City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Conference Rooms

1A/B

Thursday, July 20, 2023

5:30 PM

Work Session

Columbia City Hall

701 E. Broadway

I. CALL TO ORDER

7 -

Present:

Sara Loe, Anthony Stanton, Michael MacMann, Sharon Geuea Jones, Shannon

Wilson, Zack Dunn and Matt Ford

2 - Valerie Carroll and Peggy Placier

Excused:

II. INTRODUCTIONS

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously.

Move to approve

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

July 6, 2023 Work Session

July 6, 2023 work session minutes adopted unanimously.

Adopt minutes as pressnted

V. NEW BUSINESS

A. Short-Term Rental Survey Follow-up

Mr. Zenner provided an overview and explanation of the revised engagement

results that removed non-resident responses from the overall responses as

requested by Commissioner Loe. Mr. Zenner noted that the differences within the

results were negligible with respect to the overall responses. He also explained

that the total responses to each question did not equal the full 400+ respondents

due an unknown glitch within the BeHeard software. He stated that with the

exception of questions 6 & 7 all other were denoted as being required when the

engagement tool was setup.

Chairman Geuea Jones asked if there were questions and none were asked. The

Commission expressed frustration with the quality of the engagement tool. They

found little value in the question portion, but appreciated the long-form

comments.

The supplemental results were accepted as general information with respect to

the engagement efforts.

VI. OLD BUSINESS

A. Short-term Rental Regulations - Joint Work Session Preparation

Mr. Zenner gave an overview of what was provided in the Council Memo that was

prepared in advance of the upcoming July 24 meeting noting that the agenda and

memo would be provided to the Commission following the regular 7 pm meeting

this evening. Given the need to post the agenda prior to the PZC work session, staff

had identified several questions that it believed were necessary to have answered

such that sufficient direction would be provided by the Council for where they saw

the regulations heading. Mr. Zenner further described how he understood the joint

meeting would be conducted to allow for Council members to give their individual

direction and the potential for the Commission to respond to questions as

necessary.

Following this overview, the meeting was turned over to the Chairman to engage

with the Commissioners relative to the provisions within the ordinance that were

viewed as areas of importance that would need to be communicated to Council

should there be questions. The Commissioners discussed each section of the

ordinance at length before

voting on whether to leave the section as written or request changes from Legal

department staff.

There was general discussion on the format of the Tiers and the day limitations

within the regulations. Concern was expressed that the structure was confusing

and if Commissioners were having difficulty with them it was likely Council and the

public would as well. With respect to this observation it was asked of legal staff

how the language could be cleaned up to make clear that the day limitations were

related to “days rented” not advertised on a rental platform. Ms. Thompson

indicated that she would work on a single term that would provide the desired

distinction. Mr. Zenner noted that with all the inquires he had been receiving that

he made clear the distinction the Commission felt was necessary. He further noted

that he explained what the differences were between STR use and long-term rental

use.

To provide structure to the discussion, the Chairman sought to approved each of

the sections of the proposed regulations as discussion was completed. Having

discussed the definitions, a motion was made to have the definitions approved as

presented. The motion was seconded and there was additional discussion to

amend the motion to ensure that changes regarding the differentiation between

days “rented” and days “advertised” be clarified. The amendment to the original

motion was accepted. There was no additional discussion on the definitions and

the motion to approve them, as amended, was unanimously accepted by the

Commission.

The Commission then moved to discussing the remaining portions of the proposed

regulations. There was general discussion on the value of Tier 1. After significant

discussion relating to why Tier 1 was prepared (generally to accommodate renters

and to create a less intense licensure path for “mon & pop” STR operators) it was

concluded that such provisions would be retained. There was also lengthy

discussion about removing the provisions associated with “secondary residence”

from Tier 2 of the regulations in their entirety and considering allowing a dwelling

that was not a principal or secondary residence of the owner to be considered

permissible within the residential zoning districts via a CUP. This was proposed as a

means of simplifying the proposed regulations given the term secondary residence

was viewed by some as being problematic and addressing an underlying concern

that the ordinance did not allow “investor-owned” property to be operated as an

STR in residential zoning districts.

There was lengthy discussion of the proposed change and how if it were

implemented it would significantly alter the regulations that had been prepared.

Ms. Thompson noted that she would need to look over the standards to see how

significant the changes would be, but noted there would be multiple locations that

would require revisions. Commissioners discussed how the existing licensure

limitations would control the number of STRs any single individual could legally

operate and the fact that such uses would only be permitted via a CUP reviewed

and recommended by the Commission and approved by City Council. There was

also discussion that this change would create an option not previously existing and

remove confusing language relating to “secondary residence”.

There was additional discussion relating to the impacts that the proposed change

would have on Tier 3. After further discussion it was concluded that the tier would

need to be retained, in a modified form, since it addressed the operation of an STR

for a period greater than 120 days which was still to remain unavailable within the

residential zones.

The Commissioners reviewed the remaining provisions within the regulations and

asked what impacts the proposed parking requirements would have in the M-DT.

Mr. Zenner noted that he would have to look to see if any conflicts existed and

would get back with the Commission. .No other concerns were expressed by the

Commission as it related to the provisions that had been created within the draft

regulations. There was a motion to approve the provisions as written with the

exception of modifications discussed to remove “secondary residence” from Tier 2

and creating a CUP process to accommodate “secondary and investor-owned”

residences within the residential zoning district. The motion was passed. Staff

noted that it would work to revise the proposed regulations and present a revision

to the Commission at its next work session.

VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS

None received

VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE - August 10, 2023 @ 5:30 pm (tentative)

IX. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 6:58.

Move to adjourn