City of Columbia, Missouri  
Meeting Minutes  
Planning and Zoning Commission  
Conference Rooms  
Thursday, January 20, 2022  
5:30 PM  
Work Session  
Columbia City Hall  
701 E. Broadway  
9 -  
Tootie Burns, Sara Loe, Joy Rushing, Anthony Stanton, Michael MacMann, Valerie  
Carroll, Sharon Geuea Jones, Robbin Kimbell and Peggy Placier  
Meeting Agenda adopted unanimously.  
Move to approve agenda as presented  
January 6, 2022 Work Session  
January 6, 2022 work session minutes adopted as presented.  
Move to approve January 6 work session minutes as presented  
A. Short-term Rental Regulations - Draft Ordinance Outline, Tier  
One, and Geuea Jones proposals  
Mr. Zenner provided an introduction and described a slightly different approach to  
crafting regulations for pursuing the creation of a simplified STR ordinance. He  
described three general sections of information that the new regulation would  
potentially include and sought the Commission feedback on the elements within  
each section. Mr. Zenner noted that the sections were at a “broad” level and the  
“devil” would be in the details as how each element within the sections would be  
flushed out.  
He described Section 1 and noted that definitions for many of the terms proposed  
may already exist in the UDC or other related codes. He stressed that the terms  
proposed were necessary give they would be used in the context of  
zoning/land-use matters. Mr. Zenner further described the relationship the  
zoning/land-use regulations would have to the proposed registration process  
previously prepared for STRs that would reside in the rental compliance code  
section of the municipal code. He noted that once the zoning/land use standards  
were completed the Commission could review the registration standards and offer  
recommendations for minor changes similar to what was discussed with the  
building code at the last meeting.  
Mr. Zenner further described Section 2 and noted that it was proposed to contain  
information on the zones that would permit STRs was well as other use-specific  
standards. He noted that the use could be potentially considered as a principal  
permitted, accessory, or conditional accessory use in different zoning districts. Mr.  
Zenner described the differences between the different categories noting that a  
conditional accessory use would require a Council approval for a dwelling to be  
used as an STR if the Commission saw that option as appropriate.  
Mr. Zenner completed his overview of the staff memo and proposed STR outline by  
describing the contents of Section 3. He described possible use-specific standards  
for design or dimensional requirements, occupancy based on bedrooms and  
specialized parking standards. He made reference to pulling other conditions from  
the original STR ordinance addressing topics such as non-event usage and other  
specific standards that appeared to be common in reviewed ordinances to limit the  
possible negative impact of STRs on the surrounding environment. He suggested  
that to limit the impact of investor operated STRs on affordable housing loss there  
could be use-specific provisions establishing a maximum number or percentage of  
the City’s overall housing stock that would be permitted to operate as an STR. He  
noted that such a provision was very similar to how the City was currently handling  
medical marijuana dispensaries.  
Mr. Zenner also noted that the last element of Section 3 was critical and would  
address how existing STRs would be handled. He noted that in his review of  
ordinances this topic was handled in several ways, but in no instance was  
registration or compliance with the adopted zoning or registration requirements  
waived. The majority of ordinances reviewed required annual registration and  
often include an “amnesty” period for previously operated STRs to become  
compliant within 6-12 months.  
Mr. Zenner noted that the section layout and format was prepared as a means of  
focusing the Commission and staff’s efforts at preparing what was believed to be  
the minimally essential contents of a successful ordinance. He requested  
Commissioner comments on what was presented.  
There was general discussion on the proposed outline. Most Commissioners were  
supportive of the elements and sections; however, there was discussion on shifting  
sections around. Several Commissioners expressed a desire to discuss and resolve  
the matter relating to what zoning districts and in what manner STRs should be  
permitted/allowed. There was discussion that once that matter was resolved  
tailored use-specific standards could be written and from that undefined terms  
would be made clear and could be defined. There was a desire to try to avoid  
creating new definitions for terms wherever possible to reduce confusion.  
In the course of discussing the outline offered by Mr. Zenner the Commissioners  
agreed that defining where STRs should be permitted needed to be addressed first.  
The Commissioners discussed comments offered by Commissioner Rushing at the  
prior work session comparing STRs to home-based daycares. What resonated with  
several Commissioner was the concept that a home-based daycare was only  
permitted when the operated was living within the dwelling. In a similar fashion,  
many Commissioners believed that if an STR was to be permitted within a  
residential zoning district it needed to be occupied by the operator.  
Commissioners saw the use of a dwelling unit occupied by the operator when  
guests were present as a “accessory use” similar to how home-based daycares were  
within the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts.  
On the other end of the spectrum, the Commissioners believed that when an STR  
was not occupied by the operator while guest were present it functioned more  
similarly to a “guest accommodation” as defined within the code. The  
Commissioners discussed how these types of uses were more commercial in nature  
and may require greater scrutiny in where they would be permitted and under  
what conditions.  
There was significant additional discussion amongst the Commissioners regarding  
the detailed use-specific conditions that would need to be created to address the  
differences between the two types of uses. However, Commissioners Loe,  
Geuea-Jones, and Carroll sought to have the Commission make progress in  
resolving where the use “STR” should appear within the Permitted Use Table as a  
first step in moving the regulatory process forward.  
To that end a motion was made to add “STR” as a use within the “Accessory Use”  
section of the Land Use Table. There was further discussion, debate, and  
clarification of what the motion, if approved would do. Following discussion, the  
Commissioners approved adding “STR” as a permitted accessoryuse to the table.  
There was a desire to move forward with determining in what zoning districts the  
use should be added; however, due to time constraints additional discussion was  
Mr. Zenner recommended that he prepare a modified Permitted Use Table for the  
next work session so the Commissioners could graphically see what was being  
proposed. The Commissioners agreed that this was likely a good idea. Chairman  
Loe also requested that feedback from the Building Regulation Supervisor be  
obtained to determine if his interpretation of the Building Code would be different  
if an “accessory STR” was not always occupied by its operator, for any period of  
time, when guests were present.  
Mr. Zenner thanked the Commission for their input at the meeting and noted he  
would discuss the proposed use distinctions with the Building Department and  
would prepare the updated Permitted Use Table for the next meeting.  
A. Short-Term Rental Regulations - Proposed Definitions  
Discussion of definitions was incorporated “broadly” in the new business item  
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE - February 10, 2022 @ 5:30 pm (tentative)  
Meeting adjourned approximately 7:00 pm