City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

CONFERENCE RM

1A/1B

Thursday, November 7, 2024

5:30 PM

WORK SESSION

CITY HALL

701 E BROADWAY

I. CALL TO ORDER

9 -

Present:

Sara Loe, Anthony Stanton, Sharon Geuea Jones, Peggy Placier, Shannon Wilson,

Thomas Williams, Robert Walters, McKenzie Ortiz and David Brodsky

II. INTRODUCTIONS

None

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously

Moved to adopt agenda as presented

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

October 24, 2024 Work Session

The October 24, 2024 work session minutes were approved unanimously with

Commissioner Loe abstaining.

Motion to approve minutes as presented

V. OLD BUSINESS

A. STR Application & CUP Criteria - Discussion Follow-up

Mr. Zenner noted that prior to jumping into the further evaluation of additional STR

application questions he desired to address a concern/observation made by

Commissioner Williams in an email with respect to the STR regulations and

potential error in a cross-reference. The alleged error, Mr. Zenner noted was

correctly observed and was made with respect to the waiver of supplemental

on-site/off-street parking applicable to Tier 2 & 3 STRs. He clarified that the

availability of parking on-site/off-street governed the amount of occupancy within

an STR and noted that provision of more parking on a site did not permit a greater

level of transient occupancy. The STR regulations placed a “hard-cap” of 8 transient

guests per dwelling. Commission Loe provided clarification on how the 8 guests

limit was arrived at.

Mr. Zenner noted that the errant cross-references within Secs. 29-3.3(vv)(1)(ii)(A)

(2) and (B)(2) as well as 29-3.3(vv)(iii)(B) would be addressed when amendments to

the STR regulations were next processed. In the interim, the staff would address

questions with respect to the error as they arise.

Having explained how Mr. Williams observation would be addressed, the meeting’s

focus returned to additional application questions that may be appropriate to ask as

part of the initial application in-take. Mr. Zenner reiterated, the purpose of seeking

this input was to hopefully make discussion on each application during the public

hearing shorter. He noted that several new evaluation elements were already

added into the last batch of staff reports. Commissioner Geuea Jones asked if

Commissioner’s had any additional questions that they’d like to have added to

application.

Aside from the previously discussed application questions relating to the number

of nights of prior rental in the past year, the distance that a designation would be

from the dwelling if they were the “long-term” resident and not on-site during STR

usage, and updating the application to ensure it clearly conveyed that the STR

Certificate was not transferrable there were no additional application specific

questions offered. Mr. Zenner noted that staff was presently reporting out on

“violations” associated with the subject property, referencing potential

“accessibility” requirements in more general terms, and had begun to make

comments relating to occupancy based on the stated bedroom/sleeping space

square footages stated on the application.

There was general discussion with respect to the potential of including more

expansive information on surrounding land uses adjoining STR properties as well as

being more deliberate with respect to the evaluation criteria that sought

information about STRs within 300-feet of a subject property. Mr. Zenner again

desired to seek clarity on how this standard would impact future STR decisions and

expressed concern that consistency would be necessary following the first

potential denial of an STR based on this criterion.

In the ensuing discussion, the Commission expressed concerns about STRs near

schools as they may inadvertently offer opportunities for persons that are classified

as “sexual offenders” the opportunity to rent such properties. This concern was

expressed given that several applications previously before the Commission were

across from schools; however, was offered more as an observation than a desire to

specifically restrict or have a default “denial” position when such applications were

to be considered. Several Commissioner spoke with respect to this concern and

much of the discussion focused on who was responsible monitoring and reporting

the locations of such individuals. The general Commission consensus was that it

was the sexual offender’s responsibility to comply with the Sexual Registry laws of

the State and that attempting to require an operator of an STR to do something may

be inappropriate via the STR CUP process.

As discussion continued, Mr. Craig advised the Commission that based on prior

questions asked about what the Commission could reasonably ask staff to research

or utilize as part of their consideration of a CUP he noted that those elements had

to conform to what they were authorized to do by their enable legislation and the

provision in the legislation that they were authorized to administer. He noted that

the present discussion was likely beyond the scope of authority established or

granted to them at this point; however, if a text change were proposed that

established criteria for evaluation the distance and spacing of STR from several of

the protected land uses discussed that could be a legal manner in which the

expressed concerns could be addressed.

Mr. Zenner noted that the staff would continue to provide land use analysis of the

surrounding conditions as part of the staff reporting process. Based on this

information the Commission could hopefully have sufficient information to may

informed decisions.

Having completed this discussion and given limited remaining work session time,

Mr. Zenner summarized what he understood the STR application and report

changes would be moving forward. These changes included:

1. # of STR rental nights in the prior year

2. Location of the designation agent, if also the registrant, when the

dwelling was in STR use

3. Complaint/violation history of the property

4. More clarity on “non-transferability” of STR Certificate

5. Evaluation of “tentative” occupancy based on bedroom/sleeping space

square footages

Commissioners acknowledged that these criteria/issues/elements were what they

desired, at this time, to see within future staff report on STR CUP requests. Mr.

Zenner thanked the Commission for their input and noted that the application

would be updated to reflect these changes.

VI. NEXT MEETING DATE - November 21, 2024 @ 5:30 pm (tentative)

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 7 pm.

Moved to adjourn