City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Columbia City Hall

Conference Rm 1A/1B

701 E Broadway

Thursday, May 22, 2025

5:30 PM

Work Session

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

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously.

Approved agenda as submitted

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

May 8, 2025 Work Session

The May 8, 2025 work session minutes approved unanimously.

Approved May 8 work session minutes as presented

V. OLD BUSINESS

A. Short-term Rentals - UDC Amendments Follow-up

Mr. Zenner provide an overview of the changes made to the regulations following

the last work session and noted that there had been discussion with Mr. Craig on

the proposed inclusion of the parking standards within proposed Tier 1. Mr. Zenner

explained that following this discussion it was concluded that the reduction in the

amount of required parking for STRs should only appear in the “Permitted” use

section of proposed Tier 1. This conclusion was arrived at after discussion the

limitations of the Commission’s authority on granting relief to standard zoning

provisions. The Commission is only permitted to grant relief to standard zoning

provisions when that relief is associated with a PD zoned property. All other relief

from the standard provisions of the UDC are delegated to the Board of Adjustment.

Given this conclusion and based upon staff’s understanding of the underlying

desire to allow the maximum number of operators to participate in the STR market

without being impacted by potential on-site/off-street parking requirements, new

provisions were created that would restrict dwellings that could not provide

sufficient parking to a maximum of 120-nights of annually usage as a permittable

option without triggering a CUP provided none of the other CUP factors were

triggered. There was general discussion on the proposed exception and concerns

were expressed that there was not a limitation on the number of occupants that

would be allowed in dwellings that could not met the parking standards. It was

observed that is a dwelling could meet IPMC standards for maximum occupancy the

revision would be granting a significant amount of relief.

Mr. Zenner noted that staff could examine a possible additional restriction in the

exception that would establish a guest cap as well as the night restriction. He noted

that most dwellings within the City have been required to provide no fewer than 2

parking spaces for decades regardless of zoning classification. If a restriction of 4

guests and 120-nights were established it would likely cover all possible scenarios

and allow at least minimal use of a dwelling that could not or was not willing to

provide the required 1space/2 guests standard minimum parking.

There was general Commission discussion on this proposed modification and it was

agreed that the provision made sense; however, there also renewed discussion on

the value of eliminating current Tier 1 and increasing the level of STR activity from

the current 30-nights to 120-nights without any significant oversight. Several

Commissioners commented on the necessity to revise the regulations to make

them more efficient and reduce burdens upon the staff, Commission, and Council.

Additionally, there was discussion that current Tier 1 was unused given there were

no other changes in the administrative processes to make it more desirable or

efficient than either of the other existing Tiers. Following this discussion, a vote

was taken to direct staff to move forward with modifying the text and retaining the

provisions to allow some form of parking relief

Mr. Zenner then proceed to discuss the amendments to the STR definitions

explaining why the changes were being made. He noted that an alternative

definition for “long-term resident” was being offered to address the idea that

authorized long-term tenants were permitted to obtain STR licenses. Given the

term “principal residence” was being eliminated, Mr. Zenner explained that

revising the definition of “long-term resident” as proposed appeared logical, since

a “long-term resident” was referring to both an owner and long-term tenant

occupying their “principal residence”. Without “principal residence” being

retained, it seemed appropriate to just streamline the regulations and have

“owners” and “authorized tenants” defined as individuals eligible to obtain STR

licenses. The Commissioners acknowledged the rational behind the definition

adjustments; however, did not express a clear preference on retaining the current

“long-term resident” definition or replacing it with the new “authorized tenant”

definition. Commissioners indicated they would leave that up to staff to determine

which definition was most appropriate for the final draft of the amendments.

Mr. Zenner then moved onto the last section of the changes that had not been

previously discussed which dealt with the Permitted Use Table. There was

significant discussion on why the Commission chose to have STRs shown as

“conditional accessory”, “conditional”, and “permitted” uses within the table.

Concern was expressed that the revisions to the table were essential condoning

the fulltime use of a dwelling as an STR by eliminating the “conditional accessory”

designation. Mr. Zenner explained that once the use of a dwelling as an STR

become its primary use by days it was no longer technically an accessory use to the

dwelling; therefore, its designation as “conditional accessory” in the residential

zoning categories was moot.

Commissioners asked Mr. Craig if there was a legal reason that STRs in the

residential districts needed to remain classified as a “conditional accessory” use.

Mr. Craig indicated he could not think of one at that moment and would have to do

additional research. Mr. Zenner noted that given the proposed structure of the

amendment and the new Tiers, an STR fell into two distinct categories “permitted”

or “conditional”. He believed adding “accessory” to the use was simply semantics

and had not bearing. Questions were asked about how several other uses within

residential dwellings were categorized - specifically home occupations. Mr. Zenner

noted that this use was coded as accessory as is an ADU.

Following additional limited discussion on the changes to the Permitted Use Table,

the Commission agreed that staff should proceed forward in preparing the final

text change for a public hearing on June 5. Mr. Zenner noted that the advertising

had already be placed and run earlier in the week. He further noted that the

changes discussed during the work session would be incorporated into the final

public hearing draft of the amendment.

B. UDC Revision - Definition of "Family" Follow-up

Mr. Teddy apprised the Commission of the additional research and supplemental

definitions that had been identified with respect to how family is defined in other

communities. He discussed the approaches that Madison, Wisconsin had

conducted and talked about how a common theme in many definitions focused on

the concept of “a single housekeeping unit”.

Given the limited amount of time for Commissioner discussion, the focus was on

concerns about not accommodating multi-generational families and possible

abuses of any future definition. There was again discussion on how to craft a

definition that was very empirical with its basis on already adopted and applied

standards such as the IPMC. Staff pointed out several options within the definitions

presented that could potentially address some the expressed concerns -

specifically the use of the term “single housekeeping unit” and “upto”.

If the new definition of family focused on the idea of a single housekeeping unit

and stayed away from trying to define family relationship that could lead to a

definition that would be inclusive enough to allow for multi-generational families

of varying sizes. Incorporating the term “up to” would potentially allow for a caveat

to be created for the multi-generational or different cultural groups to occupy the

same home as well as place a known cap on occupy throughout the City generally.

Given meeting time was running short and the discussion on the topic was not fully

completed it was agreed that this matter would appear on the next work session

agenda.

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

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 7:05 pm.

Move to adjourn