City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

CONFERENCE RM

1A/1B

Thursday, October 24, 2024

5:30 PM

WORK SESSION

CITY HALL

701 E BROADWAY

I. CALL TO ORDER

8 -

Present:

Anthony Stanton, Sharon Geuea Jones, Peggy Placier, Shannon Wilson, Thomas

Williams, Robert Walters, McKenzie Ortiz and David Brodsky

1 - Sara Loe

Excused:

II. INTRODUCTIONS

The Chair recognized the newest Commission appointees David Brodsky and

Mackenzie Ortiz. Commissioners introduced themselves and Commissioners

Brodsky and Ortiz provided background about themselves as well as interest in

serving on the Commission.

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously

Move to approve as submitted

8 - Stanton, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Williams, Walters, Ortiz and Brodsky

Yes:

1 - Loe

Excused:

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

September 19, 2024 Work Session

The September 19, 2024 work session minutes were approved unanimously with

Commisioners Brodsky and Ortiz abstaining.

Motion to approve minutes as submitted

V. OLD BUSINESS

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

Mr. Zenner introduced the topic and provided an overview of what the intended

outcome of the discussion was desired to be. He stated one of the objectives of

discussing the application questions was to hopefully reduced the number of

questions and the amount of discussion on each application during the public

hearing by collecting common information up front and reporting it out to the

Commission within the staff reports. He further noted that a second objective was

to develop a set of standard questions that the Commissioners could ask during

each hearing such that a consistent public record would be created for every STR

CUP request. Such standardization would potentially reduce opportunities for

applicants to claim the Commission was arbitrary and/or capacious in rendering its

decision on a CUP request. Finally, Mr. Zenner noted that he believed it would be

valuable to discuss how the Commission saw the 300-foot separation criteria being

used in the decision-making process. Mr. Zenner noted that being consistent in

how this standard is applied is essential such that challenges to the STR regulations

are minimized.

Mr. Zenner noted that the staff reports on the Regular meeting agenda for this

evening should have appeared different. He noted that the changes were the

result of staff attempting to address general Commission questions offered during

the public hearing at the September 19 meeting. These changes dealt with the

topics of occupancy as well as length of STR use prior to making application for STR

licensure. He noted that the text relating to ADA accessibility was also modified to

be consistent with earlier report formats.

In the course of this discussion, the Commission revisited the topic of having

greater information provided with respect to possible past rental code violations.

Several Commissioners noted that having this information would help in their

evaluation of an applicant’s likely compliance or non-compliance with the STR

use-specific standards. Mr. Zenner noted that as part of the current background

research on each application an evaluation of violations on the subject property

was conducted; however, no records search was performed with respect to the

applicant and their other rental property interests.

He noted that pulling violation records for other properties that the applicant may

operate within the City was possible; however, pulling records from other

jurisdictions was not appropriate given there was no way of knowing under what

circumstances those violations may have been issued. Furthermore, Mr. Zenner

expressed concern that having this information could prejudice the Commission in

making its decisions given not all violations are the making of an applicant

themselves, but in the context of long-term rentals, could be caused by their

tenants. He further questioned on how acquiring and presenting this information

furthered the underlying objective of performing a “land use” analysis with respect

to the CUP application.

Mr. Zenner noted that rental code violations are often resolved over a period of

time and that he was unaware that there were a significant number of long-term

rental operators losing their rental certificates as a result of violations. He further

noted that given the Commission is considering a CUP request, they have the ability

to recommend limitations on the operational characteristics of the STR which

should be based on the potential incompatibility it could poise on the surrounding

environment. Mr. Zenner noted that the regulations establish maximum

parameters, but due to the CUP, the Commission can restrict those when seen as

necessary to ensure code compliance.

There was significant discussion between staff and the Commission relating to this

topic with no specific resolution being offered. Mr. Craig was asked if he would

look into the topic and provide a legal opinion if such actions were possible. Mr.

Craig indicated that he would review the matter. Mr. Zenner indicated that he

would continue his evaluation based on violations specific to the property sought

for CUP approval.

Thee was also additional discussion with respect to the location of a “designated

agent”. The purpose of the desired question was to better understand if an

applicant, seeking to use their “principal residence” and serving as the “designated

agent” would be onsite or staying elsewhere when the dwelling was in STR use.

Commissioners desired that the applicant to disclose if they would be on-site or

not, and if off-site how far away from the STR would they be located. There was

discussion about if getting a distance from the STR, if not on-site, was necessary

given the STR regulations already required that a designated agent be within Boone

County.

Mr. Zenner noted that he could ask the question on the application form and that it

would be an appropriate question to ask again during the public hearing for the

benefit of all in attendance. Addressing the requested application change as

recommended was supported by the Commissioners.

There was additional conversation about how the number of days of rental were

arrived at. Mr. Zenner and Commissioners Stanton and Geuea Jones provided an

explanation. Additionally, there was discussion on STR license transfer and what

happens when a property with an STR license is sold. Mr. Zenner explained that

licenses are non-transferrable and that staff had not devised a process by which to

track property transfers such that once a property is sold a license would become

inactive or voided.

It was recommended that the application be amended to ensure that the

“non-transferrable” element of the license was made clear upfront. Mr. Zenner

noted that could be done and that it may also be worthwhile to have similar

language added to the actual STR Certificate of Compliance.

Given time constraints and the desire to have a legal opinion offered by Mr. Craig

on the issue of violation history, Mr. Zenner noted that the Commission would

return to this topic at a future work session meeting. Following completion of

discussion on this topic, official changes to the STR application would be made.

VI. NEXT MEETING DATE - November 7, 2024 @ 5:30 pm (tentative)

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 7 pm.

Moved to adjourn