City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Columbia City Hall

Council Chambers

701 E Broadway

Thursday, October 9, 2025

7:00 PM

Regular Meeting

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. INTRODUCTIONS

MS. GEUEA JONES: Good evening. I will now call the Thursday, October 9th, 2025

Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call?

MR. BRODSKY: We may. Commissioner Geuea Jones?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Here.

MR. BRODSKY: Commissioner Gray?

DR. GRAY: Here.

MR. BRODSKY: Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: Here.

MR. BRODSKY: Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Present.

MR. BRODSKY: Commissioner Stockton?

MS. STOCKTON: Here.

MR. BRODSKY: Commissioner Walters?

MR. WALTERS: Here.

MR. BRODSKY: Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: Here.

MR. BRODSKY: I am here. And Commissioner Darr?

MR. DARR: Here.

MR. BRODSKY: We have a full quorum tonight.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much.

9 -

Present:

Anthony Stanton, Sharon Geuea Jones, Shannon Wilson, Robert Walters,

McKenzie Ortiz, David Brodsky, Les Gray, Kate Stockton and Cody Darr

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any changes or adjustments to our agenda this

evening,

Mr. Zenner?

MR. ZENNER: No, there are not, ma'am.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there a motion to approve the agenda?

DR. GRAY: Move to approve --

MR. STANTON: Approve the agenda.

DR. GRAY: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion to approve by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by

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

(Unanimous vote for approval.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Unanimous. Thank you.

Motion to approve

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

September 18, 2025 Regular Meeting

MS. GEUEA JONES: We all received a copy of the minutes from our last session.

Are there any changes or adjustments to the minutes? Seeing none. Is there a motion

to approve?

MR. STANTON: I move to approve the minutes.

DR. GRAY: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion to approve made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded

by Commissioner Gray. A thumbs-up approval on the minutes?

(Six votes for approval; three abstentions.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Unanimous with abstentions from Walters, Wilson, and

Ortiz. Excellent. Moving on.

Move to approve.

V. WITHDRAWN ITEMS

Case # 308-2025

A request by Lorenzia and Shelby Henderson (agents), on behalf of Much

MO"W" Services LLC (owner), to allow 1201 S. Old Highway 63, Apt. 301

to be used as a short-term rental for a maximum of 6 transient guests and

up to 210 nights annually pursuant to Sec. 29-3.3(vv) and Sec. 29-6.4(m)(2)

of the Unified Development Code. The 0.02-acre subject site is located

within the Lexington Square Condominiums development on the west side

of South Old Highway 63, approximately 600 feet north of Stadium

Boulevard. (Applicant has withdrawn item from further consideration)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Our first case is a withdrawn item. You still want me to read

this though; right?

MR. ZENNER: Correct.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there any kind of staff report on the withdrawn item?

MR. ZENNER: Other than the fact that it has been withdrawn. This wasn't

advertised -- it was not an advertised public hearing, and we were able to catch that

before it went for advertising. So this is information purposes only.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Very good. Thank you.

VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

Case # 295-2025

A request by Stephen and Susan Bowles (agents), on behalf of SSBMO

Properties LLC (owners), to allow 502 South West Boulevard to be used

as a short-term rental for a maximum of 6 transient guests and up to

210-nights annually pursuant to Sec. 29-3.3(vv) and Sec. 29-6.4(m)(2) of

the Unified Development Code. The 3-bedroom, 2-bath home has an

attached 1-car garage and driveway capacity to support 2 UDC-compliant

on-site parking spaces. The 0.29-acre subject site is located on the east

side of South West Boulevard, approximately 50 feet south of Ridge Road

and 100 feet north of West Lathrop Road.

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report.

Staff report was given by Mr. Ross Halligan of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow 502 South

West Boulevard to be operated as a STR subject to:

1. The maximum occupancy shall not exceed six transient guests regardless of

occupancy allowed by the most recently adopted edition of the

International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC);

2. A maximum of 210 nights of annual usage;

3. The one-garage space shall be made available while the dwelling is in STR use.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my

fellow Commissioners have had any contact with outside parties to this case, please

disclose so now. Seeing none. Are there any questions for staff? Just to clarify, they

got two letters and then applied and there is another unregistered nearby, is that --

MR. HALLIGAN: There is no other short-term rentals within 300 feet.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MR. HALLIGAN: And after the second -- in the midst of the second letters being

sent out, they were able to apply after -- or before the requested compliance date on the

second set of letters.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Appreciate that. All right. Seeing no other

questions for staff, we will go to public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Will the first member of the public who wishes to speak on

this case please come forward. Yes. Please speak into the microphone. We allow

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

MS. MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Name and address for the record. Sorry.

MS. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Name and address for the record.

MS. MATTHEWS: Heather Matthews, 503 West Boulevard South. So being new to

this, I have some questions and I'm hoping they are appropriate for this forum. I

understand that there are -- or I don't understand. There are a maximum number of units

that can be in an area; is that right?

MS. GEUEA JONES: No, not exactly. If there are -- if you are within 300 feet of

another one, that is a reason for us to decide to deny you, but it's weighed against other

factors, it's not an automatic.

MS. MATTHEWS: So obviously I have concerns because this is a residential area

primarily, and from the research that I've done, short-term rentals are not necessarily

beneficial to residential areas, and particularly since it is in, in my opinion, one of the

beloved area being the older section of town, so what protections do homeowners have

with regards to these Airbnbs or these short-term rentals. For example, let's say the

Airbnb is rented and the -- there's a lot of noise, and a loud party, what -- what do we do

in that case?

MS. GEUEA JONES: So we do have a hotline that you would be able to call. The

owner has to have someone within city limits who can go and respond. If there are --

remind me of the number of violations -- two violations, they get their license pulled.

MS. MATTHEWS: And how quickly do they have to respond?

MS. GEUEA JONES: They have to respond immediately.

MS. MATTHEWS: Immediately.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yes.

MS. MATTHEWS: Okay. So -- and we apply to them if there is property destruction

or something that happens?

MS. GEUEA JONES: I would also report that Neighborhood Services through the

hotline. In a lot of these cases, the Airbnb owners have given their personal information

to the neighbors, and I would suggest that if the applicant is here tonight, you try to get

that information from them.

MS. MATTHEWS: And what do we do about security? I mean, obviously, if we're in

an area with only 300 feet separating these Airbnbs and the downtown historic area is

definitely an appealing area to purchase in, what do we do as more and more of the

properties are -- are purchased for essentially hotel purposes? Do we have any sort of

plans for increased security or protection because, essentially, the area becomes a

commercial area, and we are -- we already would suffer the effects of either decreased

property value because -- on the one hand, because people don't want to move into a

commercial area, the area that has essentially been -- experienced a form of

gentrification where the homeowners and the renters, the people who are invested in the

community, have been pushed out by these -- these Airbnbs and/or increase value where

people can't -- single families and renters with families can't move in. But we also have

the problem of increased security. Now we have people who are coming in and out of the

area who we don't know. Am I safe to put my young children in the backyard with

strangers now who are now, you know, hotels around me? What type of provisions have

been made to address those things?

MS. GEUEA JONES: I would say that that is a general policing problem, and it is

the same as it would be if you didn't know your neighbors, even if they live next to you for

years.

MS. MATTHEWS: I think it's a little different because they -- I would know who they

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

more. So the City hasn't really made any provisions other than general policing? All

right. Thank you for answering my questions.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much for your comments tonight. Any

questions for this speaker? Thank you very much. Next speaker? Oh, we do not --

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

Is there someone else who wants to speak on this case, please come forward.

MS. GRAVES: Rebecca Graves, 1108 Chantilly Court. I actually came for the case

following this one, but they're similar short-term rentals, and I'd like to accentuate what

the previous speaker said about the detriment that short-term rentals have on

homeownership. So the City of Columbia already has a pressing need for affordable

housing, and a lot of these short-term rentals are in places where people could hope to

buy a house as a first time or maybe a second time homeowner, and I think this is going

to cut into that because real estate gets more expensive because it's more lucrative when

you rent it, especially short-term rentals. So I think that weighs against putting in

short-term rentals. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none. Next person to speak on this case, please come forward. Just come on

up, ma'am.

MS. BOWLES: I'm Susan Bowles, I'm the homeowner. We have had the house for

eight years. It is our second home. We spent Thanksgiving, Christmas there for the last

five years. We learned about the house because we stayed there as an Airbnb person.

The person had owned it for nine years before we bought it. So this home has been an

Airbnb, it's nothing new. We've never had -- our neighbors, we know them. The house

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

friends with both people on each side. They spoke to us and said they supported it, but

they weren't --they had other things going on and weren't going to come tonight. But they

have met many of the people that have stayed there, especially if they've stayed longer

than just the weekend. They even shared stuff from their garden with them. We've never

had issues with guests that have been detrimental to the neighborhood. There hasn't

been a problem, and I don't feel that -- we have kept the house up. We have installed --

we have had dead trees cut down. We've had other things done which some of the

owners that live there full time on the street have not. And I feel like we're good

homeowners and that we don't just use it as an Airbnb. It is a second home.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Questions for this speaker? Oh, please stay,

ma'am. Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: Thank you for coming forward. You -- hopefully, you heard their

questions about security. Do you guys have any security measures?

MS. BOWLES: We have automatic locks on the door, but we are going to install

some lights, you know. We don't have those that record anything right now, you know.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Other questions? Commissioner Brodsky?

MR. BRODSKY: You mentioned that you have owned the house for eight years?

MS. BOWLES: Well, since 2018, so seven years. This is -- we're starting our

seventh year -- or eighth year, we're starting.

MR. BRODSKY: Okay. And you've had it as an Airbnb this -- the whole time?

MS. BOWLES: Yes.

MR. BRODSKY: And the owner before you also had it as an Airbnb --

MS. BOWLES: Yes.

MR. BRODSKY: -- so it's going to --

MS. BOWLES: And I don't know how many -- I know we stayed there, like, nine

years prior to that, so at least nine, ten years, and she had family in the neighborhood

and we had two sons when we bought it and grandchildren here, and that's one reason

we bought it.

MR. BRODSKY: Great. Thank you for that additional clarification. And then I did

want to -- I'm not trying to put you on blast here, but just curious. You know, staff did

send you a letter on June 30th and July 30th, and it took until late August to -- to submit

for the CUP?

MS. BOWLES: We started gathering the stuff in July. We didn't see the one in

June, so I don't know whether it went to our home here or our home there, but whatever

reason. I had -- in May I had triple bypass surgery, and so things have been a little bit,

you know, hectic and different at our house, and my husband had three stints two and a

half weeks before I did, so we've had a great year. So I don't -- I didn't -- we didn't

intentionally ignore it. I don't know whether we -- I don't know what happened. I don't

know whether it got lost in the shuffle with cards and stuff, honestly, or if, you know, we

thought it was just a flyer type thing, you know, from the City, but we didn't realize until

we got the second one, and then we started the procedure and got stuff from the banks

and got stuff from the -- from our trust and those kinds of things to get it together for

them.

MR. BRODSKY: So thank you very much for -- for answering that. That's something

I will probably ask of all the short-term rentals that we see going forward, so thank you

very much.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any final questions? Thank you very much for being here.

Anyone else to speak on this case, please come forward. Seeing none. We will close

public hearing and go to Commissioner comment.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any Commissioner comments on this case? Seeing none.

Would anyone like to make a motion? Commissioner Brodsky?

MR. BRODSKY: I'll just make a quick comment. You know, I think we've had a lot

of these cases where a property has been functioning as an Airbnb for quite a while,

hasn't caused any issues in the neighborhood. And for me, at least, I think that's where

I'm going to land on this one. So if there aren't any other comments --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I just want to make a public service announcement that there is a

hotline. You have been -- you have been introduced to the owner, if you didn't know who

she was. Those are the fail-safes. She has the responsibility of being a good neighbor,

so get her number and get the hotline number. There's things in place; we worked on this

a long time. There are security measures to protect the neighborhood. And the system

is in place, the system is working, so make sure you have all the tools you need to

ensure that if she is allowed to have a short-term rental, that she's compliant and is a

good neighbor. And all those places -- all those things are in place, so get with staff or

one of us and we can get the number to you. You'll have the weapons you need.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other Commissioner comments? Commissioner

Stockton?

MS. STOCKTON: I haven't really brought this up with all these short-term rentals,

but I've lived next to several in a previous town, not Columbia, and also lived next to

long-term rentals. And I'm here to testify to you that the long-term rentals were the issue,

not the short-term rentals. And, in fact, they raised our home value because Airbnb

owners, short-term rental owners tend to put a lot of money to be able to market those.

So I'm not going to guarantee that that's going to be the case with this and all the other

cases we're hearing tonight, but that was my personal experience. I think that there's a

lot of safeguards around these, and I do understand the affordable housing argument, but

that's why the City and this Commission, prior to me being here, has put in all these

safeguards to make sure that there's not a huge high density of them. There's -- there's

some guardrails, which other municipalities don't do. So I -- I think we are trying, but we

still appreciate the feedback and want to continue to hear that, but I just wanted to let

you know that was my own personal experience. So I can tell you lots of stories about

that long-term rental, but I'll leave it there.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other Commissioner comments? Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: Are we ready to entertain a motion? All right. In the matter of 502

South West Boulevard, short-term rental conditional use permit request, I move to

approve the requested short-term rental subject to the maximum occupancy of six

transient guests, a maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage, and the one garage

space be made available while in short-term rental use.

DR. GRAY: Second.

MR. STANTON: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Gray already seconded.

MR. STANTON: Oh, okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion made by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by

Commissioner Gray. Is there any discussion on the motion. Seeing none.

Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call?

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms.

Geuea Jones, Dr. Gray, Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Stockton, Mr. Walters, Ms.

Wilson, Mr. Brodsky, Mr. Darr. Motion carries 9-0.

MR. BRODSKY: The motion carries.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation will be forwarded to City

Council. Next case for the evening:

Move to approve the requested short-term rental subject to the maximum

occupancy of six transient guests, a maximum of 210 nights of annual rental

usage, and the one garage space be made available while in short-term rental

use.

9 - Stanton, Geuea Jones, Wilson, Walters, Ortiz, Brodsky, Gray, Stockton and Darr

Yes:

Case # 296-2025

A request by Kevin Dickherber (agent), on behalf of Par Five Properties,

LLC (owner), to allow 1306 St. Michael Drive to be used as a short-term

rental for a maximum of 8 transient guests and up to 210-nights annually

pursuant to Sec. 29-3.3(vv) and Sec. 29-6.4(m)(2) of the Unified

Development Code. The 4-bedroom, 2-bath home has an attached 1-car

garage and sufficient driveway capacity to support 1 UDC-compliant

on-site/off-street parking space. This request, if approved, would be

subject to expansion of available on-site/off-street parking by 2 additional

spaces to permit the 8 desired guests. The dwelling is presently limited to

4 guests given available parking. The 0.23-acre subject site is located on

the south side of St. Michael Drive approximately 510-feet west of the

intersection of Crestland Avenue and S. Christopher Street.

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?

Staff report was given by Mr. Kirtis Orendorff of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow the

dwelling at 1306 St. Michael Drive to be operated as a STR subject to:

1. The maximum occupancy of eight transient guests regardless of occupancy

permitted by the most recently adopted edition of the International

Property Maintenance Code (IPMC);

2. A maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage;

3. One parking space within the attached one-car garage be made available

while the dwelling is in use as a short-term rental;

4. The construction of a driveway/parking pad on-site accommodating two

additional parking spaces prior to issuance of an STR Certificate of

Compliance or Business License for more than four transient guests.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my

fellow Commissioners have had contact with parties to this case outside of a public

hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Questions for staff? Commissioner

Wilson?

MS. WILSON: I am doing the mental exercise of trying to understand where we

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

occupancy, but I'm looking at the recommendation of the report in item Number 4. And

so, I'm just -- I'm trying to balance this out and understand, you know, are we saying they

can only have four unless they do the construction, and if they do the construction, then

they can have eight. What is the actual thing you're saying?

MR. ORENDORFF: Yes. That is the recommendation we're making. That is as

presently constructed and laid out, they could have a maximum of four. If they wanted

the eight that was in their request, they would need two additional parking pads before we

would issue the Certificate of Compliance for that.

MS. WILSON: And so, just to follow up, and I apologize. Whenever we make this

motion, I just want to make that clear because it's not clear in the recommendation that's

on the screen, at least not in my opinion.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Uh-huh. Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Yeah. I needed further clarification, because the way I'm looking at

this, if I give you eight before you -- so he can't operate at four?

MR. ZENNER: They would be able to operate at four, because that is what he is

compliant for.

MR. STANTON: Right now.

MR. ZENNER: He hits the maximum of eight, so what you are -- what you are

approving is the maximum amount once he's fully compliant with all of the other

regulatory standards.

MR. STANTON: Okay.

MR. ZENNER: Meaning he then does not have to come back to go through this

process again once he has added those compliance features.

MR. STANTON: Got it. Okay.

MR. ZENNER: He will not be issued a certificate of short-term rental compliance or a

business license for anything greater than what the capacity of the property is as of

today.

MR. STANTON: Got it.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Darr?

MR. DARR: The violations, were they all with the same owner?

MR. ORENDORFF: Yeah. That was from 2022 to now.

MR. DARR: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I'm looking at street view, which I think was one of the slides

that you had, as well. I'm not sure they could add two more parking spaces, given our

other codes. Am I misunderstanding that?

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

wide lot. And so we allow parking within the required front yard setback provided you are

not over the impervious surface that is created is the greater of 30 percent of the lot

frontage within the -- or, yeah -- 30 percent of the required front-yard setback not -- or 500

square feet, whichever is greater. So adding two additional compliant parking spaces in

this picture to the right of the van where the mailbox is is possible and it still would rely --

it would still allow the property to be in compliance. You would not have paved over 30

percent of the required front yard. It definitely will change if that is what would be

pursued. It will change the characteristic of this street based upon that. Now again, as

we had talked in the development stage of these regulations, this is an option that we

needed to consider to be made available. And if you can maintain compliance with the

UDC and the parking standards that are within for a driveway, an owner who wants to

expend this money that is either potentially not going to be the long term owner of the

property has just put in a very large expense. However, if they intend on holding this

property for a length of time, that expense may very well be worth it. The other alternative

way to look at that is is if you put in a driveway that actually has capacity to support the

actual use of the home as a typical residential development, you have probably also

provided a benefit to the neighborhood you have pulled parking off of the street, but you

are changing the composition and the character of the street with that type of

improvement. But an owner can pave over the front yard. They can park within 30

percent or the greater of 30 percent or 500 square feet of their front yard. That's what the

Code says today and that's what the applicant would be able to do. We -- I calculated

that myself when we took the application in, and identified the issues associated with this

property.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Commissioner

Gray?

DR. GRAY: Thank you. I know that with the STR CUP, we have the ability to

impose additional conditions if they are reasonable. Does that also apply to potentially

the number of guests?

MR. ZENNER: So as a conditional use, yes. So everything is open for option here.

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

could ask and you could -- you could recommend for Council's consideration a reduction

in the total occupancy. That is entirely within the purview of the conditional use.

DR. GRAY: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? Commissioner Walters?

MR. WALTERS: Real quick question. Do you know the width of the street, St.

Michael's?

MR. ORENDORFF: Off the top of my head, I don't recall. If I had to guess, probably

36.

MR. WALTERS: Yeah. We rotated a camera here on -- it looks like it's, like, 26

feet, 28 feet, do you think?

MR. ZENNER: I would suggest probably 28, back of curb to back of curb.

MR. WALTERS: All right. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? Commissioner Darr?

MR. DARR: Just measuring on Google maps, it's 28 feet.

MR. WALTERS: Twenty-eight. All right. Thanks.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Final thoughts? No. Okay. We will open the floor to public

comment then.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Would the first member of the public that wishes to speak on

this case, please come forward.

MS. DOYLE: Good evening, Commissioners. I am Mary Kay Doyle, the owner of

the house at 1308 St. Michael Drive. I am appearing here in opposition to the application.

I also have sent a letter in which you should have your packet which has some additional

information which I shall not include in my remarks. I'm concerned about the quiet

peacefulness of the neighborhood. It will become a very loud and difficult place for my

tenants and my neighbors who live on the dead-end block of St. Michael Drive. Despite

the statement that the neighborhood is predominantly rental, there is no excuse to inflict

an STR of up to eight unrelated guests on -- on a home that is about 1,400 square feet,

including the basement. The application notes the usual party for the residents is four

and it will go to eight. During the last four months, there have been four and like -- and

most likely 12 guests at one time inhabiting this home. And there have been eight to ten

cars of those guests parked on the street. The number of guests make a lot of noise

when they party outside late in the evening. It's disruptive to the usually quiet family

neighborhood. The requirement for four additional parking places on the property will

destroy the single value -- I'm sorry -- single family residents’ ambience. The place will

look like a parking pad for an apartment. The application points out prior violations are

not a prediction of future events. I disagree with that. When you eight or more people

standing in a 1,400 square foot home on a quiet street, the partying will be at the same

level as noisiness as had occurred in the past. Regarding the 10:00 p.m. banging on the

door, there was no indication from the City staff a need to have a written document about

the police reported incident. I thought the information from the police department would

be sufficient. When it takes two letters from the City and three months for the agent to

respond to a code violation, according to the application, I am doubtful about the

neighborhood continuing to be a quiet refuge for the inhabitants of St. Michael Drive and

its surroundings in a short-term rental is allowed. Please vote no on this application.

Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any --

MS. DOYLE: I'll go for questions.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any questions for this speaker?

MS. WILSON: I have a question.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: Thank you for coming. You had mentioned the 10:00 p.m. knocking

at the door. Was that your residence?

MS. DOYLE: Yes. I do not live at -- at this residence. It is my second home. My

sons live there now currently. Previously, I've had tenants that are not related to the

family in that home, also. But my son, who is going to speak after me, will tell you he

was the one at -- that responded to that banging.

MS. WILSON: I have another question. How long ago was this estimated 12

guests?

MS. DOYLE: It -- it happened between June of this year and now.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Next person to speak?

MR. DOYLE: My name is Jeffrey Doyle, and I'm the one who was witnessing what

she described. Members of this body, neighbors and the public, my name is Jeffrey

Doyle. I have come to express my adamant opposition to --

MS. GEUEA JONES: I'm sorry, Mr. Doyle. I know that we know where you live

because of what your mother said, but could you say it for the record?

MR. DOYLE: I am -- okay. And was just -- I live at 1308 St. Michael Drive, and I

have lived there for 23 years.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much.

MR. DOYLE: Members of this body, neighbors, and the public, my name is Jeffrey

Doyle. I've come to express my adamant opposition to 1306 St. Michael as a short-term

rental. My letter has already been submitted, and I make these remarks to highlight the

main points. I have lived at 1308 St. Michael, a property immediately adjacent to 1306,

for 23 years. I grew up on Rollins Road nearby, and as a boy, I spent a great deal of time

in the neighborhood I presently live in. Friends live there. We rode bicycles there in

1970s. I value this neighborhood and I don't wish to see it degraded by a limited liability

corporation’s aim to profit from it for the benefit of a group of shareholders, the expense of

our way of life, our property values, and our peace of mind. This is a neighborhood that

once has had as a resident Darwin Hindman, a name you might be familiar with. Parking

issues have been made much of, but that's only the tip of the iceberg. It is fundamentally

incompatible to have a short-term rental in this family-child neighborhood. These

transients treat this neighborhood as a vacation place with their loud parties, marijuana

smoke coming over the fence, and their loud boom-boom stereos waking us from sound

sleep even late or night or early in the morning where we live, raised children here, tried to

live out our peaceful lives. That's why we moved here, to have peace and quiet. I take

exceptions to two counts in the Commission's report, one, that my -- one that my past

experiences are not relevant because the law had not yet been applied. And I have seen

12 people exit this because I happen to live next door and I went outside and worked in

the yard and I counted 12 get into those cars, and that was not that long ago. And I

wanted to talk about that. I was the victim of an attempted forced entry. This was not a

mere, you know, accident on their part. They attempted to force my door down. They

were pulling as hard as they could, they were loud, they were big guys. I'm also 60 years

old and I have bad arthritis. I was forced to call the police to deal with that. That's the

only time in my entire life that I ever feared for my safety in this city -- only time. And I

don't -- and let me see. Let me get back to what I was having to say. Everyone I've

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

The choice -- your choice is stark, clearly delineated. You can choose to side with an

old established family neighborhood, or you can choose to side with an accumulation of

capital, of Par Five, LLC of St. Louis, they can further enrich their shareholders the

expense of one of Columbia's finest neighborhoods. And lastly, to those in other

neighborhoods that feel nothing could be done to fight City Hall, I submit we can fight

back and must to defend our way of life. I await your vote. You can take one of two

sides, and I hope you will pick the sensible choice for our neighborhood. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? Seeing none.

Thank you very much for being here tonight. Next speaker on this case?

MS. GRAHL: Hi. My name is Teki Grahl; I live at 1303 St. Andrew Street, which is

directly behind this property.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Would you pull the mic a little bit closer? I apologize.

MS. GRAHL: Sorry. I live at 1303 St. Andrew, which is right behind this property.

This is a very sweet neighborhood. It's sleepy, it's quiet, it's full of, you know, starter

families and older people. We would really like to keep it that way. I can see into their

windows, so I know that this is going to impact my life further. And I'm not trying to be

the fun police, I'm here for everybody to make their buck, but not on the backs of the rest

of the residents of our neighborhood. We do know each other. We do have each other's

back. And we really would like to keep it as a nice residential area. By allowing this

many nights, 210 nights, you've turned this into a small hotel and we don't need that in

our neighborhood. We need more small families. We need more children. We need,

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

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

no doubts about that, but I do have concerns about the transient nature of people coming

in and not caring about the rest of us. So I appreciate you taking the time. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker -- oh, before you

run off? Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: You said that you know your neighbors. Do you know the owner of this

home?

MS. GRAHL: I knew the owner previously, the couple that lived there.

MS. ORTIZ: But not the current owner?

MS. GRAHL: No.

MS. ORTIZ: Okay. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And, ma'am, I'm sorry. I also have a question.

MS. GRAHL: I’m sorry.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, it's okay. This has been in operation for three or four

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

MS. GRAHL: I've seen there was a significant decrease after the couple passed

away, like, their son kind of stayed there. And the yard got worse and worse and worse,

honestly, and it hasn't really improved until we started hearing about this and then things

started to improve on the exterior of the home.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And when you say started hearing about this, do you mean,

like, in the last couple of months or --

MS. GRAHL: When I started receiving notification that they wanted to have a

short-term rental.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Commissioner Stockman, did you have

something. No? Okay. Sorry. I thought somebody down -- I thought you were trying to

get my attention. No? Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else to speak on this

case, please come forward.

MR. COLTON: Tim Colton, 1307 St. Andrew. I appreciate the chance to express my

opinion on this. We talked with a few neighbors around. That St. Michael's is a

dead-end street, and that intersection there is a kind of a -- can be a nightmare getting

around. No sidewalks, and there are children up and down the street, bicycles, walking.

It's just a family activity up and down through there and a lot of extra traffic won't be a

good thing for that area. I oppose it. I guess I should have said at the start of it.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none. Thank you. Next speaker to come forward?

MR. RODEMAN: Zack Rodeman; I live at 1311 St. Andrew Street. My wife and I

bought the house in 1999. In terms of knowing the neighbors, I know both Teki and Tim

who just spoke. In terms of St. Michael's, the people that own the home directly behind

me, don't know the gentleman's name, but I've talked to him quite a bit. My concern is, I

guess, echoing everything that everybody else has already said. What I would like to add

is that despite the nature of property values, if we're always concerned about profits rather

than the people, we lose the tenor of our neighborhood. The idea that this person who

owns this home -- have not met them, but if they are not responsive in the last two years

at this level with four residents, what is indicating that they're going to be responsive in

the future even though these safeguards are in place if they're expanding it? And so

that's my concern. This has not been proven over the first two years that this person's

incorporation as an LLC to be responsive to the issues heretofore. Echoing everything

about the children, I raised my two sons, along with my wife here. There are kids

everywhere. As I was coming down here -- I teach at Hickman. Stayed late tonight.

Right? My kids were out of school, working till almost 7:00, come home and grab a bite

to come down here and try to speak, four kids out on their bikes with their families, and

the intersection that Tim was talking about, people roll through there as it is right now,

not stopping at the stop signs. And so echoing those concerns. That would be the only

addition I would have.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any questions? Commissioner

Brodsky?

MR. BRODSKY: Just real quick, because I missed it. You live at 1311 St. Michael?

MR. COLTON: Yeah. So my property, if you're looking out the backyard of the

property that is applying for this, I guess I would be on the southwest corner.

MR. BRODSKY: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much,

sir. Next speaker, please come forward.

MR. MORRIS: Tim Morris, 1312 St. Michael Drive. I'd be just two doors down from

the 1306 property. I'm here to oppose this proposal and to support my neighbors. I think

they've said concerning security, trash, children. But I am curious how this parking would

work, and I do disagree with you, sir, that -- that paving over the front yard is going to

advance anything in our neighborhood. I don't think that's true. And I'm curious, you

know, how this parking is determined. You had a slide up earlier with a van parked. I

mean, you can clearly get two cars. I've seen two cars in that driveway multiple times,

and we have had numerous guests, well over four guests in that property for the last year

or more. And I'll support what the Doyles had said, over the summer, I think we have a

football camp there. We had a dozen big guys there with six, seven, eight cars. It's a --

it's a -- you all have touched on that. I appreciate it. It's a narrow land, it's a dead-end

lane. Any more congestion to that is going to make it all the more tougher, and we are

going to lose our -- our community, our sense of community in a neighborhood that

means a lot to the rest who have been there over 20 years. So I -- that would -- hope that

you would oppose this.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? Seeing none.

Thank you. Okay. Next speaker on this case?

MS. BROWN: I'm Marilyn Brown, and I live at 1308 St. Andrew Street. I would be

one street across, but, you know, my back -- they don't touch my -- their back fence

doesn't touch my yard, but I'm just across the street. I have lived in this neighborhood

since 1983, raised three children and two grandchildren there. And we had so many

children on that street over the years. Then for a period of time, there weren't too many,

but we have lots of new families who have come in with small children. We have no

sidewalks on either of these streets, and we -- the children ride their bicycles. They play

basketball. They have these little motorized vehicles and maybe they're four years old,

similar to that, almost catty-corner from me. And they have to play in the street if they're

going to use those vehicles, even if you teach them to be on the side of the street. And

then there are -- you know, we have a 25 mile-per-hour speed limit; however, not everyone

goes 25 miles-per-hour. And St. Michael Street, being a dead-end street, and the

location of the property where it is with the cars, when they leave that street, how many

of those are going to go to the end of the dead-end street or go into other people's

driveways to turn around so they can get out, since that is not a through street. And

again, that corner or that -- that intersection is really kind of a caddy-wampus kind of

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

caddy cornered. And there are a lot of close calls even with cars there if people don't

stop, which they usually don't stop. So I'm very concerned about the safety for the

children and the walkers in the neighborhood. A lot of people walk dogs. Older people

as well as younger people jog and, you know, take walks. I'm not saying they have a

right to walk in the middle of the street, but, you know, it's still, when a car comes down

pretty fast and especially in the evening or when it's getting close to dark, I think it's --

can be -- could be very tragic.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, ma'am. Have you noticed any problems with this

property in particular, or I know you don't touch it, but --

MS. BROWN: I don't touch it, no. So --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MS. BROWN: I have smelled marijuana, whether it's coming from that place or

somewhere else, I'm not sure.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MS. BROWN: Significant smell of marijuana in the evening sometimes. But I haven't

heard -- I mean, I haven't had any other. I do walk up and down that street with my dog,

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

MS. GEUEA JONES: Uh-huh.

MS. BROWN: There's no -- I think the fact that it's not a through street is -- adds

to the traffic problem and the congestion.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MS. BROWN: And I am against this. So for those reasons, as well as other

reasons I had in my letter that I sent, which other people have already addressed.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yes, ma'am. Any other questions for this speaker? Seeing

none. Thank you very much. Anyone else to speak on this case, please come forward.

Is the applicant or one of their representatives here? Would you please come forward?

MR. DICKHERBER: Good evening.

MS. GEUEA JONES: You're going to need to pull that way up. Thank you.

MR. DICKHERBER: My name is Kevin Dickherber; I am the owner -- one of the

owners of this property. I've been a resident in Columbia since January of 2012. I -- while

I stand here and obviously, I'm listening to everybody speak, and I appreciate everybody

coming and -- and speaking towards my property. I will not sit here and, you know, go

back and forth with residents of the area. I'm not disregarding anything that they're

saying. I will say that I can certainly make very good rebuttal statements to every

statement that's made on this property. I don't think that that's productive. I think going

towards the security, the overall security of the property, we have security cameras. We

do have very strict property code rules. In terms of partying, we do not allow parties. So

is -- could there be an isolated incident? I'm sure there could be, but we have very strict

rules against parties. We have very strict rules against smoking, not just marijuana, but

cigarette smoking. We have fines that are imparted on guests that have been caught

doing that. We have not had to assess any fines. I've heard more than one person talk

about smelling marijuana. Okay. I don't have any proof that I can say that that came

from our property. We don't have proof that that came from another property. So again, I

don't think it's prudent to sit here and just argue meaninglessly against any of these

statements, but I will say that our purpose with this home is not to bother the neighbors,

it's to improve the neighborhood, improve the home, make the home beautiful, but also

provide adequate accommodations for the City of Columbia. Again, as I said, I've been in

Columbia for almost 14 years now. I know that everybody here has seen the

improvements going on in the City of Columbia; namely, Faurot Field, and The District

My office was off of Fay Street for some time. I had an office off of Wilkes Street for

some time. My personal opinion, I don't think that there's an adequate amount of

accommodations for the different events that we have in the City. You know, with football

games, forget about it. We're in the SEC. We can't -- we just simply do not have the

capacity to provide accommodations for the SEC that comes in for football games, let

alone basketball, baseball, and all the Division I sports that come through Mizzou.

And that's not to mention we have Columbia College here. We've got Stephens. You

know, down the road, we've got colleges down the road, as well. You have events like

True/False that take up a week-long -- you know, they go through The District for an

entire week. Where are these people staying? There is not enough room in hotels for

these individuals. So speaking -- being here as a representative of this property,

obviously, I'm for the property's, you know, proposed conditional use. But as a resident

of Columbia, don't we think that we need more accommodations for these guests? We

have a fantastic town. We have fantastic sports. We have fantastic events. Are these

people just going to stay in Jeff City or in Montgomery City or in Fulton, or where are

these people going to stay? Wouldn't it be better for our town for these people to stay

here in Columbia, spend their money and their time here in Columbia?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Stanton, you can start.

MR. STANTON: I'm a strong believer that you play like you practice, and you did

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

we have a list of violations and other things that can be proven. I'm going to make a

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

Madam Chair for even -- if you hadn't have came up here, my vote would have been no --

automatic. So you being up here is greatly helping your case. So we're in the ninth

inning. You're down by three runs. You have two outs. Make your case based on what

you've heard tonight and what we have in the records right now concerning violations -- or

property violations, noise violations, police reports, citizen testimony. How are you going

to -- how are you going to win this game?

MR. DICKHERBER: Thank you. I would -- addressing the violations, the trash is --

is -- first and foremost, is the most -- I mean, what did we have, nine?

MR. ORENDORFF: Eight.

MR. DICKHERBER: Eight trash violations. I would make the comment that those all

happened prior to the new trash system that we have. Correct?

MR. ORENDORFF: Yeah. They were all, I believe, before roll cart implementation,

and if my memory serves of our discussion, a lot of those were, like, overflowing trash,

because you were trying to contain it.

MR. DICKHERBER: Right. Right.

MR. ORENDORFF: But, anyway --

MR. DICKHERBER: We made arrangements not knowing that you weren't allowed

to have a trash can. I've never lived in the city, essentially. I lived downtown, but I -- trash

was very different for me back then. Outside of that, I did not know that you couldn't have

a trash can, and that was one of the biggest issues that we had. Now that we have the

new system, I -- I think that's going to alleviate that. The violation for parking, again, we

are doing everything that we can. We have made notices on our listing. It is not allowed.

We do not allow people to park in the street. If it comes up on the camera -- we can see

the street parking. If it comes up, we immediately notify the guests that they are not

allowed to park in the street, make -- make due with the parking that we have. We have

reduced our number of -- of guests to four. If and when this -- this expansion does

happen, then we will expand that, but until then, it will be stuck at four, which we have

adequate parking for -- for four guests. So with parking, you know, the only thing I would

say to that is if I lived in this house personally, I'd be allowed to park on the street. That's

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

are cars that are parked on this street, so that's all I'll say about parking. As for the

police report with the guest that was trying to get into the neighbor's home, I hate to say

this, I was not made aware of that. I did not receive a letter on that, didn't receive a call

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

happened. What I will say is that looking from the street to the homes, they look -- they

do look identical. So what I will do, given that situation, we are making plans to identify

our house better, painting the front door a bright color, making a big sign that goes onto

the mailbox, something that -- some kind of a -- I call it a decoration, just call it a sign,

whatever we need to do to identify this house so that that doesn't happen again. I have

ten properties. Okay? I have never had a situation like that happen prior to this. That's a

one-off isolated incident. What I can say about these guests is they're not here to bother

the neighbors. They're here to go to a football game. They're here to go to graduation, to

see their kids graduate. They're here to see family. They're here to go to True/False.

They're here to go to the Show-Me Games. They are not here to bother the neighbors.

It's just as much as I appreciate the neighbors in the neighborhood, and I want to do

what's right by those individuals, these guests are not here to bother them. They did not

pay us money to stay in this home to torment the neighbors. That just is not the case.

They're here to be in Columbia, visit -- they’re tourist or they’re family. They're here to

support Columbia.

MR. STANTON: Of the people that testified, how many do you know?

MR. DICKHERBER: Personally, I do not know the residents in the neighborhood.

MR. STANTON: Have you made any effort to talk to or create a relationship with any

of the surrounding adjacent or surrounding neighbors of said property?

MR. DICKHERBER: When we first bought the property, we did a neighborhood

campaign just walking -- and I say neighborhood loosely -- the street that we are on. Did

not visit St. Christopher or St. Andrew's, but the street that we are on. We made a

campaign to walk around and knock on the doors and just give our information out.

MR. STANTON: The way this works is you have every right, because it is a legal use

of the property, you have every right to apply -- to have a short-term rental. The success

of this is that you're a good neighbor. It's essential because as these increase, and

you've heard the testimony, the view of you is that you're a corporation. You know, and I

understand LLCs. To protect corporate veils, I would do the same.

MR. DICKHERBER: Sure.

MR. STANTON: But it's essential that you're a good neighbor. It's essential that you

communicate. At this time, what I see and what you're -- what the evidence shows me,

that you haven't been. So convince me. I want a win-win, but I'm not --

MR. DICKHERBER: I appreciate that. I -- I -- my partner and I will do everything in

our power to make our names, our faces, our phone numbers, our e-mails, everything

known to the neighbors, whether that's again taking another campaign around the

neighborhood, expanding that to the streets surrounding our street, as well as sending a

mailer out to everybody, here's our name, here's a picture of us, here's our phone

numbers, e-mails. We want to be that first point of contact. The last thing I want is a

neighborhood that's unhappy with me. I just -- I don't want that. That's not good for me,

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

not what I want. I want to make every single effort so that every neighbor in the area, if

they have an issue, they come to me first.

MR. STANTON: Start in this room tonight.

MR. DICKHERBER: Okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Gray?

DR. GRAY: Hi. So you said that you didn't know about the police incident and you

didn't know about the trash can situation. I'm curious if you knew about the regulations

and the enforcement starting back in June.

MR. DICKHERBER: Sorry. I may have mis-spoken. I did know about the trash can

issues.

DR. GRAY: Okay.

MR. DICKHERBER: Yeah. Those -- we knew about those. We were actually called

about those. Joe Cagle, I believe, is the -- is the guy that was running that, and he came

-- he gave us a call personally, so that's how I knew about the trash situation. As far as

the regulations for the conditional use permit, those were sent to my partner's house, so

we knew about it, we just weren't sure how we were supposed to go about -- there were

so many different things that we had to get done first, namely, the parking. We were

actually under the impression that we had to get the parking done before coming here,

which kind of threw us through a loop because we've been through that situation before

with another property, but it's been corrected now. It's been better communicated now.

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

DR. GRAY: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: I'm looking at your application, and there's a question that asks has

this been used as a short-term rental before. It's marked as yes. And then there's a

follow-up question that says, if it has, how many days in the previous calendar year was

it a short-term rental? And your answer is two years. So can you give us the number of

days that it was used as a short-term rental?

MR. DICKHERBER: It -- we corrected that. It's 190 nights is how many nights it

was used last year.

MS. WILSON: Okay. And I do have another question.

MR. DICKHERBER: Sure.

MS. WILSON: Given the information that you have received, and I appreciate you

coming. And like my fellow Commissioner said, thank you, because, yeah, I was a no. I

was a hard -- hard no. But given what you've heard from your neighbors, the concerns

about the children, and the fact that it is a terminal street, all of the things. Would you

consider fewer days as a rental to sort of help ease the tensions and work with your

neighbors and kind of work with their concerns?

MR. DICKHERBER: What I would say to that is it's very difficult to identify the nights

that are necessary. I will say that reducing, because I don't know that this was made

mention, but prior to going through this process, it was, I believe, at 12 was how it was

listed. So that may have been sort of the issue at hand. Bringing it down to four and,

ideally, bumping that to eight at some point when the parking is situated, that, in and of

itself will reduce the number of nights the house gets used. Just simply the number of --

of guests that it can accommodate will, in my professional experience, that will reduce

the number. But reducing the number from 210, I think is what you're asking, I don't

know that that's going to really effect anything, because it's -- last year, it was used 190

nights, and that number is quite high because we did have a -- a concrete company, I

believe, that was in for, like, three of those months consecutively. So had they not been

in the house for those three months, consecutively, you're probably looking at more like

150 nights that the house would be used. But reducing the number from 210, I -- I don't

know how that really works because I can't say one way or the other is it going to be --

how are the nights going to get used. But again, it would be my professional opinion that

it's going to get used less with lesser listed accommodations.

MS. WILSON: Then that brings up another question, if a -- curiosity. So do you also

have a long-term rental license?

MR. DICKHERBER: I have a -- I have ten total. I have two that are -- one that's a

long-term, one that's a mid-term, so it's 30 nights or more or 28 nights or more, and then

the others are short terms.

MS. WILSON: Yes. I meant specifically for this property, because you said that

there was a concrete company that was there for 90 days?

MR. DICKHERBER: Right.

MS. WILSON: So that's greater than the short-term rental time, so that would

require --

MR. DICKHERBER: Right. They just happened to book on the platform, yeah.

MS. WILSON: Okay. Okay.

MR. DICKHERBER: It wasn't like a leased situation, it was -- they booked through

the platform.

MS. WILSON: So they booked for 29 days, and then --

MR. DICKHERBER: They actually booked for, like, three weeks, and then called us

after the fact and said our job was extended significantly, can we stay longer?

MS. WILSON: Okay. Okay. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: So you have ten properties. Two of them are in Columbia?

MR. DICKHERBER: I have a residence in Columbia at this property. I have seven in

St. Louis. I have one in Branson.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I'm looking on Airbnb. You have two in Columbia.

MR. DICKHERBER: That property is my personal residence that I use -- I use when

I'm in -- sorry. My girlfriend lives in St. Louis. Sorry. Not to just disclose my personal

information, but --

MS. GEUEA JONES: You're listing two properties on Airbnb?

MR. DICKHERBER: That house is outside of the city limits.

MS. GEUEA JONES: It's outside of the city limits.

MR. DICKHERBER: Yes. Yes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

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

limits.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah.

MR. DICKHERBER: That's -- wouldn't be here if that were the case.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Just making sure we're all clear, because we did have to

come find you.

MR. DICKHERBER: Yes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: To get you to get in compliance, so you understand why I'm,

like --

MR. DICKHERBER: I do, yes. I do understand.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. If we were to say you can only have four guests,

period, would that -- I mean, that puts you where you're at now; right -- where you're

advertising now?

MR. DICKHERBER: Yes. Yeah, it does. I would -- obviously, I would be against

that. And this is -- I should preface. This is my livelihood. Reducing the property from

where it's at now to four, we've seen a significant downturn in the -- in the bookings in the

house. So that's immediately taking money out of my pocket. This is what I do for a

living. I -- you know, you're asking would I take less money, would I take a lower salary.

The house is a four-bedroom. It does have the space to accommodate at least eight

guests. Now, we are more than happy to comply with what the regulations are, and we're

fine with eight.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Uh-huh. Our -- our whole job is to balance your right to use

the property that you co-own with others with the rights of the neighbors to be able to

enjoy and use their property and not be disturbed by your guests.

MR. DICKHERBER: Absolutely.

MS. GEUEA JONES: By the very nature of this business, you are responsible for

your guests' behavior.

MR. DICKHERBER: Absolutely.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And it's not been great. And so trying to balance those two

things, because we're not interested in just randomly and, you know, without real

thought, denying people the right to use their property as a short-term rental.

MR. DICKHERBER: Sure.

MS. GEUEA JONES: That's why we have you come before us. It sounds like

this has not been a good track record on this property. And I'm not saying that you're

doing it maliciously or that you're not a good business owner. I understand the things

that you're saying. It's had an impact on your neighbors, they all showed up. So we're --

that's what we're -- you're going to hear us struggle with is how do we balance these two

rights and needs. So that's why I asked about the four. But I understand what you're

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

MR. DICKHERBER: Right. Right.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much.

MR. CRAIG: Mr. Dickherber, before you step down, it was pointed out to me. I think

we established for the transcript and record here that we got your name and that you

owned the subject property, but we didn't get your address for the record -- I believe your

home address.

MR. DICKHERBER: 7571 North Fall Creek Drive.

MR. CRAIG: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Jesse. That's my job, I messed up.

MR. DICKHERBER: That's okay. Sorry.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much for being here tonight.

MR. DICKHERBER: Got it. You got it.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anybody else -- yep. You're good. Anybody else to speak

tonight? Oh, you’re -- thank you.

MR. DOYLE: May I make a statement of rebuttal?

MS. GEUEA JONES: We don't allow people to come up a second time. I'm sorry.

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

Seeing nobody else. We will close public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comments? Anyone want to start?

Commissioner Darr?

MR. DARR: I'm in support of four. I don't know that I'm in support of eight guests

just because I think the -- the number of neighbors that came out and the testimony, it

just doesn't seem like infrastructure supports eight. He would have to build additional

driveway and parking. It's not in the character of the neighborhood. So I would be

support of four guests.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: I am not liking this one. Thank you to all the neighbors that came out

today and to the applicant for coming up to speak, but I do think that this has an adverse

impact on the surrounding properties and there's insufficient infrastructure to support a

short-term rental on this block.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I agree with my colleagues. I don't like eight, but I'm sure that our

motion will be as it is written, and I think the applicant made it clear that he wants to ride

or die on eight transient guests. I think we need to let the voting gods go from there.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Brodsky, anything?

MR. BRODSKY: I'll go next. Yeah. I'm leaning towards no on this one, but I could

be convinced of four. For me, this is very similar to the case that we had over by

Stephens Lake -- dead-end street, narrow road, lots of families, no sidewalk. And a lot of

those -- those things are even more so with this case. So I'm leaning towards no, but I

could be convinced of four.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? Commissioner Stockton?

MS. STOCKTON: I know I'm flipping, but I think the nature of West Boulevard South

and this neighborhood are different cases, and that's the whole reason we're sitting here

today because it's not just an automatic robot that says yes or no. We're humans and

making this evaluation, and I agree with what's been said about the nature of the

community. And looking and studying this a little bit, in combination with the violations,

I'm leaning towards no. I'm not even sure. I think I'm with Ortiz on this with the four

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

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

this one was probably -- met the budget, but in this case, I don't think it's worth it, so --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Walters?

MR. WALTERS: I'm voting no regardless, and a big reason why is the owner could

be -- could have been proactive. It's not that hard to develop a mailing list of labels, send

out postcards twice a year, just to make sure everyone around you is aware of how to

reach you, and they haven't done that. They haven't made much of an attempt at all, so

I'm voting no.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: I have concern. My concern, the first is all of the violations, and I

cannot just allow that to pass. That's number one. Number two, the statement regarding

the construction workers who were there for 90 days, but there's no long-term rental

license bothers me very much because that then lends itself to another violation. So this

is -- this one is very tough for me. I am struggling.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I just want to say this for the record, that owners of properties have

the right to have a short-term rental. Conditional use is the buy-in from the community.

Yes, the residents had great weight. Technically, he has met all the criteria, but I feel,

again, I'm going to say, you practice how you -- you play how you practice, and a

practice isn't there. Had not Madam Chair asked him to come up, I don't think he would

have came up here, which speaks volumes, and I say this for anybody else that's doing

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

and, yeah, we have to be good neighbors, and you have to make those moves, and you

have to make those calls, you have to make those relationships because you are acting

as a business in a commercial -- I mean, you're acting like a business in a residential

area, so you have additional responsibilities. And I'm just saying that for the record for

other people that hear me over the TV or in the room that are going to speak, and

ignorance is not innocence. I'm flabbergasted when I hear you didn't about the

regulations. This stuff has been on the news. It has haunted me for four years. I --

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

There's no way, unless you're not here, or unless you're not paying attention to your

business. So with all that being said, looking tough.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: I have a question for staff. A denial of this application this evening,

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

MR. ZENNER: No, it would not. So they would be able to revise their application

and be able to resubmit. Circumstances for compliance are still going to be the same,

obviously. And because it is not their principal residence, the only method by which to

be able to operate this dwelling as a short-term rental is through the conditional use

process, regardless of what level of usage. Because it is not their principal residence,

they must come through this process.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I -- anybody else, or if not, I’ll say something. I am very

concerned. This is certainly the agent's business. He's got ten properties across the

state. He seems to be very interested in making this business work. And yet, to

Commissioner Stanton's point, did not seem aware we were working on regulations, did

not come forward until after a second notice, has eight trash-related violations, plus a

police report that one of his guests -- or a set of his guests were apparently unable to get

ahold of him to find out why they couldn't get into what they thought, giving them the

benefit of the doubt, was their Airbnb. All of this gets me to a point where I don't think

this is an example of a good neighbor. I think this is someone who has already had a

detrimental impact on the neighborhood, and will continue to do so. And the whole point

of the conditional use process is to allow us to evaluate the individual who is asking for

the license and what they're wanting to do with their property, and determine whether it

fits with not only the technical specifications of the short-term rental regulations, but also

our conditional use criteria part of which is about neighborhood impact. And I think the

neighborhood impact here is very detrimental. Perhaps I might be convinced to do four.

Applicant doesn't want to do four. Even at four, I'm not 100 percent there. I'm certainly

not there if we're going to pave over what is the walkway to the house right now so that

there can be additional parking so we can get eight in there. There is a different impact

from eight people living in a house especially when we're talking about a four-bedroom.

They're not going to be, you know -- I don't know. There -- it just -- there is definitely a

different impact on the parking, on the way that you would arrange yourself if that were

the case, and you lived there full time and had to figure it out day in and day out versus

you show up, had no idea that there wasn't going to be a place to park, and you've got to

figure it out spur of the moment. So all that to say, to my mind, we put the CUP criteria

in place so we could measure neighborhood impact. This has a pretty strong negative

impact based upon the violations history, based upon the lack of coming forward at the

beginning of the CUP application period, and based upon the fact that it would appear

that people are not able to get ahold of the agent when they're trying to get into the home

that they think they rented. So I'm not assigning any kind of intention to any of that, but

the record speaks for itself. And, to me, it indicates denial. With that, I'll stop talking.

Anybody else have any comments or would like to make a motion? For the audience, we

make all motions in the affirmative. We have to do it that way so we don't confuse

ourselves with the record. Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Madam Chair, I would like to entertain a motion.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Please.

MR. STANTON: As it relates to Case 296-2025, 1306 St. Michael Street, STR

conditional use permit, I move to approve, and request the STR CUP subject to the

following: Maximum occupancy of eight transient guests; a maximum of 210 nights

annual rental use; one parking space within the attached one-car garage to be made

available while the dwelling is used an STR; and the construction of a driveway parking

pad on site accommodating two parking spaces prior to issuance of an STR Certificate of

Occupancy or Business License.

DR. GRAY: I'll second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion made by Commissioner Stanton; seconded by

Commissioner Gray. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none.

Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call?

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting No: Ms.

Geuea Jones, Dr. Gray, Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Stockton, Mr. Walters, Ms.

Wilson, Mr. Brodsky, Mr. Darr. Motion fails 9-0.

MR. BRODSKY: The motion fails.

MS. GEUEA JONES: That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Because that was unanimous but for denial, it will appear on old business; is that correct,

Mr. Zenner?

MR. ZENNER: That is correct, ma'am.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Which means it will have a full hearing

at City Council, and not be included on the consent agenda. With that, unless there is

any further business on that case, we will move on to the next one. Very good.

Move to approve the STR CUP subject to the following: Maximum occupancy of

eight transient guests; a maximum of 210 nights annual rental use; one parking

space within the attached one-car garage to be made available while the

dwelling is used an STR; and the construction of a driveway parking pad on site

accommodating two parking spaces prior to issuance of an STR Certificate of

Occupancy or Business License.

9 - Stanton, Geuea Jones, Wilson, Walters, Ortiz, Brodsky, Gray, Stockton and Darr

No:

Case # 301-2025

A request by Engineering Surveys and Services (agent), on behalf of J

Gordon Arbuckle Living Trust (owner), seeking approval to rezone 63.11

acres from A (Agriculture) to IG (Industrial). The subject site is located

northeast of the Highway 63 and Paris Road interchange on the east side

of Paris Road and is addressed 3815 Hinkson Creek Road.

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?

Staff report was given by Mr. David Kunz of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning to the IG district for

63.11-acres of the 83.66-acre subject site, subject to technical corrections to the legal

description.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my

fellow Commissioners have had contact with parties to this case outside of a public

hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Questions for staff? Commissioner

Brodsky?

MR. BRODSKY: Just for clarification, and I have no doubt that this is, you know,

completely acceptable, but I notice the southern parcel, we're only rezoning half of that

parcel. Just curious about the mechanics of that. Will they have to do a plat and split

that parcel, or can we -- can we zone half of a parcel one thing and the other half

another?

MR. KUNZ: Yeah. You can zone not the entirety of a parcel. The area that's zoned

is dependent upon the legal description that's provided. Since it's not platted right now, I

-- I can't speak to the intent to plat this property necessarily. I think it would be

reasonable to -- to suggest that everything that's zoned with in the industrial district would

be platted into one lot or perhaps a combination of lots, leaving the southern portion on

perhaps an unplatted lot, but yeah.

MR. BRODSKY: All right. Thank you.

MR. KUNZ: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. Any other questions? Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: You said that in Columbia Imagined that it was -- it was neighborhood

district, like, that's what it was intended to be. Why is that not the case? Like, why isn't

it -- why did Columbia Imagined say that if it's not appropriate?

MR. ZENNER: Columbia Imagined was based -- the future land-use map was not

based on anticipated future land uses, it was based upon what was generally existing

based on zoning at the time that it was created. So that is why there is the disconnect

that Mr. Kunz is referring to. If we had looked and idealized what we wanted the corridor

to be, it would have been identified as IG, but using the zoning that existed in 2013 is

why it is actually Ag and identified on the -- and identified as residential because

residential fit within that -- the Ag district fit within the residential category.

MS. ORTIZ: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for staff? Seeing none. We will go to

Public Hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any members of the public who wish to speak? Just as a

reminder, name and address for the record.

MR. FUEMMELER: Chad Fuemmeler, 1113 Fay Street. I'm with Engineering

Surveys and Services on behalf of Gordon Arbuckle's Living Trust. I'm here to answer any

questions that you guys may have of us, but just a couple of things that I wanted to

allude to is we -- there will be a final plat once this is complete. That's the next phase in

our -- in our development plan. And also, too, there is no planned use. This is just about

the zoning map amendment. That's the other things that are going around. It's just kind

of news to everybody else, so --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.

MR. FUEMMELER: I think that might be all I have. Is there any questions from you

all?

MS. GEUEA JONES: I -- or if nobody else has a question. I just want to ask, and I

think you probably semi-answered it just now. But you -- you say you have a plan, but

you don't have, like, planned buyers or anything? You're just getting this use, getting it

ready.

MR. FUEMMELER: No. No. Really, all this doing is trying to close that corridor.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. We recognize that, well, obviously, our client

recognizes that there is a hole there. It really is not the best use at its current

agriculture, just to fill that corridor in. And the other -- the other opportunity, though, is

that because of where it's located, the -- the topography going down to Hinkson, is, as

the staff has said, is going to limit the actual developable parcel of land, so -- but we

wanted to stay out of that FEMA regulated flood way. And then one other point I wanted

to add is that, currently, based on Plaza Commercial Realties release that they do every

-- every year, we are at a vacancy of 1.5 percent for industrial land. And really what they

say is a condition to demonstrate a need for more industrial would be about six percent,

so everything is occupied at the moment, and it would be good to have some more just

available for the community.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for the applicant? Seeing none. Thank

you for being here.

MR. FUEMMELER: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else to speak, please come forward.

MS. ELLIS: Esther Ellis, 2309 Nelwood Drive. My first question is for places that

are zoned industrial, what is the decibel level requirement? Is there one at the property

line, like a maximum level outside?

MR. KUNZ: I'm not sure, off the top of my head, but it looks like Mr. Zenner is going

to get the specific language.

MS. ELLIS: Okay. So, currently, my interest in the property, I submitted a letter.

My husband and I currently lease a property that is just to the southeast. It's directly

east of the space that will remain agriculture, so it will be catty-corner to the industrial.

Currently, my house on Nelwood Drive abuts industrial. The actual small businesses that

are in those spaces have been fantastic and communicative. I really worked to build

relationship with them. However, some of the people who own the properties haven't

necessarily been invested as in a few years ago, there was a large vacuum that was put

outside, less than 20 feet from our property line. Noise, et cetera, so I had to work with

the City to get that resolved. My concerns are with industrial, there are a lot of

regulations in place. I recognize that. I think they're fantastic. I recognize that, likely,

this will be rezoned to industrial or homes at some point in the future, and that's

necessary for the growth of Columbia. My concerns are that with whatever moves in, we

have regulations, but the companies who move into those spaces don't necessarily

always abide by them, and I recognize that we have things in place to remedy that.

However, during the time that it takes to remedy, there's still an impact on the people and

animals that are nearby, so that would be us, our animals on the property. The Alspaugh

land is directly to the south of there, which is meant to prioritize the wild life nature in that

space. So, in summary, I recognize that this likely would be rezoned. My concerns are

that whatever moves in there, will they actually want to uphold the regulations as there's

been discussion. Were you able to find that answer?

MR. ZENNER: Unfortunately, no. There is not anything specific under our heavy

industrial or under our light industrial categories. In our prior Code, there were particular

noise limitations as it related to a planned industrial zoning district. There are other

noise-related standards within the City's municipal code that would likely be able to be

evaluated and applied, which is probably what was being used with our building or site

development department in addressing the other issue that you referred to. There is

nothing within the zoning code that I can make reference to to assist you in answering

that question.

MS. ELLIS: So that would be part of my concern. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any questions for this speaker? Seeing

none. Thank you for being here tonight. Anybody else to speak on this case, please

come forward.

MR. GORDON: Good evening. My name is James Gordon; I live at 703 West

Boulevard North. I moved to Columbia 13 years ago with my spouse, Reverand Doctor

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

and I started our family here. We have two kids, nine and seven years old. We love the

city and we have felt loved by the city, and we care deeply about the growth of this city

and sustaining the community where we have made our home. I want to be up front and

acknowledge that I only learned about this case a few days ago, a shout out to Mike

Murphy at CoMo Buz who reported this, and I think it's a reminder that we should all be

supporting local journalism and maybe, you know, throw a subscription Mike's way,

yeah, if you get a chance. And I have, however, had time to speak to a lot of parties who

are -- have a direct and immediate interest in this matter. And given what we know and

what we do not yet know, I believe we would be wise to deny this application to rezone

this property located at 3815 Hinkson Creek Road. So I'll start with what we do know.

We know this property is part of a border between land on the east side, which has been

farmed by multiple generations, and land on the west side adjacent to Paris Road, Route

B, which, in more recent years, has been developed for commercial and industrial use.

We know that allowing industrial use of this land will move that boundary even closer to

the Hinkson Creek and that floodplain. And we know that folks who live and farm on

nearby land have felt and continue to experience negative impact from this encroaching

industrial development. And I spoke to several people who have complaints about the --

the smell of some of the other industrial facilities nearby, and I know this is not exactly

what we're talking about for this particular land use, but I think we should be -- we should

be more considerate about the people who are -- who actually live in this area. Some of

these folks have submitted public comments, and I hope some of them will continue to

stand up and speak tonight. I also want to say that we know that the applicant, Mr.

Gordon Arbuckle, who I have no relationship to, by the way, he does want to build a data

center on this property. I spoke directly with Mr. Gordon Arbuckle on the phone

yesterday, and he was very candid and clear about his intentions to pursue a data center

development on this property, and that this project is part of a much larger initiative

stretching beyond Missouri involving some big players in the tech industry. He

specifically mentioned Nvidia and Oracle. It's not my place to speak to the details of Mr.

Gordon Arbuckle's plans, and so this is where we start to wade into more uncertain

territory, and I believe we would do well to proceed with an abundance of caution. And I

do want to speak about -- this is where my vocational expertise may come in handy

because, you know, I am somebody who is a technologist, who works with digital

technology every day, and I believe that the possibility of a new data center in our

community might sound exciting to some of us, but I would urge you to reconsider that if

you believe that. There are many reports and outlets like the Financial Times and

Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal that are revealing that this nationwide trend, the

data center build-out is built on the shaky economics of the generative AI industry, and

it's important to understand that the -- all the, like, computationally intensive processes of

generative AI, those are the things that are the primary drivers of these new data center

construction projects. And these reports that are coming out every day have very clear

empirical evidence that all the demand for this computing capacity is about to drop very

dramatically, which I think begs the question, if we are to allow this rezoning and if this

data center project ultimately is built, is anybody going to need this facility in a year? I

don't pretend to know the answer to that question, and I encourage, you know, Mr.

Gordon Arbuckle and his partners to provide more information about what they plan to do

with this land, how they plan development, and, you know, how they plan to navigate all

these economic challenges. If they do come forward and have -- with more details, we

should really expect to hear some precise details about how they will mitigate

environmental impact on the neighbors' land lives, and how they will mitigate the potential

strain on our city utilities. For instance, are we going to be able to -- are we all going to

see our electricity and water rates go up because of this new facility which is something

that has been experienced by other communities that have gone forward with these sorts

of developments. You know, right now, I think we don't -- don't know very much, and I

think the most reliable source of information are the people who actually live close to this

property, the people who live on Hinkson Creek Road, and so we should listen to them.

We should listen to folks like Ms. Reece Miller, who I know has submitted a public

comment --

MS. GEUEA JONES: And, I'm sorry. I'm going to have to cut you off. That's your

three minutes.

MR. GORDON: Oh, sorry. Forgive me.

MS. GEUEA JONES: It's okay. It's okay. Any questions for this speaker? Seeing

none. And I just want to apologize. For some reason, I could not reply to your message.

I don't know why it locked me out.

MR. GORDON: That's okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: But I was trying to tell you to get together with the staff, but it

sounds like you did.

MR. GORDON: I didn't, but I showed up anyway.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Appreciate that.

MR. GORDON: Yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.

MR. GORDON: That's okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further questions for this speaker? Seeing none. Thank

you for being here tonight. Next?

MR. PATTERSON: Commissioners, my name is Josh Patterson. I am the owner of

the property -- I don't know if it was intention or unintentional acknowledging at 3411

North Hinkson Creek Road. This is this little pizza slice right below the proposed

property right here. I don't necessarily know that I'm for or against this particular one. I

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

about this. I'm glad that some of my other neighborhood members, because we are a

very small neighborhood. There's just a couple of houses. Quite frankly, I'm the only

residential right there that would be directly impacted by this as they slightly mention on

the topography, the water drainage area is not adequate whatsoever as it is right now

from that industrial area. As it comes down the hill, it floods my property terribly. There's

a little drainage ditch off the side of the pizza slice that floods into my yard and floods up

to my house. I would hope that this Board would pay close attention to that. I know that

Hinkson Creek is very kind of a hot topic right now with the DNR and everything going on.

And the Alspaugh land, this is kind of a nature area to pay close attention to. We want

to -- it's an area that we may want to preserve and not be polluted with kind of a major

industrial where we already have that much over there already, but this is then going to be

draining into the Hinkson and honestly directly onto my property right there to the south

of that border.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? Commissioner

Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: If -- if the storm water was addressed, would you have any opposition to

industrial?

MR. PATTERSON: If they're trying to clean up the area and maintain and especially

if they want to improve that storm-water drainage, that would be nice, because right now,

when it floods too badly, and I have footage if you really want to see it, it will actually

flood across the road and, like, in around my house and stuff. Honestly, it's just the

house that stays; otherwise, everything else kind of goes under water. I'm just learning

this. I bought this property in December of '23 is when I -- my girlfriend and I are starting

a family. And this is still residential, this is not just an industrial park. There are

residences around here that is still a family area. And if there is access on that Hinkson

Creek Road, they're definitely needs to be development. There's a single-lane bridge right

there coming off, and there's already problems with people dumping and thinking that it's

not part of the city, and they just kind of throw trash and a freezer and fryer were thrown

out on that road, and I'm constantly trying to clean stuff up.

MR. CRAIG: Sir, can you -- can you get up on the mic a little bit more for our court

reporter. Thank you.

MR. PATTERSON: Oh, sorry. Yeah. As I was saying, like that gravel road right

there, North Hinkson Creek Road, really would need to be improved if it's -- even if it's,

like, a secondary access to that industrial site. Like, I understand the growing of this,

this may get approved, but something for this Body to keep in mind, the -- the

neighborhood around there is going to be impacted, and I appreciate your time thinking of

this.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any further questions for this speaker? Seeing

none. Thank you very much. Next person to speak on this case, please come forward.

MR. ELLIS: My name is Isaac Ellis; I live at 2309 Nelwood Drive. I -- my wife has

just been up here. I actually farm and raise cattle on the southwest of the zoned -- what

will be zoned agriculture space of this if it goes to a vote here. I'm sorry -- southeast.

Excuse me. So I raise cattle there on Ms. Janie Reece Miller's property. So I

understand the corridor being -- and therefore industrial. I understand what Mr. Arbuckle

is trying to do. I am a little bit fearful of the data center, the water requirements, the

energy requirements, the possible pollutants. We already receive in the Hinkson Creek

River PVC particles from the extruding of PVC up the road. Swift Meats Company, during

the building of that, saw incredible amounts of garbage, trash, foam in the Hinkson Creek

River floating right next to the farm. I understand that development will happen in

Columbia. I understand that it will grow, but it sounds like we're just going rezone it

without understanding what the property will be used for. And I would appreciate more

explanation, more understanding of how the property will be used. Will it encumber the

creek? Will it encumber the small neighborhoods that are around? Would it be better

served to move further north or further south of Columbia rather than continuing to move in

on those communities? Those are my main questions. I would hope that this -- this

group would seek more information on how the property would be used.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any questions for this speaker? Seeing

none. Thank you for being here tonight. The next person to speak on this case?

MS. DARLAND: Hello. My name is Hallene Darland; address is 558 West Crofton

Hall. And I just wanted to come up here and say that I understand that rezoning this as

industrial is neither here nor there in terms of a data center. Right now, we're not talking

about what's going to be built there, we're talking about rezoning. But obviously the word

of the data center has gotten out. The owner himself has stated. It's even in the official

notes of this meeting. So I'm actually the network infrastructure specialist with the

Columbia Public Schools, so I really understand how these operations run, and I also

understand that cities don't have a lot of infrastructure or regulation in place to support or

kind of keep them in check. And I know that we -- they have said that, you know, that

there's no -- there is no obvious intention to -- to build a data center or anything, but I'm

very concerned hearing about that. Just when they went over the industrial regulations

that this zone would take on if it was rezoned. The thing about data centers is they don't

have a lot of lights, they don't have a lot of noise, and they don't have a lot of waste. They

-- they -- they have other impacts that can really harm a community. A lot of data

centers will come into an area and say that they're bringing jobs and that they're bringing

growth to a community, but I can say that even as a network specialist, they wouldn't hire

me at their data center. They would bring in their own staff, their own people, especially

places like Nvidia and Oracle, like, they're not going to be trying to hire local Columbians

to run their data center. They're going to come in and set up shop, and they're going to

close their doors, and they're going to do what they do. So I am not against rezoning this

parcel. I think that with the flood plain being what it is, and a lot of people attributing to

there not being a lot of, like, development in the area, and also that there is just

uncertainty about what exactly this land is going to be used for. I think that I would like

to see a little hesitancy going into it, and I -- I mean, obviously, people have questions

and concerns. So, yeah. That's all I have to say.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any questions for this speaker? Seeing

none. Thank you for being here tonight. Next person to speak on this case, please

come forward. Seeing none. We will close public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comment. Are there any Commissioner

comments on this case? Commissioner Darr?

MR. DARR: I guess this is for staff. Is data center listed as a specific use in the

UDC?

MR. KUNZ: No. It would be classified under light industry, and that's where I pulled

up the use specific standards here for -- I went past it.

MR. DARR: Does staff feel like the light industrial is robust enough to handle what a

data center is?

MR. KUNZ: Yeah. It would involve the -- like, I guess, it says the storage of things

in, like, a large capacity is one of the explicit uses in the definition for light industry. So -

- and I believe that that would be classified under that definition. I don't know. Mr.

Zenner, do you have any other comments about that?

MR. ZENNER: Use is not defined specifically within the Unified Development Code.

They are evaluated against similar uses found elsewhere within it, and then they are

categorized appropriately. I would suggest that if we look at what other types of uses are

categorized as industrial, the director at that time would conclude that light industrial is

the appropriate zoning classification. This is not a heavy industrial use because it is not

extracting raw materials, nor doing anything outside. The building is -- or the use would

be entirely within an enclosed building, which is one of the principal differentiations

between light and heavy industrial uses. You must have 80 percent of your operation

interior to be considered light industrial. So when we look at 3M, and we look at some of

our other manufacturers up on the corridor, they're further to the north of this, they all fall

into a light industrial categorization. I don't believe we could state that a data center, if

that is what is to be built here, is any more intense than potentially the manufacturing

facilities that are to the north, with the exception potentially of the utility infrastructure

demands that they may draw. That would be an issue that would be discussed and

determined -- it's adequacy, the adequacy of our systems would be determined before

permitting would be issued. It would be something that we would have to address as a

part of actual, formal consideration of a development project in permitting. We do not

have any of that in front of us, so, yes. What this record shows, what the presses

carried, what the owner is suggesting, has not been reviewed by staff at this point. We

do not have the information specifically, and as has been discussed also, this decision is

based about the appropriateness of a land use designation, not a use specifically. So

light industrial is where this would likely fall, based on all of the characteristics that the

use that has been being discussed would likely comport with when we look at it from a

broader perspective of uses within the zoning ordinance that is defined.

MR. DARR: Thanks.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any -- Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: Would the property owner or developer have to come back to us with

any type of plans for us to understand? And I am asking this as a person who has

worked in technology similar to the person who works for the school district. Data

centers do not bring jobs, and I would be very concerned that we've got a large parcel of

land in our community being used that's not of benefit to us.

MR. ZENNER: The only action that this Body will have brought before it is a platting

action, and you will not see development plans. The development plan process for this is

through our other regulatory processes that are not within the purview of this Body. And

so, the zoning of this property is a decision that this Commission must make a

recommendation on and Council must weigh based upon the public comment. If Council

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

yours, as well. And at that point, possibly acquiring or attracting a use that does not

offer a great value to the City is something that would be addressed. If the project is

otherwise compliant with our regulatory standards and is proposed by an applicant,

unless they are asking for something unique, such as a Chapter 100 bond to help offset

the tax costs of infrastructure or things of that nature, there may be very limited

involvement of the City Council once a zoning action and a platting action has been

approved. We're going to assure through the platting side of it, all of our requirements --

access and all of the other things that we would typically require -- will have been

addressed and the site will be set up then for development of some nature. So that is the

way that this plays out. Will the future development of this site be contributing to the

City's economic value? That is yet to be seen. We don't have that information because

we don't have a formal request before us on a use specific nor the circumstances by

which that use may seek assistance.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Walters?

MR. WALTERS: This is like planning and zoning for dummies for me because -- so if

we approve the zoning and I understand what we're up against, but the public would have

-- assuming they do -- someone would follow through with that data center, there would

be no other public -- a point in the future where the public would have an opportunity to

speak opposing that once the zoning tonight might be approved?

MR. ZENNER: Not -- not unless there is another triggering event that would require

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

MR. WALTERS: Okay. That's what I thought. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: What can this Body consider in this case? Like, what are we actually

deciding on?

MR. CRAIG: Sure. As pointed out, the -- the zoning action and the data center are

two discreet issues.

MS. ORTIZ: Uh-huh.

MR. CRAIG: So by state law, straight zoning requests or applications for

straight zoning, this Commission can't do any conditions upon that. It's -- it's a yes or

not. And the criterial for approval is very simple. It's in Chapter 29, Article 6, subsection

4 and 1, and it's simply that the zoning request conforms -- does the zoning request

conform with the Comprehensive Plan, and is there adequate utilities, drainage, water,

sewer, electricity, and other infrastructure to support the IG -- an IG development. That's

-- that's it.

MS. ORTIZ: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Walters?

MR. WALTERS: So adequate utilities is -- is a -- it would be a consideration both for

the Council to approve it at some point in the future, or at the time of approving the

zoning? I mean -- I'm sorry. So consideration of adequacy of utilities would be pertinent

at the point --

MR. CRAIG: For the zoning -- for the zoning application, yeah. So, I mean, it's the

same criteria for this Commission and for Council moving forward.

MR. WALTERS: Okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: For tonight. Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: If we don't know what's going in -- are we assuming adequate utilities

for light industrial?

MR. CRAIG: Right.

MS. WILSON: Okay. Thank you.

MR. ZENNER: If I may, because I think where you're going here. The ability to bring

adequate -- there may be inadequate utilities at this site today. It's because it is an

undeveloped agricultural parcel of property. There is not an identified capacity issue with

serving this property for a series -- a spectrum of uses in the IG district, which contain

commercial and light industrial uses. So to conclude that because the parcel is

presently not served by high capacity services does not mean that this site is not

capable of having it being served by those to support a commensurate development.

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

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

need to be potentially upgraded to support a more intense use than what currently

exists? Very likely, but that is all part of the future development of the property as the

zoned tract -- as the zoning is being sought. Your zoning -- your future development will

control -- I should say the adequacy and the availability of upgraded infrastructure will

control the uses that go on that property in that zoning district. So drawing that

distinction potentially may be helpful. Does the parcel have no infrastructure seek a

zoning classification that would require at least a minimum of infrastructure, or does it

have the ability to get that infrastructure to be able to grow into its future use. That's what

I'm suggesting may be a valuable evaluation that you go through.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: Sorry. Real quick. So this Body, you outlined what we can consider,

but City Council has more discretion than this Body does. Correct?

MR. CRAIG: Not necessarily, no.

MS. ORTIZ: Oh. Okay. Okay. Thanks.

MS. GEUEA JONES: So -- oh, go ahead, Commissioner Brodsky.

MR. BRODSKY: Just want to weigh in on this one for the benefit of my fellow

Commissioners. I -- I think I'm supportive of this. I mean, it -- the City, for a long time,

has promoted this area as where we want industrial to go. We've increased sewer, we've

increased water, we've increased electrical capacity in this area. But I -- and I'm

speaking from somewhat of a place of ignorance here. I -- I do think this community

needs to get out ahead of the potentiality for data centers to come to Columbia. For me,

it's a pure supply-demand economics with electricity and water. And there seem to be

credible reports that electrical and water can be severely affected for the surrounding

community. So while I am supportive of this rezoning, I would urge City Council to get

ahead of these data centers and make sure that we have the tools as a city to set proper

bounds on that particular use.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anybody else? Okay. Sorry. I don't -- I mean, I know why

we do staff questions at the beginning, but we're now grilling you at the end. I apologize.

Remind me, before a building permit is issued, they're going to do storm-water run-off,

they're going to require improvement of the Hinkson Creek Road at the cost of the

developer potentially, depending on factors?

MR. KUNZ: Yeah. That's correct. They'll have to have a storm-water prevention plan

that approved by Building and Site Development before they could start building in the

first place, and that will have to ensure that any of the impacts created on this -- it doesn't

have greater flow off after they develop it than it did before. Regarding improvements to

Hinkson Creek Road, they will have to dedicate their right-of-way for the road. If they do

want to utilize it for commercial traffic, I think that that's -- it may require improvements

just due to the size of potential vehicles that would be on the street, but --

MS. GEUEA JONES: But the building permit may say you have to access it from

Route B?

MR. KUNZ: Or the -- the plat configuration could --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Plat. Yeah.

MR. KUNZ: -- I believe, potentially limit the access, but --

MR. ZENNER: Platting could have that impact. I think, again, at the time of building

permitting, we know what we're -- what we're getting. So there is the opportunity at that

point, if it does trigger a traffic -- a traffic impact assessment, it's at that point that what

the traffic impact assessment specifies is necessary improvements to serve the site,

those would have to be installed at the applicant's expense. Obviously, if their intention

is to develop up on the corridor, the improvements are likely going to be focused on the

Paris Road corridor, not on Hinkson Creek. So under standard City practices, existing

substandard roadways that traverse one's property, unless they are integral to that

development's improvement, dedication of right-of-way is all that is required, but the

substandard nature of the travel way would be left in place until likely a future capital

project would be built within that dedicated space. So platting will dictate a little bit about

what happens to Hinkson Creek Road if it is left segregated, as Mr. Kunz pointed out, is

possibly an unplatted agricultural land parcel, and the northern part is the northwestern

portion of the property is replatted that's sought to be IG, it's -- the focus is going to be on

the IG as we're dealing with improvements, not necessarily on the unplatted tract of land.

Our development code does require acreages up to 80 acres owned and controlled under

the same individual must be platted at once, and so I believe if when we do a more deep

analysis to the platting standards, the entire acreage that is owned by the Arbuckle Trust

will be required to be platted, so you're going to get an agricultural parcel. To Mr.

Brodsky's question, it will be segregated based upon the legal description that is being

used with the zoning request, and that would then segregate that to a lot in and of itself,

so all of the flood plain and all of the environmental features would be in a lot, and the

developable portion of the property, less the areas that are encumbered by stream, would

be in the other one. But by platting, all of those streams and requirements would be

addressed per the way that the Code is structured -- Chapter 12-A of our Code.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Well, and I think that was my next question. So any

environmental impact would come at the time of platting and/or site development plans?

MR. ZENNER: Correct.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. What is the -- the most intense use that could come

into IG as heavy industrial?

MR. KUNZ: Which would require a conditional use permit, as well. Yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MR. KUNZ: Yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: So if they wanted to do something that was classified as

heavy industrial, they would have to come back to us?

MR. KUNZ: That is correct.

MS. GEUEA JONES: We think, and I -- I have lots of things that I want to do with

my life and business and property and whatever. So, you know, it doesn't sound like,

unless we were just boldface lied to tonight, it doesn't sound like there's a buyer lined up

to do any of this. It sounds like this is all wish-list stuff. But I would be much more

concerned about the impacts on Hinkson Creek of just plain water run-off, of, you know,

frankly, a heavy industrial or even a larger version of Swift, I think, would have more of an

impact. I'm looking at what else is around here. It doesn't show on the map in front of

us, but the landfill is not far from here. We've got an auto salvage yard that is, you know,

within close range of all of this. I mean, this -- this is an industrial area that is bordered

by residential, and we've got a buffer between the two in that agricultural plat. So I'm

leaning towards yes and trusting our Code and our site development and our use specific

standards to put some safeguards in place. All that said, if City Council is listening, I

agree with Commissioner Brodsky that if, in fact, not just data centers, but large

computing spaces are likely to be something that we have to deal with in the future,

whether it's because of, you know, large language learning models, whether it's because

of generative -- whether it's because of just processing power. And I think it's worth doing

some real looking at what are the requirements that we want to put around those. How

much water do they actually use? How much electricity do they actually use? Do we

need to think about land use for, you know, multiple acres of computers? I mean, they're

heat sinks, if nothing else. Right? So I think it's worthwhile to do some research, not

that we don't have enough of it on our plates, but do some research into do we need to

put use specific standards around this use. That said, thank you to everyone who made

us think about that. That is not what we're talking about tonight. What we're talking

about tonight is what do we do on this parcel that is surrounded by IG, but is close to

Hinkson Creek? And I just -- I don't see a reason to deny the zoning, especially since

our IG zoning is so broad. It sounds -- but industrial could mean an auto parts yard.

Like, it's so broad in our Code that I don't have a problem with the IG, especially given all

the safeguards in place once they go to pull permits to actually break ground. And that's

my -- thank for indulging us. Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: We have a lot of complicated ones this evening, and this one is

tough, too. It's tough because I recently watched a documentary about another

community that went through this exact same thing. They were told one thing and the

results were different. Part of it was because they have these backup generators that are

used in the development of the property, and those have diesel fuel and a lot of waste,

and they were not taken away. They're continuing to be used. So although I know we're

not specifically considering and talking about the data center, because that conversation

has been introduced, it gives a whole different spin to this conversation to me for multiple

reasons, and the largest one being that the benefit is just not there. We're not getting

anything from our land being used by a large conglomerate. And again, this is -- I've

worked in this industry for almost 20 years. So this is -- this is just difficult for me.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further Commissioner comment? Commissioner Gray?

DR. GRAY: Sorry, staff, again. I just have a question. So in terms of your support,

it aligns with the Comprehensive Plan goals related to economic development. I'm

curious about that there's kind of a tension between the policies around environmental

management, particularly around one of their policies that suggests, like, strategies for

maintaining agricultural areas. So I guess I'm wondering is the underutilization of this

land and its current zoning kind of what is the, like, weighing on this?

MR. KUNZ: The fact that it's not utilized for agricultural purposes, I would say was a

consideration that we made in support of this, but I also think there is a potential it

wouldn't be requesting rezoning to IG if it were being utilized for agricultural purposes. I

suppose it's a little bit difficult to say exactly the extent to which, but when looking at

this, it's particularly thinking about the economic development goals of getting industry

nearby roads that have the capacity to move things quickly and easily without impacting

neighborhoods. I understand the data center doesn't -- if that were to be what were

pursued, doesn't necessarily result in a lot of vehicular traffic. However, if we're just

comprehensively looking at the industrial zoning district, which may require larger

commercial vehicles and increased traffic induced by that, this is a prime location for

that. The applicant has made the request for it, so -- and it's not being used for

agricultural purposes, as well. So, yeah. I'd say that's -- (inaudible) -- to my analysis.

DR. GRAY: Thank you.

MR. ZENNER: I think, as well, Dr. Gray, what we -- what we have to understand is,

as you pointed out, there is a tension between the cap, which is a policy and aspirational

document, and the adopted City Comprehensive Plan which functions as a component of

regulatory administration. We have to rely on our Comprehensive Plan’s goals and

objectives as we evaluate requests. The CAP does not have those same considerations.

And so, this is a -- this is a dilemma that as we embark on rewriting our City's

Comprehensive Plan, there will be a tension chapter. And that tension chapter, based on

current comprehensive planned structure is to address this exact issue. When you have

two equally viable objectives, which takes precedent over the other? And so what we

would have to look at, and I think as Mr. -- (inaudible) -- pointed out with the applicant's

engineering firm, you have an industrial vacancy rate that is extremely low. I think if we

had our representatives from REDI here, our representatives from REDI would have other

perspectives to provide here for why this is an appropriate additional industrial addition to

the city of Columbia. If we are going to continue to try to cultivate industrial uses,

possibly not a data center, but market acreage for other industrial uses, we have to have

land that is zoned or ready to accommodate that. This does provide that. I think, again,

the warning and the request of Council that you all are asking that they take into

consideration possibly the impacts, should we venture down the path of a data center in

this community, I think that is warranted. I think it is something that we can be asked to

look at if Council so chooses to do that. But right now, we have to weigh what we are

obligated to look at and that is the Comprehensive Plan. That does not negate, and I do

not want to upset the mayor because the mayor obviously was one of the champions

behind our CAP. But it is not the regulatory basis by which we make land use decisions.

That is the Comprehensive Plan. And so if we align through our new Comprehensive Plan

how we strategize to evaluate both, I think we are in a much better position moving

forward, but we're just not there yet.

DR. GRAY: Thank you.

MS. WILSON: There is another consideration, again, given the scenario of a data

center. There is a lot of waste. With the turnover of servers, and given how quickly

technology advances and turns over, that metal, those batteries, there's of lot of

electronic waste, there's a lot of metal waste. That's a lot of waste and what do you do

with all of that. So that's just another consideration.

MS. GEUEA JONES Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I completely agree with all my colleagues, but the task at hand is

the zoning of this parcel, which I do support, but I just want to cry out and put on the

record so that our Councilmen and women will definitely don't fall for the shiny objects

and the typical marketing mumbo-jumbo that comes with this kind of availability of land.

We do need to look at data centers a little closely. They do not generate the jobs that

somebody may tell you they do. Even if this not a data center, make sure that the use of

this land is for the benefit of the community in its highest capacity just like we want to

use our land to as high a capacity. What we do put on this land, if approved, needs to

have those same requirements. And I do support the study of data centers and don't fall

for it without further study.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I would just add, like, what -- I'm guessing that the trust is

going to sell to the highest bidder. You could also put a hotel or a heavy equipment

retailer, like, you know, someone to compete with, God forbid, EquipmentShare could be

on this parcel. You could have a drive-in theater. You could have a nursery, like, you

know, a garden nursery, not the kind with children, but there's a lot of things that could go

there. We have regular requests for and occasional presentations from Plaza telling us

please, please make more IG land. We have people calling us asking can they buy IG

land. I have no doubt that we need it. I have no doubt that Mr. Arbuckle has plans. I

have every belief that he will sell to the highest bidder who comes in as fast as possible.

I have every belief that there are people waiting to buy IG property in Columbia, and it's

not just Nvidia. In fact, it's probably not Nvidia because they're not here. So, I mean, I

hear the concerns about one particular use, and I'm not taking those lightly or saying that

those aren't founded in fact. I also believe that there are so many other uses that are

more likely in the real world just based on what we hear from the various developers in the

community who say that -- and the realtors who say that they have people coming to

them all the time asking to buy this. I think the best thing we can do is zone it for what's

appropriate. Everything around here, you know, this is a commercial area. I think IG

makes sense. I think we need use specific standards especially if we believe that this is

likely to become -- likely to be purchased by a data center. We need to get use specific

standards and as quickly as possible related to load. Here's the other thing I'll say, and,

Commissioner Brodsky, I think you'll agree with me on this. There are other things we

have in our Code, like, marijuana cultivation facilities, that use so much water and

electricity, they often have to have their own substations built out just to open up and

operate. We created use specific standards for them. This is something we can do. It

is not a reason to not allow this parcel to be used like the parcels around it in a way that

is responsible and makes sense. And I am especially more comfortable given that that

entire flood plain parcel is going to be left zoned Ag, which means that they can't even try

to figure out an exception to expand into that floodplain. So that's -- that's where my

head is at. I -- you know, I think this is going to be one of our rare split decisions, and --

but that's where my head is at. Any further comment, or would someone like to make a

motion? Commissioner Gray?

DR. GRAY: Okay. Let's see if I can do this. In the case of 301-2025, 3815

Hinkston Creek Road, I move to approve the request to rezone 63.11 acres of this subject

site from agricultural to IG.

MR. STANTON: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner Gray; seconded by Commissioner

Stanton. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. Commissioner Brodsky,

when you're ready, may we have a roll call?

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms.

Geuea Jones, Dr. Gray, Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Stanton, Mr. Walters, Mr. Brodsky, Mr. Darr.

Voting No. Ms. Stockton, Ms. Wilson. Motion carries 7 to 2.

MR. BRODSKY: The motion carries seven to two.

MS. GEUEA JONES: That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Move to approve the request to rezone 63.11 acres of this subject site from

agricultural to IG.

7 - Stanton, Geuea Jones, Walters, Ortiz, Brodsky, Gray and Darr

2 - Wilson and Stockton

Yes:

No:

Case # 303-2025

A request by Curt Krehbiel (agent), on behalf of Curt Krehbiel Properties

LLC (owner), to allow 1205 East Ash Street, Unit A to be used as a

short-term rental for a maximum of 2 transient guests and up to 210-nights

annually pursuant to Sec. 29-3.3(vv) and Sec. 29-6.4(m)(2) of the Unified

Development Code. This request seeks authorization to offer one-half of a

two-family structure as a short-term rental. The 1-bedroom, 1-bathroom

dwelling has driveway capacity to support 2 UDC-compliant on-site parking

spaces. The 0.14-acre subject is located on the north side of East Ash

Street, approximately 120 feet east of the St. James Street and East Ash

Street intersection.

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?

Staff report was given by Mr. Ross Halligan of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow 1205 East

Ash Street, Unit A, to be operated as an STR subject to:

1. The maximum occupancy shall not exceed two transient guests regardless

of the occupancy allowed by the most recently adopted edition of the

International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC);

2. A maximum of 210 nights of annual usage.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my fellow

Commissioners have had contact with parties to this case outside of a public hearing,

please disclose so now. Seeing none. Questions for staff? Commissioner Brodsky?

MR. BRODSKY: You said that this was a multi-unit property. Where -- where are

the other tenants, I guess, is what I'm trying to figure out. Are they behind the building or

MR. HALLIGAN: Yes. So it's off to the -- so the entrance to the one -- the

short-term rental is to the left, and the entrance to the other side of the dwelling, the

long-term side, would be on the right side kind of following that red rectangle where the

driveway is located. There is another door located on that side of the structure.

MR. BRODSKY: Okay. So it's within the same -- the same building.

MR. ZENNER: Front -- front to back -- front to back duplex.

MR. BRODSKY: Okay. Perfect. Thank you. I think I know the answer to this, but

I'm going to ask it anyway. There's nothing in the ordinances about mixing uses with

parking and the conflict between potential long-term tenants and an STR tenant?

MR. HALLIGAN: No, there is not. It's just, again, as I kind of alluded to. As long as

they're not taking away from the required parking for the other use, should be good to go.

MR. BRODSKY: That's all I had. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: What is your final statement relating to the owner or the agent not

being present?

MR. HALLIGAN: He is present. He informed me that he was involved in an accident

prior to the rezoning and he is not going to be able to speak. He is in attendance today

at the meeting still.

MR. STANTON: Is his agent or -- here?

MR. ZENNER: He -- he is the agent as well.

MR. HALLIGAN: He’s here.

MR. STANTON: Oh, okay. So if something hits the fan, he's the one that's going to

come and fix it? Okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none. We will

open the floor to public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any members of the public that are here to speak on

this case, please come forward. Seeing none. And I understand you can't speak, but

would the owner please wave. Hi. Thank you for being here tonight. We appreciate you

and hope you get to feeling better soon. Any other questions or comments from staff or

from -- or the public -- sorry. Public first. Sorry, McKenzie. Public, no one else, closing.

Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: Have we talked to the person that lives in the other, like, unit?

MR. HALLIGAN: I have no notification regarding that if it's currently occupied or the

status of that.

MS. ORTIZ: Okay. Okay. Thanks.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other comments from Commissioners? Commissioner

Brodsky?

MR. BRODSKY: Generally speaking, I think I'm okay with this. My only concern

and it's in relation to what I asked staff, is the fact that we have one parking lane and that

the short-term rental person is going to have to coordinate with the long-term tenants.

And, you know, if the short-term tenant is blocking the long-term tenants, and they're

gone doing whatever they're doing for the day, you know, how is that going to work out?

So that -- I am a little concerned about that.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other Commissioner comments? Commissioner

Stanton?

MR. STANTON: The reality is they'll probably park on the street.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Uh-huh.

MR. BRODSKY: Sorry to say -- I cut you off. The -- I do. I live very close to this.

All of the street parking on this street, and I could be wrong about this, but I believe that

is all permit parking on that street.

MR. STANTON: Oh.

MR. HALLIGAN: That does sound correct. I believe I recall there's a city ordinance

sign posted relating to the parking, so it follows that -- an ordinance.

MR. BRODSKY: The -- the -- my -- I believe the closest meter parking is going to be

on Ash west of St. James, so not terribly far, but I will also say that those parking spots

are generally completely full.

MR. ZENNER: Mr. Brodsky, if I may ask, is that -- is the parking permit based on a

neighborhood parking permit program?

MR. BRODSKY: I believe so.

MR. ZENNER: That means then that the -- that the dwelling unit is provided, most

likely, parking permits for their long-term tenants. And so the long-term tenants, I think

this is one of the things that we have had to unpack in some of these requests.

Long-term rental housing, yes, they are required to have on-site parking. They are not

required to park in it. And so if they do have parking permits associated with this

dwelling unit to park in those permanent spaces, I would imagine, I think as Mr. Stanton

pointed out, that is likely they will park on the street where they have that availability.

The reason I asked Ross to pull this graphic up is because as you will note, the driveway

does lead back to a larger backyard area where may be the opportunity to be able to

jockey the cars around without having to back them in and out of the driveway. Again,

the long-term tenant of the remaining duplex and the occupant of the short-term rental,

should this be approved, that's going to be -- it's likely going to be stated that you have --

you have to park on-site, because that's what we require. The tenant in the rear is going

to know that, and so one would think that they will work that out on their own. We can't -

- we can't ask the applicant, because the applicant apparently can't speak to that effect,

and we can't ask them about the parking permit situation either. If we could have those

two answers, I think there would be great illumination on the situation here. However, the

standard of practice that we would ensure, and I did ask Mr. Halligan to ensure this, that

the parking to meet the demand for the remaining half of the duplex was capable of being

met in full, not displaced by the short-term rental. If it has been displaced by the

short-term rental, this would be an entirely different application.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other Commissioner comments? Commissioner

Walters?

MR. WALTERS: I'm ready to make a motion.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Please do.

MR. WALTERS: Regarding Case Number 303-2025, I move to approve the

conditional use permit to allow 1205 East Ash Street, Unit A, to be operated as an STR

subject to: One, the maximum occupancy shall not exceed two transient guests,

regardless of occupancy allowed by the most recently adopted edition of the International

Property Maintenance Code; and two, a maximum of 210 nights of annual usage.

DR. GRAY: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion made by Commissioner Walters; seconded by

Commissioner Gray. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none.

Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call?

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms.

Geuea Jones, Dr. Gray, Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Stockton, Mr. Walters, Ms.

Wilson, Mr. Brodsky, Mr. Darr. Motion carries 9-0.

MR. BRODSKY: Motion carries.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation will be forwarded to City

Council. Just as a reminder, we have a full dais, so if you need to take a break, please

step out and do so. It won't stop us from continuing, but we will wait for you for votes.

Move to approve the conditional use permit to allow 1205 East Ash Street, Unit A,

to be operated as an STR subject to: One, the maximum occupancy shall not

exceed two transient guests, regardless of occupancy allowed by the most

recently adopted edition of the International Property Maintenance Code; and

two, a maximum of 210 nights of annual usage.

9 - Stanton, Geuea Jones, Wilson, Walters, Ortiz, Brodsky, Gray, Stockton and Darr

Yes:

Case # 307-2025

A request by Kirsten Craver (agent), on behalf of HAE Properties, LLC

(owner), to allow 308 North Ninth Street to be used as a short-term rental

for a maximum of 8 transient guests and up to 210-nights annually pursuant

to Sec. 29-3.3(vv) and Sec. 29-6.4(m)(2) of the Unified Development

Code. The 4-bedroom, 2-bath home has a driveway with sufficient capacity

to support 4 UDC-compliant on-site/off-street parking spaces. The

0.14-acre subject site is located on the east side of North Ninth Street

approximately 200-feet north of Park Avenue.

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?

Staff report was given by Mr. Kirtis Orendorff of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow the

dwelling at 308 North Ninth Street to be operated as an STR subject to:

1. The maximum occupancy of eight transient guests;

2. A maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions from staff, if any of my

fellow Commissioners have had contact with parties to this case outside of a public

hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Questions for staff? Seeing none. We

will go to public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: If any members of the public are here to speak on this case,

please come forward.

MS. CRAVER: Good evening. I’m Kristen Craver, 7400 Jimmy Ridge Road,

Columbia. If I can answer any questions for you. I obviously don't rent it out of town. I'm

just trying -- I don't -- it's not my job. I don't make money doing it. I'm just trying to keep

it alive until maybe my kids need it someday. So it's not the greatest investment.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much for being here tonight. Are there any

questions? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: So we do have previous violations. We do have -- as I mature in this

analysis, I can kind of see, like, things that are attributed to communication.

MS. CRAVER: Uh-huh.

MR. STANTON: Some -- a lot of violations really deal with communication. So

tell me -- convince me that you have that taken care of before I make my vote.

MS. CRAVER: Okay. Well, as for the landscaping, that was a one-time deal that I

was out of town for extended time with my children. And I mow it myself and I haul the

mower over there in the back of SUV, and I just know it was just a one-time deal. As for

the trash, I don't even know about that, to be -- so, yeah. It's a communication problem

because I don't know. I don't know if that was before I owned it or -- or if it's with the new

stuff. I have had an agreement in the past with a neighbor, a long-term renter next door

that would pull my stuff, my new can in after -- because I'm not over there all the time.

I'm not able to be over there necessarily on a Monday morning. He has moved out and I

didn't realize it, so maybe something has happened there, but I have not gotten

notification that I'm aware of about any trash issues or unless something --

MR. STANTON: Well, okay. So we address the violations. I guess what I mean is,

my concerns from this point forward, is --

MS. CRAVER: Uh-huh.

MR. STANTON: -- your communication network better, up to date, up to speed?

If I have a problem -- I've asked this for over a year. If the stuff hits the fan and I call you,

how fast are you going to get there and who is going to get there?

MS. CRAVER: Oh, I get there.

MR. STANTON: All right.

MS. CRAVER: Yeah. I have had -- I mean, I have never had a complaint from

outside of my renters, but I've had renters who have -- you know, the air is not working as

well, and I went out and bought five fans. And at 10:00 at night, I went and installed

them. Yeah. No, I mean, as far as the neighborhood, though, I -- it's a very -- it's all

rentals as far as I know. So I've at different times had good communication because I'm -

- I'm there physically. I'm outside working on the yard, and I've met them at different

times, but I don't know when they change out, so I don't know as well. I don't know the --

I don't know the property owners. So --

MR. STANTON: I want to -- I want to vote for you.

MS. CRAVER: Okay. I want to help you.

MR. STANTON: You've got to make me feel warm and fuzzy inside that you have all

your ducks in a row, all your communications in line, because we have to -- you had to

get a letter before you came in.

MS. CRAVER: Uh-huh.

MR. STANTON: And like I've been saying all night, there's no way you've never

heard about the -- the stink that the STR situation has brought up. So it took us getting

you a letter. Why did it take you so long to come to the light, and --

MS. CRAVER: I did know about it, that it was happening. I didn't -- I don't watch the

news that well -- that often. I didn't know I had to apply. And I'm an attorney. I have no

excuse. I -- I just didn't know. I mean, I --

MR. STANTON: So you're an expert on STR laws, regulations, --

MS. CRAVER: No, I am not.

MR. STANTON: I need to hear; you know what I mean? Because if I -- because

I need to know that if I approve an STR permit --

MS. CRAVER: Uh-huh.

MR. STANTON: -- you're going to be a good example. You know what I mean?

Like, I don't want to -- I don't want to hear I didn't know. I mean, this ignorance is --

MS. CRAVER: Oh, you won't. Now I know I need to know. So, yes, I --

MR. STANTON: So you're going to be -- your communication, everything is --

MS. CRAVER: Yes. I -- yes. I absolutely am. I'm aware that now there -- I knew

there was talk of something being passed. I -- I just started a new job, going back to

practicing law after 20 years off in July, so I'm now an attorney -- practicing attorney, and

I'm very much more aware of things going on, and I absolutely am -- I mean, I'm dedicated

to keeping that house. It was -- it was a project for me that I redid over Covid and I love it

and I want to keep it. And the only way I can do it is if I keep just enough people renting

it. So, yes. I have -- I have a lot of heart and soul in that place, and now that I know that

I have these regulations to follow, I am absolutely going to.

MR. STANTON: It only takes two and you're out of there -- license; you know what I

mean?

MS. CRAVER: Well -- yeah. And I guess I need to look into what those -- what

specifically constitutes all of that. I need to be more up on it than I am, but I -- I

absolutely have the commitment.

MR. STANTON: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? Thank you very much for being here tonight.

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

MR. KELLEY: I'm Devin Kelley, 9955 East Stone School Road in Hallsville. I own

302 North Ninth Street, the one that has an application right up the street. And it's a

lovely home. I think she does a great job. I -- I'm really active on the street and have a

business right next door. And although I've not met Kirsten, I believe it was, I might be

able to help her out a little bit with some of the unfamiliarity that she has with some of

those things, and my goal is to get, you know, to know all the neighbors, which I've done

quite a bit of until -- anyway just saying, whether my application works out or not, I'm in

the area all the time with my business next door, so I think I could help her out a little bit,

and I support her application because -- I mean, she barely rents it out, so anyway.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And your application is in and being processed?

MR. KELLEY: Yes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Any questions for this speaker? Seeing none.

Thank you for being here. Anyone else to speak on this case? Seeing none. We will

close public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comment. Any Commissioner comments?

Seeing none. Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Well, I'm kind of shaky still, but I'm going to give the process a shot

because if she don't do what she needs to do, and she gets the complaint, she's out of

there. So I'm going to play the system -- I'm going to work system, see what happens.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Would you like to make a motion to that effect?

MR. STANTON: I would, Madam Chair. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.

MR. STANTON: As it relates to Case 307-2025, as it -- 308 North Ninth Street, STR

conditional use permit, I move to approve the requested STR CUP subject to a maximum

occupancy of eight transient guests; a maximum of 210 nights annual rental usage.

DR. GRAY: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion made by Commissioner Stanton; seconded by

Commissioner Gray. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none.

Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call?

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms.

Geuea Jones, Dr. Gray, Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Stockton, Mr. Walters, Ms.

Wilson, Mr. Brodsky, Mr. Darr. Motion carries 9-0.

MR. BRODSKY: The motion carries.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation will be forwarded -- I’m

sorry. That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council. Moving on to our last

case of the evening, if I can get to the right page.

Move to approve the requested STR CUP subject to a maximum occupancy of

eight transient guests; a maximum of 210 nights annual rental usage.

9 - Stanton, Geuea Jones, Wilson, Walters, Ortiz, Brodsky, Gray, Stockton and Darr

Yes:

Case # 310-2025

A request by Trueman Orson (agent), on behalf of Trueman Orson and Julie

Allen (owners), to allow 4216 Forum Boulevard to be used as a short-term

rental for a maximum of 6 transient guests and up to 210-nights annually

pursuant to Sec. 29-3.3(vv) and Sec. 29-6.4(m)(2) of the Unified

Development Code. The 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom home has an attached

2-car garage and driveway capacity to support 4 UDC-compliant on-site

parking spaces. The 0.41-acre subject site is located on the east side of

Forum Boulevard, approximately 1,200 feet south of Nifong Boulevard.

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?

Staff report was given by Mr. Ross Halligan of the Planning and Development

department. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow 4216

Forum Boulevard to be operated as an STR subject to:

1. The maximum occupancy shall not exceed six transient guests regardless of

the occupancy allowed by the most recently adopted edition of the

International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC);

2. A maximum of 210 nights of annual usage.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my

fellow Commissioners have had contact with parties to this case outside of a public

hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Questions for staff? Seeing none. We

will go to public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any members of the public here to speak on this case, please

come forward now. Name and address for the record.

MR. GUMP: Max Gump, 4215 Forum Boulevard, right across the street from the

house in question. I've been there for 28 years as an owner, a resident of this community

for 50 years, college here back in the '70s and seen the town grow from 40,000 to 120,

and traffic would take ten minutes across town 40 years ago, and now it's 50. So I'll try

to boil this down a little bit. You've got notes in the packets. I've sent letters to Mr.

Halligan, and other people have, too. Two concerns. First of all, why are we allowing

short-term rental in a residential neighborhood? We have zoning laws. Doing this is

circumventing and running in and around of our zoning laws because you're going into a

residential neighborhood, allowing something that was never there, and never should have

been there. In my opinion, it's too late now, but if you're going to do Airbnb, and VRBOs,

you ought to be in the part of town that allows it, not into a residential area. Another

question. It's going to lower property values. I've done a little research. Other states are

requiring you to disclose if it was in close proximity of your house, you or your agent at

the time of sale. I've asked a real estate lady friend of mine. She hasn't gotten back to

me yet. She didn't know. Been in business a few years. This is new. Okay. So if I go

sell my house -- I've been in it for 28 years -- and I go to sell it, and I've got to deal with

you for X number of dollars. And I say, by the way, there's a transient Airbnb across the

street, you're going to lower your bid. You just are. I've bought and sold property and

houses in my previous years. It's everybody wants a good deal. So I'm concerned about

the disclosure. You're going to have to do it if it's within proximity. If it's five or six

houses down the street, it's not. Right across the street or next door, it is. You're going

to cause residents money. So that's that about allowing to come in. Also, there's a

traffic situation here on Forum. I wish I had a video. I work out of my house. People

going down that street 60 miles an hour. There was an accident two weeks ago. If I had

been in my front yard, I probably wouldn't be here today. But, I mean, four or five cops,

Highway Patrol. What had happened, a man was going south, lost control, ran into the

side of that Mill Creek bridge, and crossed the northbound lane right by the house in

question -- close to it. Came back across in my front yard. Tore the front end of the car

on the sidewalk. I was speaking to one of the officers and, yeah, he said I've written

tickets for sixty miles an hour in this place. It's a 30 mile speed limit. Now, if you're a

full-time resident and rental there, you know how to navigate some of this stuff, the lay of

the land. But if you've got people in and out of there during the week, they don't know.

And, you know, I extended my driveway 26 years ago, two years after I moved in. You

couldn't get out of the damn thing. Most of the houses on Forum are short. They had to

back out. And they fly off that hill coming north. And right there where that place is, it's

a problem. And the people that own the place are nice. I've met them before. I don't

have any -- any issues with them, and they've been doing short-term rental and, overall,

the guests have been -- been good. Okay? I have no issues with that. I am merely

arguing on the nuts of bolts of lowering property values, increased traffic, which is going

to cause accidents on that. That's kind of the gist of what I'm on, and there's other rental

properties down the street, at least three I know of before you get up to Southampton,

and two of them outside of the 300-foot radius of this property. So that means somebody

else could come in there and put an application in, and I just don't want Forum Boulevard

to become Airbnb Avenue. And, you know, it's close to town, it's close to campus, the

Walgreen's, restaurants, bars, you know. Anyhow, that's -- I'm going to shut up now

because it's getting late, but any questions?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much for being here tonight. Any questions

for this speaker? Seeing none. We appreciate you. Thank you. Next person to speak

on this case, please come forward.

MS. JANSEN: Good evening. My name is Colleen Jansen, and I reside at 4201

Forum Boulevard, which is across the street and about two houses north of the location

you're speaking of. And I have to say I agree with Mr. Gump as to his concerns, so I

would be against this -- this choice this evening. Part of the reason is also for me,

because I do have a five-year-old grandson that lives in my house, and he was autistic,

and the concern about traffic is a big deal. The -- like Mr. Gump was saying, we -- this is

a 30-mile-an-hour area, or at least in -- I have to say that most times, I see people going

over 40 to 50 to 60 miles an hour down the street. And it just -- my concern is adding

this additional tenants -- these tenants would cause an addition to that traffic problem. I

have myself difficulty getting sometimes out of the -- out of my driveway onto Forum

Boulevard. Sometimes I have to plan on how to do it by backing into my driveway, those

kind of things. I like to plan ahead. So those are my concerns in regards to the situation

this evening.

MS. GEUEA JONES: We really appreciate you being here.

MS. JANSEN: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. And this is Forum south of Nifong?

MS. JANSEN: Yes. It's just south of Nifong. My residence is just past the medical

park that's there.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Perfect. Yeah. Yeah. yeah. I am --

MS. JANSEN: And no. I do want to enjoy -- I'm sorry. Part of my concerns is also

the future. Okay? The reason I say that is because my neighbor has made

improvements to their home, which includes an in-ground pool, as well as a backyard

outdoor living space, and they are in the process of trying to sell that property. And that

property would be very, very good, but they're in kind of the same situation. So that

would be my concern, too, is the future of the other homes and in the same -- in the

same neighborhood.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Any questions for this speaker?

Seeing none. Thank you for being here tonight. Anyone else to speak on this case?

MS. ALLEN: Hi. My name is Julie Allen; I live at 3602 Longford Mill. I am the owner

of this house. We love this house. I just want to start with that. Like, we are not a big

business kind of people. This is a house we see ourselves probably retiring in. It's a slab

home in a really great neighborhood. My dream is that my children -- one of my children

would assume our home -- it is a two-story home at some point, and this will be where

we live. So that's why we chose it. The lady that we bought it from, her great-niece was

the realtor. They have come back and stayed in the house over the holidays last year,

just to see it. Like we -- we really respect -- to proactively address the two letters of

notice. I have no idea about the first one at all. Like, I don't know about that at all. The

second one, we immediately started getting the stuff together and submitting the

information. We did less than 100 times last month -- or last year. I think it was actually

49. We're probably on track for about 100 this year. We are not trying to pack it in. Part

of the reason we love the short-term rental piece is that we are in it often. We hand mow

the yard ourselves. We take the trash in and out. It is in between my work and our

home, and so we're able to go by it frequently, make sure that it's maintained, all of those

things. Like, we really take a lot of pride in the house, and my parents are aging, so

when they come watch my son play soccer, they live an hour and a half away,

sometimes they stay there because it is all on one floor. We're not targeting big

partyers. One of the bathrooms has a walk-in shower for elderly people, like it lists on

the listing. So we're really not trying to target big parties, all those things. The folks that

stayed there last were visiting their 92-year-old parents on that side of town. We have

people that have come back, live away, and have parents that live here, and it's a pretty

great location for that. People know where Forum and Nifong is, that kind of thing, so --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? Commissioner

Stanton?

MR. STANTON: So it took two letters to get you to bring -- come to the light?

MR. HALLIGAN: I will add -- I believe that was a typo in my notes. I believe she's

correct that there was just one letter.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah.

MR. HALLIGAN: So that was a typo on my behalf in my notes here.

MR. STANTON: You better get it right over there.

MR. HALLIGAN: I know. I wanted to interject before this got carried away.

MS. ALLEN: I swear, my husband called me the day we found out, and he's, like,

we've got to do this thing, and we started putting it together. I promise, I do not know

about two.

MR. STANTON: Well, outside of that, you've got everything under control now?

MS. ALLEN: Absolutely. We have -- I would just mention that we have our whatever

super hosts on the Airbnb, which you have to have at least a 98 percent response rate,

which we -- I responded all the time, so they would always know how to get ahold of us.

Like the thing says, we live very close. If there's any emergencies, we would be right

there. My sister also lives about five miles from there, so if we were out of town, she's

our backup. She works at John Warner Middle School, so she's very close all the time.

Absolutely, we are very attentive to the house, and, like I said, we just love that little

house. It's a cute little yellow house.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any other questions for this speaker? Thank you

for being here tonight. Any other member of the public to speak on this case, please

come forward. Seeing none. We will close public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comment. Any Commissioner comments on

this case? Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: Okay. I might be sleepy, but did I -- did I miss -- okay. It says

maximum occupancy of two transient guests?

MR. HALLIGAN: That was a typo, as well. It's for six.

MS. GEUEA JONES: It should be six.

MR. HALLIGAN: I'm sleepy, as well, so I guess I need this.

MS. ORTIZ: I wasn't sure guys, like, had talked about that already, and I'm, like,

wait, was I here for that?

MR. HALLIGAN: Yeah. I'm strike two for this presentation here, so --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Someone has been copy-pasting his slides. You do a great

job.

MR. HALLIGAN: I know. It’s --.

MS. ORTIZ: And then I guess the other question, and I think I know this, but I'll ask

anyway. So the -- there -- there's a public works project on Forum. Is this -- this is not

the section of Forum? No. Okay. And then do you happen to know the street

classification for this portion of Forum?

MR. HALLIGAN: Yes. It is a minor arterial.

MS. ORTIZ: Okay. So it would be, like, eligible for traffic calming?

MR. ZENNER: Most likely, Ms. Ortiz, I would tell you, based upon the volume that

this road carries --

MS. ORTIZ: No?

MR. ZENNER: No way. And, you know, I -- I mean, I think we -- yeah. That would

be -- that would be probably a disaster for the southern portion of the City, but for traffic

movement, not for the neighbors maybe. And so --

MS. GEUEA JONES: That launches somebody into their --

MR. ZENNER: Probably. And if the owners have suggested that they need it. I

mean, I will say this much, with the improvements, I used to live down in this area, as

well. I actually lived off of Chadwick. So, you know, as many of you are probably aware,

if you come down Forum over Nifong, you have now the ability to take Southampton out

to John Warner. You'll have access to the new elementary school. You also have

access to Gentry and Rock Bridge. So when, as a part of the improvements to

Southampton, that were considered as a part of Legacy Farms, which is off of Sinclair,

there were a series of roundabout projects that would be being built on Southampton.

That doesn't help this particular segment, but that's helping to manage overall traffic along

the southern corridor, in essence. The span between the signal at Forum and Nifong to

the intersection at Southampton, if that was controlled by a roundabout, that may not

necessarily reduce speed. The nature of this street, based on its lack of deflection,

doesn't help, and then it is -- the valley of the street is actually just a little bit beyond

where this property is located, and it goes down in both directions. And so acceleration

from the intersections adjoining it to the north and the south is probably the problem.

What needs to be done here if the traffic speed continues to be an issue is it needs to be

more of a target of enforcement area for the police department, and that's the unfortunate

reality. I think we probably -- if we had the ability to do something on a -- if this was a

neighborhood collector, not a minor arterial, I think there would be a higher probability for

traffic calming. This is a minor arterial. It is designed to carry a high volume of traffic,

maybe not at this speed, but it is designed for that purpose. And I think hindsight being

20/20, as we have grown in development over time, you would have never seen driveways

accessing this roadway if this had been at a different era because this is the problem we

run into, that conflict of through traffic with driveway traffic, that there's very few

opportunities here to mitigate that effectively.

MS. ORTIZ: Follow-up. Have we seen any short-term rentals on this, like, heavy

traffic, like that being the primary access?

MR. ZENNER: I can't answer that directly, but the closest one that I can think of

was one that was across from -- on Arbor Point Parkway across from Alpha Hart Lewis,

which was denied. That was the second one within 300 feet of another existing site, so

that may have been a very similar street classification, but I would have to go back and

look at our specific applications to give you a complete answer.

MS. ORTIZ: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other -- where are we at -- Commissioner comments?

Anyone want to make a motion? Commissioner Gray?

DR. GRAY: In the case of 310-2025, 4216 Forum Boulevard, STR conditional use

permit, I move to approve the requested STR CUP subject to maximum occupancy of two

transient guests, maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage.

MR. BRODSKY: Did you mean to say six transient guests?

MS. GEUEA JONES: It should be six. You just read the slide. It's okay.

MR. HALLIGAN: It's my -- I take the blame. I take the blame.

DR. GRAY: Do I have to do the whole thing?

MS. GEUEA JONES: No. You can take it as an amendment. Do you take Mr.

Brodsky's amendment?

DR. GRAY: I accept the amendment.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Would someone like to second Commissioner Gray's

amended motion?

MR. STANTON: I'll second the amendment.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. A motion was made by Commissioner Gray, amended

by Commissioner Brodsky, and the motion, as amended, was seconded by

Commissioner Stanton. Is there any discussion on the motion? Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: I -- okay. Controversial opinion. I don't like this one. I think that the

speeding traffic is actually a problem here, and having more people access this property

is potentially dangerous, so that is -- my vote will reflect that.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other discussion --

UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Not at this time, ma'am. I'm sorry. Any other discussion

on the motion? Seeing none. Commissioner Brodsky, may we have a roll call?

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms.

Geuea Jones, Dr. Gray, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Stockton, Mr. Walters, Ms. Wilson, Mr.

Brodsky, Mr. Darr.

Voting No: Ms. Ortiz. Motion carries 8-1.

MR. BRODSKY: The motion carries eight to one.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation will be forwarded to City

Council. Moving on to our next order of business.

Move to approve the requested STR CUP subject to maximum occupancy of six

transient guests, maximum of 210 nights of annual rental usage.

8 - Stanton, Geuea Jones, Wilson, Walters, Brodsky, Gray, Stockton and Darr

1 - Ortiz

Yes:

No:

VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS

MS. GEUEA JONES: If any member of the public has a comment that they would

like to say of a general nature or otherwise, now would be the time. Going once, going

twice. Okay.

VIII. STAFF COMMENTS

MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Zenner, enlighten us.

MR. ZENNER: The next meeting will be October 23rd. What a surprise, it's two

weeks from now. We will have some items on that agenda. But before we have our

tantalizing meeting of the public nature, we will have a work session. We will start talking

about changes to our subdivision regulations and the texts associated with small lot

development that we have previously discussed. As mentioned in work session, we

introduced this evening to you all, and the public was introduced to our new Community

Development Director on Monday through his swearing in at Council, Clint Smith. Clint

will be attending our meetings, at least for the time being, just to get his feet

reacclimated underneath him as it relates to City business. I will beat my staff with wet

lasagna noodles, so they do not produce PowerPoints that have errors in them anymore.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, it’s fine.

MR. ZENNER: And I would like to extend appreciation to the Commissioner this

evening as it related to your discernment as it relates to the plight that we from the staff

are placed in as it relates to short-term rental evaluations. I think as it was very aptly

pointed out this evening, our evaluation comes from a technical side. My staff is

reminded by me regularly that we do not make the subjective decision. The subjective

decision is left to this body, based on the evidence that is presented during the hearings.

And I appreciate that you have -- you defend that situation or that perspective on our

behalf. Our recommendations< I think as Mr. Orendorff pointed out this evening on our

St. Michael request; there was a lot of discussion how did we want to unpack that. And

at the end of it, it was we needed to unpack it like we unpack every other requests, facts

and the facts only. And so when we evaluate things from a technical component, that is

why you see the recommendations you see. There was a great moment of pause, do we

need to do something different. And I think we will learn more as we move forward. There

are going to be potentially ones that may come to you with a different recommendation,

even though, technically, it meets the compliance standards. And I think those really are

the ones which is why we have the conditional use process. Those are the ones that

require the discernment. To Mr. Stanton, to your point, our applicants are told in every

acceptance e-mail that we send back out to them that their short-term rental application

has been received and is being processed. You shall attend this meeting. And so, that

e-mail will be amended to indicate you shall attend and present, because I think what we

have is we have a situation where an applicant realizes they may have to be here, they do

not understand that you expect them to talk. I try to do that the best I can with the

applicants that I interact with to ensure that they know what is going to happen here and

what is expected, so we are setting standards. We're not coaching, we're setting an

expectation. And so, hopefully, you will not have to wait. You will hopefully have the

applicant come forward. The decision is in their hands. And so if they choose not to

come forward, that's something that you all have to weigh as well. And trust me, we are,

I think, all collectively looking at this process from the same perspective. We want to

make sure people can operate, but we also have to make sure that they are not

impacting a neighborhood. So that is part of what my role and my staff's role is, and,

again, I appreciate your understanding and your willingness to defend how we technically

evaluate these applications and then make the tougher decisions that sometimes have to

be made. That is greatly appreciated. With that, your upcoming projects are three more

short-term rentals, and a returning item, maybe. We still do not know if we have the full

final plat and design adjustment issues worked out as it relates to the water district's

parcel immediately adjacent to Boone Electric. There are some issues with a utility

easement that needs to be relocated, and an easement to be vacated that's a private

easement before we can bring the plat to you. So it is possible that the October 23rd

meeting will only have three items on it. Worse is we'll have several less than we had

this evening and hopefully less complicated. Just so you know where we are, our water

district parcel there on the left, our first short-term rental on Anderson, which we do not

have another one around this, and then our last two short-term rentals. We actually may

end up with only two because the one slide on your left may be withdrawn. We did have

a contact from the applicant earlier this week, and they are weighing options. If they

want to proceed with their short-term rental application, that is a multi-family building and

they are looking at taking one unit out of the building for short-term rental purposes.

However, that graphic should look familiar. That is at the corner -- it is on Wilkes, and

the roadway that you can see running diagonally is Paris. We just recently approved a

short-term rental request at Paris and Wilkes, so they will be within 300 feet. That is part

of what is the decision-making process for the applicant. With that, those are my

comments. I appreciate your contributions this evening, and we will be looking forward to

seeing you on the 23rd.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much.

IX. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any Commissioner comments? Commissioner Darr?

MR. DARR: Just real quick. Regarding the data center thing, I know we talked

about it, but I would suggest looking at a conditional use process. If you add a specific

use standard, I mean, maybe, you know, until it's a more accepted and it's, you know,

been around longer, that people know what it is, that you -- we have a conditional use

process so that we would see it again if you could zone something to IG, so --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you for that. Any other Commissioner -- Commissioner

Brodsky?

MR. BRODSKY: Just a quick comment, and I don't want to resolve it tonight. But I

know we keep saying that if there's -- if there's two violations with an STR, then they --

you know, they lose their permit. And I -- I looked into this many months ago and I

couldn't find it and I kind of let it go by the wayside, but I -- I looked at it a little bit more

tonight as our meeting was going, and I've looked at the ordinance for short-term rentals,

I've gone back and looked at the Code that references the revocation in 29-6.6, and I'm

just not seeing this -- this if there's two violations, they get --

MR. ZENNER: There -- so to answer this question, and I need to add clarity to this

because we have to be careful with what we are presenting and projecting to the public as

to the -- the ease in the revocation of one short-term rental permit. So first and foremost,

Chapter 22, Article 5 is where the revocation criterion is that would apply to a rental

certificate, be it long-term or short-term. Clearly, within that section of the Municipal

Code, which is not the purview of the Planning Commission, that is our Housing and

Neighborhood Services Division, it clearly indicates that that is two verified violations

authorizes the Director of Housing and Neighborhood Services to proceed to revoke. It

does not say shall, it does not say may. And so with all enforcement processes through

our Neighborhood Services Unit, you must collect the evidence, you must submit the

evidence, and a decision must be made. That is not something that just happens

automatically after somebody calls with a snapshot of more vehicles or people walking

out of a dwelling unit. It has to be verified. That may require going to municipal court.

And so I want to make very clear, we make the statement that two violations, if you have

two verified violations, you are subject to having your license revoked. It does not mean,

however, that you may. The Director of Housing and Neighborhood Services is not

obligated to do so. They present the case, and all cases on violations of the housing

ordinance, long-term and short-term, are handled generally by the municipal judge. And

so with that in mind, I caution you on continuing to project to the public possibly that it's

that easy to just have a license revoked, because it really is not.

MR. BRODSKY: And could you cite that section one more time for me, Pat?

MR. ZENNER: It's Chapter 22, Article 5, and then it would be -- I don't know the

section specifically. I have it here in my ordinance though for you.

MR. BRODSKY: That gives me enough. Thank you.

MR. STANTON: So a proper -- so a proper way to say this would be two verifiable

complaints would subject you to losing your short-term rental license?

MR. ZENNER: Correct.

MR. STANTON: Okay.

MR. ZENNER: It will definitely most likely result in, and I would suggest that we

don't have enough case history at this point, as it relates to this -- these types of

infractions. The ordinance is structured such that -- and I think the section that Mr.

Brodsky is referring to, it does make reference to monetary fines, which is what is in

Chapter 29-6. That's the monetary fine section for operating without the license. The

process of enforcement for violations, however, is probably a combination of fines

ultimately resulting in the revocation. But until we have gone through enough

prosecutions of those that have accumulated verified complaints, I can't tell you how that

process will play out. I can't tell you actually how the process of prosecution of operating

a short-term rental without a license, which we have several right now pending on the

court docket, I do not know how that is going to play out either. And so, you know, this

is -- this is a bigger issue as it relates to ignorance is bliss until you're caught, and so

you can ask the question how did you live under a rock for five years and not know the

City of Columbia was developing short-term rental regulations? Well, people can be a

snail, and they don't have to come out to get sunlight occasionally, and that, you know,

ignorance is one of those things that we're going to continue to go -- we're going to

continue to round up the renegades, as you say, Mr. Stanton, and our Neighborhood

Services Staff is doing an excellent job of working with the lists that we have provided

them to get these people to come into compliance. Until we have a better track record of

how we are handling enforcement, it's going to be a little bit of a learning curve here. It's

what's going to work. Now what I can tell you, and I think somebody had asked this

evening, the short-term rental vendor contract is tentatively scheduled to be placed onto

the Council's October 20th agenda for first reading. That is going to open up potentially

by the beginning of the new year. That would be January, and it's going to take us

roughly sixty or so days to get the vendor on board and functional. We will have a

different set of sources that we will have available for tracking. And so there are a lot of

things that are -- that are happening here, or in the pipeline to happen. The amendment

to the ordinance that may create relief, that is still in a pending state. So I don't know. I

can't give you any information.

MR. STANTON: Mr. Zenner, I was -- I liked your statement concerning applicants.

I'm not really -- I'm not really in support of making them. I think it gives further insight on

the business practices of that -- of that person that's coming to us with an STR. If you

don't -- I think you recommend highly that you come and you present. But if you don't,

that tells me a lot. It tells me that either, A, you're not really vetted into this business. I

mean, it -- it speaks volumes. I tried to stop Madam Chair from saying anything. I

couldn't get to her fast enough. If she had not suggested that that owner come up, that

would have had a great impact.

MR. CRAIG: And that's fine. I'm going to step in here. We can't create an ad hoc

ground for denial. I mean, we have -- we have our criteria before us. We can't make the

applicant testify and make that a ground for denial of the permit. It can be a factor if you

have in the short-term considerations you have support with the neighborhood. And

without testimony to counteract the lack of support or people speaking out against it,

then you consider whether -- then I think that -- that goes to the -- ameliorating the

weight of -- of the lack of support. But we can't -- we can't make an ad hoc ground for

denial that's not in the ordinance. So --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Well, it's -- so --

MR. STANTON: And it's not. It's a ground for me to make my decision, which I do

have a right to do. But it's just like being in a court of law and you're saying I have a right

to defend myself in a court of law or I don't have to say anything, you know, if I'm -- you

know, in a criminal case.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. So it's quarter to 11:00.

MR. CRAIG: Yes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: This is a great discussion to add to work session. Any

other Commissioner comments?

MR. STANTON: I go to work at 4:00 in the morning.