City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Columbia City Hall

Conference Rm 1A/1B

701 E Broadway

Thursday, April 24, 2025

5:30 PM

Work Session

I. CALL TO ORDER

8 -

Present:

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

Robert Walters, McKenzie Ortiz and David Brodsky

1 - Thomas Williams

Excused:

II. INTRODUCTIONS

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously.

Approve agenda as submitted

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

April 10, 2025 Work Session

The April 10, 2025 work session minutes approved unanimously with

Commissioners Brodsky and Geuea Jones abstaining.

Approve April 10 minutes as presented

V. NEW BUSINESS

A. Short-term Rentals - UDC Amendments Discussion

Mr. Zenner introduced the topic indicating that the Council had directed staff to

work on the 3 proposed amendments presented in their work session packet. Mr.

Zenner noted that the purpose of the discussion needed to remain focused on the 3

amendments presented which were developed following an analysis of regulatory

progress over the approximate 1 year of STR regulation. He noted that the

proposed amendments are intended to increase the efficiency of the STR review

and compliance process and allow for better allocation of staff, Commission, and

Council resources on other regulatory matters.

Mr. Zenner noted that the three changes were 1) to eliminate Tier 1 STRs in their

entirety given this level of licensure was not being used by any registrants, 2)

revise the number of nights of STR use available to all applicants prior regardless of

their ownership/occupant status within the dwelling, and 3) revise the criteria for

when a conditional use permit (CUP) would be triggered. He made clear that the

proposed revisions did not change any criteria about the number of licenses that

could be obtained or the fact that a CUP would still be required for particular

situations.

Mr. Zenner provided an explanation of each amendment, based on observed data

from the past 9 months of licensure actions, for why each amendment was

proposed in the format that it was. He indicated that the changes were seen as

necessary to increase processing time efficiencies with STR requests given the

volume of applications that have not been received. Mr. Zenner noted that the last

review of existing STRs within city stood at approximately 475-500 of which only

approximately 50 have sought licensure.

There was significant discussion with respect to each proposed revision. Concerns

were expressed that eliminating Tier 1 may be premature given the regulation

were not in “full” enforcement mode and that the tier was potentially not well

understood. There was discussion that this tier was intended to be the least

restrictive and allow the “broadest” opportunity for residents (owner/long-term

occupant) to participate in the STR market. Mr. Zenner explained that while this

was what was desired by the Commission, it was not in fact what was created with

the adoption of the regulations for zoning or other areas of the City Code dealing

with STRs. All application, inspection, and licensing requirements applied (with the

exception of parking) to each Tier equally. He noted that no one has chosen Tier 1

based on the fact that a Tier 2 status with 120-nights requires the same level of

effort and regulatory steps.

Commissioner expressed concern that this was not what was adopted. After

lengthy discussion on the merits of the Tier, Commissioners ultimately concluded

that regardless if the STR standards were in “full” compliance mode or not that

retaining the Tier really made limited sense given the other inspection and

licensure processes that were required outside of the zoning provisions.

Commissioners reluctantly indicated support of removing this Tier from the STR

regulations and the renumbering of the remaining Tiers.

Mr. Zenner then proceeded to explain the remaining changes proposed. He noted

the first significant change would be the consolidation of the number of nights

available for STR use in the new Tier 1 (former Tier 2). This change was based on the

fact that most applications submitted were seeking 210-nights even if they were

submitted by the “long-term resident”. Mr. Zenner reiterated that the inspection

and licensure standards were the same for a 120-night or 210-night STR and that

having two levels of STR usage based on who was operating the STR was not seen as

efficient. He further noted that having the structure this way was confusing to

applicants, requires additional staff time to respond to application questions, and

creates additional demands for processing CUP applications for the Commission

and Council. Mr. Zenner further stated, that there was nothing prohibiting an

operator who wanted to “self-limit” there dwelling for STR purposes to do so and

asked if that was really something that the City needed to be significantly

concerned about given the structure of the remaining STR regulations were not

proposed for changes.

Commissioners discussed this revision and noted that by making this change the

idea of differentiating between an “accessory” and “primary” use of a dwelling as

an STR would be altered. There was Commission discussion on what effects this

would have given their current pattern of decision making and if the Commission

wanted to continue to 3+ hour meetings to address the likely future licensure

needs given only about 10% of the currently identified STRs had come forward.

There was general Commission agreement that simplifying this aspect of the

regulations was potentially valuable; however, several Commissioners were

reluctant given the ordinance was not in “full” enforcement yet.

With respect to these reservations, some Commissioners noted that most

applications reviewed were not operating presently for more than 120-nights and

that applicants were simply seeking the greatest flexibility to operate and were

therefore seeking the 210-night CUP. There were comments offered that

suggested once the STR regulations became “fully” enforceable there could be an

increase in submittals seeking an “administrative 120-night” licensure just to avoid

the CUP process. Several Commissioners acknowledged these outcomes were a

possibility, but consideration of how not changing the text as proposed would

affect the staff, Commission, and Council’s workload was equally as important to

consider. With respect to this proposed change, there was no clear preference

expressed by the Commission.

Finally, Mr. Zenner explained what the 3 conditions that would trigger an STR

application to obtain a CUP. He noted that the first trigger was based on the

desired to avoid making “blocks” becoming dominated by STRs and areas becoming

“over-concentrated” with them. The second provision was addressing a current STR

report topic that deals with “open” regulatory violations (of any kind) or

documented STR operational complaints. Finally, the third condition that would

trigger a CUP was the proximity to a school which was in effort to address a topic

expressed as a concern by Commissioners.

There was Commission discussion on these criteria. Some Commissioners

expressed concern that if an application didn’t trigger any of the requirements they

would automatically be approved. There was a concern that this could lead to

issuance of licenses that may be impactful on neighboring residents without proper

vetting. Commissioners discussed how not changing the standards could impact the

length of the meetings and what, if any, outcomes would change if they continued

to hear all cases as the ordinance currently requires. Comments were made that the

regulatory process provides new measures to address negative impacts and that

those standards needed to be relied on to address poorly operated STRs.

Clarification was sought about how surrounding property owners would be notified

if the recommended overall revisions were implemented. Mr. Zenner noted that

this could be addressed “post” licensure given the overall amendments are

designed to streamline the application/compliance process. To notice/solicit

surrounding property owner comments during the application review cycle for

what is deemed an “administrative” process would potentially create unintended

consequences. The criteria for triggering a CUP relies on existing complaint records

not unverifiable complaints from adjacent property owners which is often

presented at current public hearings.

Commissioners further discussed the recommendation about spacing of STRs along

the same “street frontage” and radially. There was concern expressed with the use

of word “street frontage” and that the allowance of 3 within a 300-foot radius was

potentially too intense. Mr. Zenner noted that the choice of these criteria where in

acknowledgement that once more STRs become compliant there needs to be a way

to accommodate them more efficiently. As licensure rates increase it is likely that

CUP requests will as well; therefore, there will not be a loss of oversight and

fulfillment of the underlying intent of the current regulatory structure.

Commissioners were concerned that the changes, especially those relating to

“street frontage” could lead to situations creating “winner/loser” with respect to

STR operations. It was noted that the entire regulatory process as presently

existing does that already.

There was an expressed desire to modify the recommended spacing standards.

Commissioners asked if staff were insistent on the proposed structure given. Staff

noted it was not given the other changes proposed in the amendment. Given this

response the Commission recommended that the proposed language within the

first CUP criterion be changed to just be triggered when 1 approved and/or licensed

STR is within 300-feet of another.

The Commission continued its discussion with respect to the second CUP criterion

and sought to have an additional element added to text. This additional element

was to require a CUP if a previously issued STR Certificate of Compliance had been

revoked. Mr. Zenner noted that this was already contained within the Chapter 29

provisions; however, for cross-referencing purposes adding the provision was not

seen as an issue.

The Commission sought clarity from legal counsel with respect to the changes

discussed. Mr. Craig noted that he would need to look more closely at the changes

being proposed but had been taking notes. He stated that he was reviewing the

document along with the Commission during the work session and had, in addition

to the Commission’s requested changes, several of his own. He noted he would

coordinate with Mr. Zenner on the final format of the text.

Commissioners also noted that there needed to be additional text added to the

new Tier 1 that gave guidance to an applicant possibly reading the revised language

that paragraph “B” (i.e. the conditional use standards) was required. Several

Commissioners noted that if an applicant were to reading the requirements within

the Tier following Paragraph A they may not actually understand that they aren’t a

“Permitted Use” but rather a “Conditional Use”.

Mr. Craig indicated he would look into what language was needed to address the

Commissioner’s concerns. Mr. Zenner noted, that given the application review

process that must be administered before a license application is forwarded

through the process this type of applicant oversight would be addressed; however,

acknowledged that making the text clearer would be best to avoid any preventable

errant application submissions.

Having run out of time within the work session, Mr. Zenner thank the Commission

for their contributions with respect to the recommended changes. He noted that

this matter would be the topic of the May 8 work session at which discussion was

intended to be completed. Following the May 8 work session, it was staff’s intent

to have this matter prepared for a public hearing before the Planning Commission

at an upcoming meeting (likely June 5). Mr. Zenner noted that Council was not

expecting to have this matter returned to them for review until after the

Commission’s public hearing occurred.

VI. NEXT MEETING DATE - May 8, 2025 @ 5:30 pm (tentative)

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 7 pm.

Move to adjourn