to the minimum requirements for the purposes of ensuring that fire access to lot 84A is met.

Unless planner Halligan knows off the top of your head, do they need those three spots to be compliant?

No, I believe there is 92 currently on site, if I recall.

Okay.

So it may not be necessary because I believe there's a little buffer there.

Yeah.

Okay.

Can we verify that before we vote?

Mr.

Crockett may be able to answer that for you.

Oh, excellent.

Mr.

Crockett, now you know what we are going to ask you.

Any other questions for staff?

And sorry, I know that's a little premature as we're not in Commissioner comment, but I wanted to give staff some time to contemplate.

Um that case we will close Commissioner Comment and go to public comment, public comment on this case.

Please come forward.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, members of the commission, Tim Crockett, Crockett Engineering.

Office of 1000 West NIFON.

Uh let me start out just a little bit.

Before I start my presentation, to answer your question, Mr.

Brodsky, with regards to 84.

I know this is not pertinent to necessarily to the specific PD plan, but um when 84A was developed, it was developed under prior to the current uh fire code that we have.

Can you give us are we good with the trend?

Okay.

Go ahead.

Sorry, Mr.

Crockett.

Okay.

Um it was developed prior to the previous code.

And how that developed was uh while those look like eight-unit apartment buildings are actually condos.

So uh the developer who built those, he built them one building at a time and sold units as he went along, sold enough units in this building, built the next building.

So it went over time and he was in full compliance with the fire code at the time, but then the fire code changed when we adopted appendix D and we had you know the turnarounds, the number of units and all of that.

So really um I don't think it was something you you asked how can we avoid this in the future?

How can what can staff do?

I don't think staff did anything wrong.

I think they enforced the code that was in front of them at the time, and then the code changed, and then we have a situation that may not comply today.

And so I think that's where that came from.

Um just to kind of answer that.

And with regards uh to the uh to the parking spaces, uh, Madam Chair, I believe we're pretty close to the minimum number that we uh that we need on the site.

However, um staff looks at this while we're the the proposal that's before you, what we are looking at doing is doing attached single family, basically townhomes.

Staff looks at that, given that they are all on one lot as multifamily residential.

So we believe that there's an ample spaces on the site.

And so if we had to lose those three, I think we're okay with that.

Um so if we looked at it on a single family attached, we wouldn't need quite so many.

So I think we'll be we would be okay with that.

Um so with that being said, um, you're not gonna get it.

Okay.

I'm not gonna get it.

So I'm gonna forego my presentation tonight.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Um the one item I would like to say, uh, Mr.

Halligan, um, in the staff report it says that sewer is not available to the site, but actually it does come across the property.

So I just want to make sure that just for clarification purposes.

Um and uh one of the slides uh that I did prepare tonight I wish I could show it really kind of illustrates the different area, uh the different uh uh the characteristics characteristics of this area, the different types of housing in this area.

So when we look at the housing study and we talks about having diverse housing options in different types, I think this is a prime example of that very thing.

We have Bay Hills and we have ESPOT that are single family.

We have the new multifamily residential that this uh commission approved uh a month or two ago.

Uh it's higher density multifamily.

We have condos right just to the north of us that are single family condos, uh and we have duplexes that are further to the east.

And so now we want to do single family attached, uh, which is a different type of unit mix.

And so within a thousand feet, uh this whole area is uh uh a wide range of residential uses.

And so uh with that, I'm happy to answer any questions given that uh my presentation is not going to work tonight.

So have an answering questions that you may have.

Apologies for the technical difficulties.

Uh any questions for Mr.

Crockett?

If not, I'll ask mine.

Okay.

Um do you want us to put a note on the plan that says you can lose them just in case?

Well, we we that'd be fine.

That would be fine.

I um I just want to make sure that you don't get in a spot when the time comes for final approvals to break ground.

We originally we we reached out uh to the HOA uh originally because we believe that that was probably the best avenue is to make that connection.

Um we would be able to gain a unit, flip our units around, have parking come in uh come to that.

Um they weren't interested.

And we need that because the parking stops on their private property, so we can't just go get it not at the property line.

We need to we need to construct that uh that entrance onto their property.

There we go.

Maybe that's ours.

Okay.

Um and so um so we're happy.

I mean, we'd be you know, if you if we could put a note on there that says if that connection is made, then those three spaces could go away.

We would be appreciative of that.

Okay.

Then very good.

Thank you.

I think that's everything I need.

Anyone else?

Seeing none?

Thank you, Mr.

Crockett.

Thank you.

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

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

So just I don't want to belabor it, but um what I am suggesting is just making sure the option is there, should they be able to work out an agreement with the other uh HOA?

Commissioner Walters, go ahead.

But in what format?

I mean what what is that a note that we're supposed to part of the motion would include that note?

Uh I believe so.

Uh yeah.

Or you could take a vote on whether the commission wants to add the note or then on the on the PD itself or why don't we do that so that it's clear for the record that we'll take one vote on adding the note about the parking spaces and the connection.

We'll take another vote on the final approval, and then you all can update the plan as you see fit.

Does that work?

Or not as you see fit, but in line with that if it gets because we already have technical corrections is what I'm thinking.

I I think that's fine.

Okay.

Very good.

Commissioner Walters, go ahead.

We could say something regarding when we're making a motion subject to technical correctness, including a reduction, a possible reduction of three parking is in the future.

We'll actually make two motions.

Okay.

One motion.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Two motions, two votes.

First.

We'll do the parking first.

I'll make the motion on parking.

Thank you.

Yes.

Which I I try not to do, but sometimes when they are complicated, I don't mind.

Okay.

Any further commissioner comment on this case?

Seeing none, I will make a motion to include a note on the PD plan that says that the three parking spaces located near the connection with Grace Lane may be removed if it facilitates a connection to the condominium complex to the northwest.

The uh Pebble Ridge or Pebble Ridge.

Via Pebble Ridge.

I would refer to it as lot 84A.

Ah the connection to lot 84A.

Second.

We have a motion by Chairperson Gowway Jones and a second by Commissioner Gray.

Any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, Commissioner Brodsky, when you're ready, may we have a roll call.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

My vote is yes.

Commissioner Darr?

Yes.

Commissioner Goway Jones?

Yes.

Commissioner Gray?

Yes.

And Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

And moving on to approval, would someone like to make a motion on approval?

Commissioner Walters?

Yes.

Regarding case number 91-2026, I would uh make a motion to approve the request, rezoned to 3.5 acres from plan development to plan development as well as the PD plan for Bay Hills PD in the associated statement of intent subject to technical corrections.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on that motion?

Seeing none, Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call?

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

My vote is yes.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

And Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Those recommendations will be forwarded to City Council.

Moving on to our next case, case number 136-2026, a request by Donna Grothwall agent on behalf of GPD Development LLC owner to allow the property addressed as 503 West Stewart Road to operate a 210 night maximum for guest short-term rental pursuant to Section 29-3.3 V V and Section 29-6.4M2 of the Unified Development Code.

The unit sought for licensure is located within the second story of a stacked duplex structure.

And there is sufficient parking on site.

The point three one acre subject property is located 80 feet east of the intersection of Westwood Avenue and West Stewart Road.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may.

Thank you for the introduction yet again.

This request was sent out for early notification postcards on the 20th of April, followed by public hearing letters on the 4th of May, which were there 30 of those.

And an ad was ran in the Tribune on the 5th of May for this request.

Here is the subject site highlighted in red.

It is located on the north side of Stewart Road.

Stewart Road is a neighborhood collector that does not permit on-street parking, though sidewalks are installed.

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

This is not the applicant's primary residence.

As mentioned, this is located in the upper story of a stack duplex.

The unit in question is a two-bedroom, one-bathroom dwelling with the four guests requested.

Two parking spaces will be required.

And there are two uh spaces currently supported on site without taking away from the uh parking required for the long-term unit.

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.

Eight of the 22 uh surrounding properties appear to be owner-occupied as well.

The designated agent lives in Columbia, 5.8 miles or roughly 15 minutes from the subject site.

On file, there is an illegal short-term rental operation dated September 26, 2025.

Public response to this request included two letters in opposition stating they are concerned about the negative impact short-term rentals would create and would prefer this be a long-term rental as followed by also one letter in support stating they are in favor because the owners take good care of the property and they are confident in their abilities to operate in STR.

The conditional use permit would support analysis supports approval for compliance.

The STR 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 C UP subject to a maximum occupancy of four transient guests and a maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

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

Seeing none questions for staff.

You may know, and if not, I will ask the applicant.

Um this is a duplex.

Is the other unit currently licensed as a long-term rental or both?

Yes, it has a long well, the property itself has a long-term rental uh license that is through, I believe, September of 2020 of this year.

It's and has been licensed as a two uh family uh long-term rental since 2020 with a different owner.

So it's had continued use as a two-family long-term rental since 2020.

So does it have two long-term rental licenses?

The license would be for a single structure with two dwelling units.

Got it.

Okay.

So it's same way same way of saying it is as two long-term rental licenses.

Yeah.

But the way the neighborhood services, it's one structure with two units.

Got it.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Seeing none, we will open the floor to public comment.

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

State your name and address for the record, please.

My name is Ken Gruber.

I live at 500 West Stewart Road, right across the street.

Um I've read your agenda report, and I've got a collaborative observation.

I think that's the way.

There's a question in my mind.

Paragraph two under discussion.

It implies this is already been serving as a short-term rental based upon staff observations in Airbnb.

Does that mean it was being you income was being used gained by this short-term rental without going through the property to compliance, business license, city council action?

Is that but is that am I on the right track?

That is correct, Mr.

Gruber.

It was, it was cited as a violation in September of 2025.

And our research of the Airbnb records and the reviews would verify that as a part of a licensure process.

Obtaining a business license now, the applicant will be required to backpay all rental receipts due to the city for accommodation taxes from June 1st of 2025.

So they would be required to reimburse the city for all illegal revenue received at 5 percent per rental night.

And that is that is a condition of the business license issuance.

And so while there was a delay in compliance, the applicant has finally come forward.

And our you know, our our processes of dealing with gaining compliance out of our illegal operators uh is an ongoing effort.

So we we do the best that we can with the staff and the resources we have.

Uh this took a little bit longer, but they are now before us.

So if they are approved, which is not a guarantee, uh, as a part of their licensure process to obtain a legal license, they will be required to pay the back proper the back accommodation taxes that are due to the City of Columbia.

I would make one grammatical change to you what you just said in your sentence.

Delay should be taken away and failure should be used.

Thank you very much, sir.

So according to, I believe city ordinances that applicant qualified to have their long-term license revoked by their failure to get the short-term license.

The long-term rental licensing penalties and the short-term rental licensing penalties are two totally separate sections of our rental conservation law.

The mere fact that they were operating illegal short-term rental does not affect one's long-term rental certificate.

If you I'm a scientist entrepreneur, and we do experiments and science with controls.

If you want to see what Stewart Road West could look like, go to the block East Stewart Road and go to the north side, look at the north side of the block, and see whether those houses which are short-term rental to students, multiple students in the houses, see whether those houses are maintained the way West Stewart Road is maintained.

You've already done the experiment.

But I'm really confused about you talking about developing what appears to be old Southwest, the whole the larger old Southwest, not the true beginning old Southwest, where my house is.

If you look at a breakdown of old Southwest, there is an old Southwest very small area that is our block, which is probably one of the older blocks because some of us still have the land in the back of the house for the horses.

But I don't understand what you're talking about commercial development in Old South West.

Old South West, the larger area has been single family houses built from farmland for over a hundred years.

Right in here.

In your report.

Please continue your comments, sir.

Did you I'm sorry, did you have more?

I think that old Southwest is doing fine in terms of its high tax rate for the city.

If you can to make it into East Stuart Road, you're going to see a lot of difference in the tax income from land in Old South in the old Southwest.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Walters.

Excuse me, sir.

Mr.

Gruber, could you please Commissioner Walters?

Go ahead.

Well, could you uh specify where in the report you are referencing about your concern about future development?

Can you just tell us where you are?

Okay.

The goal of creating livable final member's approval of mixed use concepts.

Are you in Section B?

No, so I'm sorry.

Um, conditional use analysis, Section B.

Okay.

All right.

Second paragraph.

Okay, great.

Talking about, you know, commercial use, committee-wide service, prefer supplemental housing for visitors.

I didn't a uh chat GPT analysis.

They talk about plenty, there's plenty of short-term hotels, motels, go down a new 63 being built along it.

No shortage.

They're all the hospital tertiary care hospitals here.

You've got rows of hotels.

Anything further, Mr.

or Commissioner Walters?

Well, I'm not probably the most well-versed in explaining this further, but just because it's a reference that this is a type of use no, as far as I know, no, there is no broad comprehensive planning for further intensive sort of commercial usage that you I think you're fee you're fearful of.

I I don't think that's implied.

Is this the first STR for old Southwest?

No, sir.

No.

Any further questions?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here.

Next speaker on this case, please come forward.

Anazia 403 South Glenwood Avenue.

I'm sorry, could you do that again a little closer to the microphone?

Rosanna Zia 403 South Glenwood Avenue.

Thank you.

Um so I live within one block of this property and I oppose this conditional use permit.

Um the heart of Columbia's short-term rental ordinance is neighborhood preservation.

Uh Columbia chose not to let high-frequency non-primary residents short-term rentals enter residential districts automatically, because that kind of use can gradually convert stable neighborhoods into commercial lodging areas.

The conditional use permit requirement is our only safeguard.

It requires that applicants approve that this 210-night short-term rental do not erode the residential character of this residential block.

So this is a burden of proof that must be taken upon by the applicants.

This cannot just be a matter of filing paperwork.

They must prove that the neighborhood that they propose to commercialize is consistent with commercialization.

Gradual conversion of homes into commercial rentals in this neighborhood are already occurring and it should be stopped in my opinion.

That's what this law was passed to protect us from.

So this is not an owner-occupied home sharing situation.

The applicant is an LLC.

The property is not the registrant's primary residence, and the public record indicates that the commercial applicant operates multiple short-term rentals in Columbia.

Does a 210-night commercial lodging use belong in this family R1 neighborhood, especially where the applicant has already operated this property as an Airbnb without approval?

I say no.

This is not a resident occasionally sharing their own home.

Approval would expand an LLC operated short-term lodging model into another established residential block.

And in fact, they purchased this home with the intent to use it in this way without getting approval for this, purchased from uh realtors advertising widely.

Oh, just buy a home in the old Southwest, you can convert them to Airbnbs.

It's great for game weekends.

Further, city staff acknowledge that the LLC requests 33 percent more people occupancy than allowed in a long-term rental, with almost daily turnover when you do the arithmetic.

This is fundamentally and substantively different from a family and owner occupant or a long-term tenant.

It brings repeated guest turnover, unfamiliar vehicles and arrivals and departures, and no connection to our neighborhood.

The conditional use process should protect us against that.

If the city approves each 210-night request, first this one, then another one, and then another, then it's just going to this is exactly the type of gradual conversion the ordinance was meant to prevent.

So we voted for this protection, and I ask you to use it.

The application also has serious credibility problems.

It was partially unfilled out.

The application's form says a dwelling has not previously been used as an Airbnb, but as stated by staff, it has active online activity showing that it was operating and has been penalized for operating as such, undermining uh confidence in any assertions they make in caring about the neighborhood.

Staff also answers that is the STR previously offered with yes and identifies a prior illegal short-term rental date at September 26, 2025.

Further, the answers provided by the applicants on the required forms are also inadequate.

If you've looked at their responses, they answered, I don't know about nearby STRs, I don't know about neighborhood support, and simply no, when asked whether the short-term rental would increase traffic or noise, which of course it will.

These are not meaningful answers for a discretionary permit in a residential neighborhood.

And this is a serious matter, and so it should have been taken seriously when they answered these questions.

There's also inconsistency about parking.

The application says there are two on-site driveway parking areas, while staff describes six, and then there's a two-car garage, and there's no street parking immediately, and this neighborhood is already troubled by people parking uh sort of indiscriminately in front of other people's homes without parking permits.

This serves any identified any the the record should clearly identify which spaces serve the short-term rental if parking is part of the justification for approval.

I respect the one letter of support from the next door neighbor.

I did not write the opposing letters.

This is a third opinion I offer you.

But one supportive letter does not cure an inaccurate application, a prior illegal violation, conclusory and cursory answers, and unresolved parking questions.

Overall, the applicant has not shown that this 210-night transient lodging use is compatible with this residential neighborhood, or that it will not cause adverse impacts.

That is their burden to show, and they have not shown that.

They have even barely addressed that.

I ask you to recommend denial and to take this seriously and to not just rubber stamp this approval.

Thank you.

Are there questions for Commissioner Ortiz?

Um you said that the LLC operates multiple Airbnbs.

Where did you get that information?

Okay, can you explain?

Well, I looked up what who the owners were, who's the representatives were, and I looked up what other properties they operate, and there are at least other two properties uh doted in town.

And on Airbnb or just generally like rent.

Both from what I found.

Okay.

That information would be really like relevant to us.

So if you had like anything more that we could like look into, that would have been really helpful.

I can provide it to you or send you an email with the links if you would like.

You can send it to staff.

Thank you.

It's easy to find through a search.

Any other questions?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here.

Next speaker on this case, please come forward.

My name is John Zemke.

I live at 513 Westwood.

I'm an owner resident for the past 25 years.

Um, with regard to the staff, well, if in the first place, I am very much opposed to uh allowing this conditional use.

The neighborhood's character is clearly residential, long-term residential.

There are rental properties, but there are many owners.

I'm somewhat concerned about the reference in the general review item B.

And the heading is the proposed conditional use is consistent with the city's adoptive comprehensive plan.

And the first sentence is the comprehensive plan does not speak directly to the use of residential dwellings for alternative purposes, such as an STR.

So it must be disqualified if the comprehensive plan does not speak to this use.

I'm also concerned about item C.

Oh, excuse me.

I will return to item B.

Paragraph two.

Second sentence.

The strategy focuses on the concept of creating nodes of commercial and service uses as high priority, and the action recommends using planning tools and decision making to locate services and businesses adjacent to residential development.

Adjacent means lying next to, not directly within.

This property lies directly within.

I am somewhat confused by the language in paragraph C.

CUP, the staff of C UP uses in compliance with the area.

This is clearly not the case.

Item D.

The staff allows that it does not foresee the future, but it doesn't anticipate that there will be an increase of nuisance to the residents of the neighborhood.

I once lived for a period of nine years on East Campus, and I'm quite familiar with the nuisance rate that rentals can generate, whether they're short term or long term.

West Campus doesn't really have a problem with long-term rental nuisances at this point.

Item F.

I think we should remember that if the request is for the second floor of a home and the Airbnb advertisements allow for the entire use of the home, we're not being given a straightforward account of the intention.

So in closing, where I articulate as proceeding speaker, I would say I oppose this, and I think it's your responsibility to oppose it as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for the speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

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

Sir, you can come up to the front row, so you're go ahead.

Hi.

My name is Paul Slinkard.

I live at uh 603 Edgewood Avenue, which is kind of caddy corner from the block that you show on the on the map.

I've been a resident of Columbia and in that home for seven years and proud resident of Columbia.

Um moved to Old Southwest because of the character of the neighborhood, uh the beauty of the homes, and the the single family homes.

I have no uh evidence to prove this, but I would I would assume that that house is built as a single family home, just like all the other homes in the neighborhood, and is at some point in time converted to a duplex.

Um it's not in character with our neighborhood.

And looking at another aspect, the parking issue, for example.

If you look at a Google Street View, I just looked it up on my phone.

If the people in the that it occupy the home now, if they have if they're a two-car family, which most people are, we are a four-car family.

You know, we have two kids with cars.

And uh so if you put their cars and then all of a sudden you have you know, two other couples coming in from out of town with their cars, you can't get all those cars in that area without double parking.

So you're gonna have people parking on Westwood, which you can park on the street.

So I think this is just totally unacceptable for our neighborhood.

I think it's a money grab for the people that own the property, and I ask you to not uh approve this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for the speaker?

Commissioner Gray.

Hi.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Question, sorry.

Um said you live on Westwood or Edgewood?

Edgewood.

Okay.

Edge corner of Edgewood and Lythrop.

Okay.

Um and were you aware that this was operating as an STR prior to notification from this hearing?

I'm sorry, I don't have any idea what that means.

Did you know that it was an STR before you got a postcard in the mail?

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

I did.

Your wife did.

Got it.

Thank you.

Anyone else to speak on this case?

Thank you.

My name's Douglas Jones.

I live at 601 South Glenwood, just around the corner from this home.

Um I came tonight with an open mind.

I really wanted to hear what people had to say.

And the thing that as I listen to to what people have to say, I I just really want to stand in support of the neighbors who live closer to the home that I do that are in opposition to it.

I try to put myself in their shoes.

Um if they had uh the situation next door to myself, I would hope that they would um lend their voice as well.

I do have some concerns about the nature of neighborhood.

I was on the Historic Preservation Commission um for a few years.

Uh, really appreciate the neighborhood that we have and the character that it has.

And um I think what the city has done in terms of limiting the the uh number of days for short-term rentals is appropriate.

And um I I would like that what has been established as far as the ordinances now would be the ones that are continued to be followed for this particular uh property.

Thank you.

Any questions for the speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

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

No, I'm sorry.

We only do one per.

Hello, name and address for the record, please.

My name is Donna Grathwall.

I own the house at 503 Stewart.

Uh I bought the house in the fall.

We knew the person that lived in the house prior.

Um, and I like the idea of being able to run an Airbnb or a 30-day rental because I had done it in my past when my husband husband and I developed um Arbor Falls out in Hawthorne.

He eventually sold that whole property and sold the Airbnb I ran, which broke my heart because it gave me pride and joy to do it.

I love taking care of the house.

I love the positive comments.

I love making sure everything is wonderful for them.

That property, Stewart Road in general, my brother and sister-in-law lived on Stewart Road for years in a big gray house that's even gotten bigger.

I love Stewart.

I love Columbia.

I've lived there 45 years.

My husband before he passed, lived here 66 years.

I'm trying to slowly improve it.

And it does look a lot better than it looked when I bought it with the purple porch.

It is now black.

I'm getting ready to put in landscaping.

Um it's just something that I look honestly look forward to doing.

Because since he passed three years ago, it gives me a purpose again.

And I enjoy having a reason to get out of the house and go take care of something else and keep track of things.

I own other properties, and no, I don't have another Airbnb.

I have a 30-day rental and I rent two other properties.

I have no other Airbnbs.

If it's listed on the Airbnb, it's for a 30-day or more.

And then when I was made aware, it took me a while to figure out the paperwork and the paperwork that was referred to.

I even had to pass it on to my accountant because I was so confused on what they wanted and what answers I was supposed to put in there.

So nothing was trying to be deceptive.

I was trying to state what I could by doing this on my own because prior it was my husband and I doing these things.

So I haven't tried to be deceptive in any way.

The rest of the time the house is empty.

98% of anybody that's ever come to the house.

It's generally a parent of a student coming for a graduation, coming for a football game, coming for a parents' weekend, coming to a wrestling match, coming to a swimming match.

I don't allow young people to come and party.

I have very specific rules, and there is ample parking for the amount of people that can stay there.

Any questions?

I'm kind of shaking a fear.

You're good.

We're not as mean as we look.

It's the dais.

You're doing just fine.

Any questions, Commissioner Gray?

Go ahead.

She lied.

I'm as mean as I look.

No, wait.

No, thank you so much for this information.

So just to clarify, you uh when did you buy this property?

Roughly.

Uh mid-25.

Okay.

Um had to buy a lot of furniture.

Stock it.

Sure.

And start from there.

Um you said previously you had operated short-term rentals.

No, I had had I had had an air, well, it wasn't Airbnb at that time.

It was 10 years ago, a home away.

And it was out in Hawthorne, and then we wound up selling that since then.

I haven't done an Airbnb.

I do have a property that I do a 30, usually people come for three months at a time.

It's mostly nursing students.

Other than that, I have no other Airbnbs, but I do have two other rental houses that are like yearly rentals that I have.

Got it.

Thank you so much.

Um so you received the notice of the violation back in September.

Was that the first time that you became aware of the regulations?

Okay.

I'm sorry, ma'am.

Could you say yes out loud?

Oh, I'm transcript.

Yes.

I was clueless on all that.

And it took me a long time to figure out how to fill out the paperwork, and that's when I finally went to my accountant to have them try to help me.

Because no, I had no idea because the girl that had had it prior, yeah, I had people in.

We did that.

I'm like, great, that's what I want to do.

So I jumped in and started doing it.

Um since that violation and submitting your application, have you continued to operate as a short-term rental?

I will be honest.

In May, I had people that had reached out to me a year ago when they found out when graduation was, and they committed a year ago to me for graduation, and I had a hard time refusing them to when they were flying in for their kids' graduation.

Yes, there have been people there for graduation.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Walters, go ahead.

No, but honestly, we were getting ready to do that because I I'm allowed to be able to put them like on the driveway or the front porch.

Yeah, okay.

I mean, I'd be happy.

No, no, it's fine.

I just yeah, I had a follow-up question, but I forgot it, so I'll come back if we need if there's time.

Thank you, Commissioner Brodsky.

Um I don't mean to put you on the spot and definitely don't not trying to beat you up here, but um uh you received the notice of violation in September and just based off the reviews on Airbnb.

Looks like you've had quite a few people staying over the last several months and been renting out both the top and the bottom on Airbnb.

Um, if you if you wouldn't mind just saying yes.

Oh, I'm sorry, yes.

Yeah, no, you're okay.

Um yeah, I think that's all I have.

Any other questions?

So I I had um a couple.

So the previous owner was operating it as a short-term rental.

And you bought it?

You bought it back in the summer.

I honestly can't tell you the specific date.

You don't have to tell us the day.

I'm just trying to get a general sense of how many months.

Yeah, I think it was four or five months prior to me ever starting anything because it came completely empty.

So it had to, I had to totally fill it with furnishings and kitchen items and the whole nine yards be able to do it like that.

So it took me several months to get that accomplished.

So do you think you've owned it for nine or ten months?

Does that seem right?

I mean, I could let you know for sure.

But I can't tell you 100%.

I would say yes, that's probably accurate.

How many rental nights do you think you've had?

Have you looked at that?

Since you've owned it?

I could let you know that.

Well, the reason that I'm asking.

Not like it it has not been every single weekend.

It's never burn been during a week.

It's always on a weekend.

Uh but I mean, once I kind of changed my prices a little bit, all of a sudden I start getting more people wanting to come and stay.

Because I I specifically was looking at my prices for the football games, and I set them a little higher.

And then after football and winter came, it's like, okay, I think my I lowered them, but I wouldn't have as good a response.

So I lowered them again, and then it picked back up again.

Here's my concern and why why I'm asking.

Um in your application, you said this had not previously been operated as an STR.

By me.

But that's also not true.

Because you just said you had been operating it as an STR since you bought prior to me, you said.

No, in the application, it said, has this property been previously operated as an SDR?

And you said no.

And I'm trying to figure out what your thinking was in saying no to that question.

I don't know.

I had help with my accountant to fill all of it out.

She helped me.

Did your accountant think that you weren't operating it?

I mean, she knew exactly what my intentions were and what was going on.

Okay.

I didn't I didn't even understand all that terminology.

That's why I had to go to her.

So let me let me Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're asking.

Well, that's that's what I am concerned about.

So the question on the application says whether or let's see.

Here we go.

Whether the proposed registrant has previously operated an STR, and if such operation has resulted in a history of complaints.

So that's two questions, and and maybe that's where the confusion is.

In history of complaints.

What there are two questions, right?

Whether you've previously operated an STR, and then if so, whether you have had any complaints, been denied a certificate, or had one revoked.

So do you operate and has there been an issue?

And the registrant, which would be you answered no to this question.

Because it was, well, I mean, the way I'm understanding what you just said, have you ever previously?

No, I hadn't, except I mean, I didn't look at the 10 years ago.

I did that, and I didn't know it was called that.

It was through a totally different company.

I thought you were asking prior to owning this property.

I didn't know you were specifically talking about this property.

I think it's maybe where I was confused.

Or they were confused.

So you didn't review this before you signed it?

I did, but I counted on Jody Bales, my accountant who was helping me fill the whole thing out to make sure I did it right.

And do you still live here in town?

Um Can we get that answer again?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Could you say yes?

On the transcript, yeah.

Thank you.

Um when you bought this property, you knew it had been operating as a short-term rental.

And you were not aware that you needed to get a license?

And this was last summer.

Oh, could you say it out loud?

I'm sorry.

Um yes.

I no, I did not know I needed to do anything.

She didn't inform me.

I was not aware.

I had no idea.

But you were aware that it was being operated as a short-term rental by Julia, yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

May I?

Uh just one moment.

Um.

Okay.

I think that's I think that's everything that I have.

Commissioner Ortiz, did you have a follow-up?

Yes, but it was actually just to your question.

Um, question 10 on the supplemental application questions at the bottom of the short-term rental application.

It specifically asked just one question.

Has the subject dwelling prior to this application been used as a short-term rental?

And that was answered no.

And so that is the question alone isolated.

And that's what I was trying to point out.

Thank you.

That that was the question I was looking for, Commissioner Ortiz.

Prior being used by anybody or just me.

Commissioner Ortiz, could you read the question to her again?

So the question, it's question 10 on the short-term rental application.

Um under the heading supplemental application questions.

Question A.

Has a subject dwelling prior to this application been used as a short-term rental SCR?

And it it's marked no.

Okay, then I obviously presume you were talking about myself.

But either way.

Right.

And prior it was used.

The dwelling was used by the previous owner, correct?

Yes, to my knowledge, I guess if she was legal in what she did, I I guess.

So I guess what what I'm trying to say is that either way, either in type interpretation.

It's dis not maybe not purposely, but it's not a true answer.

No, it wasn't purposefully.

Right.

Because I struggled with filling that application out.

It's not an easy application for someone that doesn't really understand everything.

That's why I asked for help and why it took me a while.

And I can give you Jody Bale's name.

She sat there with me and she said, I have no idea.

Let's put this, and I guess this is what they're asking.

That's all for me.

Thank you.

So one last question, um, Ms.

Grothwall.

You're going to be the registered agent and the owner of this property, correct?

So you're going to be doing all of the operation.

Could you speak verbally?

Yes.

I am.

I do everything.

I do the cleaning.

I do everything.

Thank you.

That's all I have.

Anyone else questions for the speaker?

Seeing none, thank you for being here tonight.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else to speak on this case?

Please come forward.

My name is Philip Harrison.

I live at 210 Westwood, which is about uh five houses around the corner, about five houses away from uh the property in question.

I think the um uh question here is does an Airbnb improve the quality or diminish the quality of the neighborhood?

I've lived in my uh location, my house for 44 years.

We're very proud of our neighborhood.

Um council permitted an Airbnb across the street from us about two years ago, and I can tell you that has diminished the quality of our neighborhood.

It has not improved the quality of our neighborhood.

There are additional cars, quite a few.

There are parties, there are there's loud noise uh on the weekends when uh the uh Airbnb is uh is rented.

And um we would uh appreciate if you would uh help us maintain our neighborhood uh as it is.

And I think it's also become a apparent here that uh the applicants uh business uh practices are a little bit sloppy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Brodsky?

Could you repeat your address again for me?

210 Westwood.

210 Westwood.

Okay.

And that that was approved by city council, to your knowledge?

I assume it was.

It's been in business about two years, I think.

Yes.

Uh do you know what the across the street from you do you know what the house number is by chance?

203 or 205, I think.

I don't know.

Ma'am, if you want to come up next, you can, but I can't have you speaking from the audience.

Thank you.

Any follow-ups, Commissioner Brodsky?

Commissioner Walters.

Well, I was gonna um just a second.

Sir, would you be willing to send the neighborhood conservation staff, Mr.

Zenner or whoever you would like to refer him to the uh short-term rental operation in your neighborhood so we can verify that they're licensed.

Sure.

Thank you.

That's what I was trying to confirm.

I was gonna excuse me.

I was gonna show a picture here to have it confirm.

That'll be great.

So if you could get that information, we appreciate members of the community letting us know when people are operating illegally.

I will do that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions for this speaker?

Seeing none, thank you for being here.

Anyone else to speak on this case?

Please come forward.

My name is Shelley Soligo.

I live at 603 Edgewood Avenue.

And I also came tonight not intention intending to speak.

Um I had came with a sadness because when I saw the sign in the yard that that this was yet another property that was in fact not out with a duplex.

It did happen to be a home where the some friends of mine lived.

Apparently it is no longer that.

Um when I think of the word neighborhood, that's my neighborhood right there.

And there is not one word that I heard tonight in this process about what might be now allowed in this property that makes me believe that my neighborhood will be improved by it.

We have seen that it was will be a person who isn't my neighbor, who is just going to monetize the property.

They're not going to invite somebody who could be my neighbor to live there year-round to go to school with my kids, and we could get to know them.

It's going to be, per their report, people who are going to come in for graduation, people who are going to come in for football games, and it's going to be whoever is going to lowball the price for that particular weekend.

So that's really discouraging to me that that's what my neighborhood will be subject to.

So I'm strongly asking you, please help us protect our neighborhood and don't allow this.

Thank you.

Any questions for the speaker?

Seeing none.

Anyone else?

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

Commissioner comments on this case.

Okay.

I'll start.

Yeah, I I can't in good conscience approve a short-term rental with an owner who blatantly answered not one but two questions incorrectly that are pretty clear questions on this form.

And whether that was an intentional misrepresentation or an accidental one.

That this was not currently being operated as a short-term rental after she purchased it and was operating it through the false football season as a short-term rental.

So that that's where I'm at.

So that that's where I'm at.

Anyone else?

Commissioner Brodsky.

I'm I'm struggling with this one as well.

Um reminded of the case I can't remember the gentleman's name, but um we had down off of Green Meadows that I can't remember what we did.

I know City Council passed it.

Um I know I voted no on it.

Uh, and that was the gentleman that had um received notice from the prosecutor's office and was was still renting it out.

Um I also have issues with the incorrect um answers on the form, but then also, you know, once you know, to still keep renting it out and to be renting out both units.

Um that I don't know, there's just just too many uh circumstances combining here that I'm probably gonna be a no vote on this one.

Anyone else?

Commissioner Ortiz?

I'll add too that it was a little um I went back and I looked at the reviews, and there are some from February and April and May.

So uh I don't know if it was the most honest representation that it was just for graduation weekend.

Um so I'm also uncomfortable with this.

Um, so I will not be supporting it.

Commissioner Darr?

Uh I would just agree, I'm gonna vote no, but for the exact reasons you guys said, not that I think this is an inappropriate location for an SDR.

Commissioner Gray?

Um I also don't plan on supporting this for the reasons that you've already stated.

Um again, the I The neighborhood opposition was not especially compelling to me given that it has already operated.

Um it seems, as you said, um, that uh the fears were of a kind of like general nature.

So I don't plan on supporting this as well.

Uh would anyone like to make a motion?

We have to make all motions in the positive.

Uh so the motion maker may not necessarily even support their own motion.

Commissioner Walter.

Uh, regarding case number 136-2026.

I would make a motion to approve the requested STRSCUP subject to maximum occupancy of four transient guests and maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any further discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, Commissioner Brodsky, we may we have a roll call.

Commissioner Walters.

No.

My vote is no.

Commissioner Darr?

No.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

No.

Commissioner Gray.

No.

And Commissioner Ortiz.

No.

The motion fails.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Moving on to our last case for the evening, case number 137-2026, a request by Rochelle and Jonathan Lee Warner, owners, to allow the property addressed as 3303 Timberhill Street to operate a 210-night maximum for guest short-term rental, pursuant to Section 29-3.3 V V and Section 29-6.4M2 of the Unified Development Code.

The dwelling soup for licensure currently possesses a license allowing four guests for up to 120 nights annually.

Additionally, there is adequate parking on site.

The 220.17 acre subject site is located west of the intersection of Timberhill Street and East Broadway.

May we please have a staff report?

Yes, you may.

Thank you for the overview there.

Early notification postcards were sent out on the 20th of April, followed by public hearing letters on the 4th of May, which there are 11 of those.

And an ad was written in the Tribune on the 5th of May.

Here is the subject site highlighted again in red.

It is located on the north side of Timbrale Street.

Timberhill Street is a local residential street that permits on-street parking, though sidewalks are not installed.

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

The property itself is zoned agriculture and is the applicant's primary residence.

The unit for uh rent here is a two-bedroom, one-bathroom dwelling with the four requested guests, two parking spaces are required, and there are two per uh parking spaces currently supported on site without taking away from the required parking of the long-term unit.

The uh property was previously offered as a short-term rental, which was administratively approved.

Additionally, there are no short-term rentals within 300 feet of the subject site.

One of the four surround furthermore, one of the four surrounding properties appears appear to be owner-occupied.

The designated agent lives in Columbia, one mile or roughly five minutes from the subject site.

There are no violations on file for the uh subject property, and there are no responses to this request from the public.

The conditional use permit analysis supports approval for compliance.

These short-term rental regulations would provide an oversight and means to address any adverse impacts imposed from the short-term rental operation and approval would support broad policy strategies and actions of the comprehensive plan.

Staff's recommendation is to approve the short-term rental conditional use permit subject to a maximum occupancy of four transient guests, any maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

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

Seeing none.

Any questions for staff?

Briefly, and if the answer is no, that's okay.

It was administratively approved.

It was administratively approved.

Thank you.

So this is the same thing.

Sorry, it's been a long week.

This is the first request for an expansion of an administrative approved short-term rental.

Okay.

I'm sorry that I missed that.

I'm that's on me.

Okay.

Um any further questions for staff?

Seeing none.

Anyone here to speak on this case?

Please come forward.

Jonathan Lee Warner, 3303 Timberhill Road.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Thanks for hanging with me this late in the game.

Uh my wife and Rochelle are the owners, and we are the occupants of 3303 Timberhill Street.

Uh more.

Uh Rochelle's family has owned this land for a 20-acre parcel for four generations.

When I retired from the military, we made the decision to move here and make this our home and restore the property.

It had fallen into significant disrepair over several decades, and the income from our short-term rental has been a meaningful part of what's made that possible.

We have been clearing invasive trees, maintaining the land, continuing to ventures, and it's allowed us to also share something very meaningful to us with visitors to uh the great city of Columbia.

We are considering tonight is a permit for a small attached guest space above our garage, one group at a time, mostly families visiting their children at Mizzou or other universities, or people seeking medical care.

But we are on site for every stay.

Uh we've held a 120-night license without incident or complaint.

We are requesting 210 nights to build on what has been what I would call a pretty responsible operation.

And we would just like to continue doing that.

I also want the Commission to know that I personally visited every residence in the surrounding area as far as 2,000 feet away.

I made contact with 11 neighbors and left letters with those that I could not with my contact information.

The reception I felt was pretty positive across the board.

We are invested in this land in this community for the long term, and we're just looking to do what we've already been doing responsibly.

And I'm happy to answer any questions you guys may have.

Thank you.

Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Thank you.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry.

I do have one quick one.

Um how have you found it so far?

Have you been getting lots of guests?

Good.

I mean, obviously you are asking for more nights.

I'm just Yeah, it's been pretty good.

I mean, more more than 120, you know, but we're not actually trying to maximize every night because it is our home.

And so by that by that factor, it also self-selects a lot of people out that we wouldn't want in the place anyway.

But it's mostly weekends and like I said, uh university support.

Thank you for being here.

Yeah.

Appreciate you guys.

Thank you.

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

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

Any commissioner comment?

Commissioner Walters.

I wish all of our applications were as complete as that one.

Usually would you like to make a motion?

Yes.

Uh regarding case number 137-2026.

I I move I make a motion to approve the requested SDRCUP subject to maximum occupancy of four transient guests and maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Gray.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, may we please have a roll call.

Mr.

Walt or Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

My vote is yes.

Commissioner Darr.

Yes.

Commissioner Goway Jones.

Yes.

Commissioner Gray.

Yes.

And Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

That concludes our business for the evening.

We will now go to public comments.

If any member of the public is here to make a comment of a general nature, please come forward.

Seeing none, we will go to staff comments, Mr.

Zinner.

So your next meeting will be on June 4th, and this begins our back-to-back meetings in the month of June.

So it will be our first meeting.

Our first meeting is the late one.

I say light, not late.

So your upcoming cases, as we were discussing before work session this evening.

Subdivision request, this is actually an R2 zone piece of property that is being sought on June 9th to be authorized for cottage-style development standards through our Board of Adjustment for a 17-lot cottage development.

This is immediately adjacent to the church at the corner of South Bethel and East Old Plank Road.

The preliminary plat, of course, is the first stage in the plating process.

It will have a final plat that you would not see if it is fully compliant.

We have a returning case from our prior meeting on May 7th.

As indicated, it is possible that this will be requested for tabling since we have not received the updated traffic study, which was the purpose for the tabling request.

And this is the acreage that is just south of 2909 Rockware Road, immediately north of Grey Oak.

And then we have one short-term rental request in an R2 zoned area.

It is half of a duplex at 1804 Juniper.

These are the locations of your upcoming projects.

Two of them should appear to be, well, one of them is familiar, and the other two should be new to some.

Tonight there's a couple of announcements that I will make.

One, it is with uh great appreciation for Ms.

Ortiz's service.

This is Ms.

Ortiz's last meeting this evening.

Congratulations on a new adventure to start in your life.

We will miss you.

Contributions uh to not only our organization as a whole serving on this body, but also with Mike and Ped and your other advocacy-related roles have been appreciated.

So heartfelt thank you from our staff.

We wish you the best of luck.

Second announcement.

I'm not going anywhere, so don't worry.

Um, tonight to my right, uh, Mr.

Halligan, uh, this is his last meeting.

Uh Ross has accepted a job down in the Fort Myer area and will be leaving us tomorrow.

Uh so uh it is with uh great respect uh that I appreciate you bringing my alma mater uh to join my side here with our staff and contribute as you have.

You have diligently dealt with all of our short-term rental requests, as well as others, which hopefully have given you a little bit of added experience and so-called planning chops.

Um we will miss you uh and we do wish you the best uh as you move forward.

Even though we part with staff, as many of you know, I have been down a planner and I've been down a senior planner.

Um Ross happened to make notice to us that uh he had taken this job as we were completing interviews for the open planner position that had been created uh by Curtis Orendorf's departure.

Out of that application pool, we were fortunate enough to be able to hire two planners.

So I will have two planners starting July 6th.

I have a senior planner that will start next Tuesday.

Knock on wood.

I have full staff at least for now.

Uh we will hopefully be able to see a little bit of progress made forward on some of our larger uh topics, i.e.

the comprehensive plan.

Uh but we will be spending some time over the next several months training.

Uh so that is where we stand as a staff at this point.

We are continuing to move forward on topics that we have had to delay.

Uh I will start to retool a little bit myself and where my energies are placed and hopefully be able to get a couple of items back on board.

We also are nearing a point where uh we will be going out and doing outreach as it relates to the Central City Columbia uh design guidelines project.

That is something that we are working now with our communication staff on to work with neighborhood associations before we bring our consultant back, which should probably be in the fall.

Um CMT, um Crawford Murphy and Crawford Murphy and Tilly, uh transportation consultants that have been working on our complete streets project uh will likely be making a presentation to the Commission on the 23rd of July as it relates to uh the completion of uh the public engagement side and general um framework of a new complete streets policy and amendments to appendix A of the UDC.

They're going to be providing that.

They'll provide the policy to City Council, which would include the appendix amendments, which I anticipate council to redirect to the commission since it is an ordinance amendment.

And that would probably be sometime I imagine in August, if not September.

So we are starting to close the door on some projects that we have been working on.

We hope to begin the RFP process at least for our comprehensive plan either towards the tail end of this budget year, which would be the end of September or the beginning of the new fiscal 27 budget year to be able to put the request out on the street to hopefully have a consultant by the beginning of the new year.

Not only has Ms.

Ortiz resigned her position, unfortunately, Ms.

Stockton had to as well.

She would have acquired a total of five absences before her return.

She made her uh resignation effective immediately in order to allow an opportunity for her to reapply to become a member of this planning commission should council want to re-interview her at the earliest opportunity possible.

Announcements for our open commission positions, which would be Miss Ortiz's, uh, as well as Ms.

Stockton's is the 5th of June.

So any qualified applicant that is not already in the applicant pool from our last round uh is encouraged to apply uh and uh put their hat in the ring to become a commissioner.

Um Mr.

Stanton, uh, as many of you were aware on Monday was reappointed uh for a new four-year term.

So he will be continuing on and then Andrew uh Greybaugh has also been appointed uh as a new graver.

Grey Bow, yeah.

Gray Bow has been appointed as uh the replacement to uh Ms.

Wilson.

So we hopefully will by July, possibly uh August, uh have a full uh contingency of commissioners.

Just so the commission is aware.

Um the resetting of the attendance clock uh no longer starts June 1.

So we are now working on a rolling 12-month schedule, which uh any absences that you have that go back are going to count moving forward.

And as not, we start fresh.

So I will continue to keep the chair updated with where we stand on absences, uh so you as commissioners can be made aware so you know where you are as well.

Uh we really would like to keep intact the body that we have and those that we train.

Uh makes our jobs a whole lot easier.

With that, thank you very much for your time and your attention this evening.

Thank you.

Going to Commissioner Comments.

Before I let you speak, we're going to embarrass you.

Is that okay?

I just want to echo Mr.

Zinner's comments.

It's been great serving with you.

I've really appreciated watching you kind of take in all this ordinance and new information and loved getting your perspective, especially as someone who is a walker.

Um it's been really, really great.

And we're going to miss you not just on the commission, but in our fair city altogether.

But good luck in the future.

Anyone else?

You know.

We got some dittoes.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Ortiz.

I feel so like grateful to each of you and to every MTC and anyone who sat in these seats before.

Um, and staff, of course, and Dalton and Albert and other staff who do the technology, and uh just everyone, I feel very thankful to be here.

I have learned so much in this time.

Uh actually, not just on the commission, but just living in Columbia.

I've learned so much about myself and my like personal advocacy and like what I want the world to look like.

And if it weren't for this outlet, I don't know what what I would what I would be doing.

Um, I'm moving on to a new city where hopefully I can get around a little bit easier.

Um that's kind of like the main thing.

Um but yeah, I'm very thankful, and I uh Columbia will always have a big place in my heart.

So thank you.

Thank you.

And best wishes.

Any further commissioner comments?

Seeing none, is there a motion to adjourn?

Move to adjourn.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Gray and seconded for the last time by Commissioner Ortiz.

Without objection, we stand adjourned.