City of Columbia, Missouri  
Meeting Minutes  
Planning and Zoning Commission  
Conference Rooms  
Thursday, February 10, 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.  
Approve agenda as submitted  
January 20, 2022 Work Session  
January 20, 2022 work session minutes adopted as presented.  
Approve January 10 minutes as presented  
A. Short-term rental regulations - Revised Ordinance Outline, Tier  
One Standards, Permitted Use Table  
Mr. Zenner introduced the topic and explained the changes made between the last  
work session and the current meeting. He noted that he had prepared a “draft”  
permitted use table showing the inclusion of “Short-term Rental” as a use within  
table as was discussed at the end of the last meeting. He further explained that he  
pre-populated the district categories with one of three different types of letters -  
“P” for permitted “by-right” uses, “C” for conditional uses, or “A” for accessory uses  
based on his general understanding of the desires of the Commission from their  
prior discussion. Mr. Zenner provided an explanation of what each letter  
designation meant in terms of the UDC’s Permitted Use Table definitions.  
He explained that upon reviewing the UDC definitions, the “CA” designation  
(conditional accessory use) discussed as an option at the last work session was in  
fact not applicable given how the Commission desired to approach the STR use.  
This was due to the fact that a CA use was only applicable in instances where a  
primary use of the land was permitted via an approved conditional use. In all  
instances that the Commission was considering, an STR would be allowed as either  
“P”, “C” or “A”. The most common scenario would be that the use would be a “C” or  
“A” use given the primary use of the lot would be for single, two, or multi-family  
residential dwellings.  
Prior to engaging in additional discussion on the Permitted Use Table, Mr. Zenner  
noted that he had engaged in discussion with the Building Department on their  
thoughts regarding owner occupancy of a dwelling unit during any portion of its use  
as an STR. Mr. Zenner stated that Building Regulation Supervisor’s opinion was that  
such occupancy was not required of any single or two-family structure used for STR  
purposes. He further read the definition of “dwelling” from the IRC emphasizing  
that there was no reference to a requirement for owner-occupancy within single or  
two-family dwellings when rented, leased, let, or hired out.  
There was discussion on how this opinion appeared to conflict with prior  
communications referencing “lodging house” that required an owner-occupant to  
be present when five or fewer guest rooms were rented out to 10 or fewer guests.  
Mr. Zenner noted that the opinion offered did not conflict with the prior  
communications and that the Building Regulation Supervisor still agreed that a  
structure permitted as a “lodging house” would require an owner-occupant for it to  
legally be rented.  
He noted that “lodging house” and STR were viewed as completely independent  
uses and that a definition for STR would need to be established to ensure sufficient  
zoning provisions were established to govern them. Mr. Zenner noted that this was  
his understanding of why the Commission and staff were preparing the proposed  
regulations. There was discussion on the desire to avoid creating multiple and  
conflicting definitions between the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance.  
As part of the ensuing discussion many topics were discussed and it was generally  
concluded that the maximum bedroom and occupant provisions of the Building  
Code relating to “lodging houses” could be used as the general parameters by  
which an STR would be regulated. Mr. Zenner offered a simplistic definition of STR  
and noted that within each category of STR (accessory or “Guest Accommodation”)  
use-specific standards that did not conflict with the Building Code provisions for  
“lodging house” could be created. The basic idea was that more restrictive  
standards to limit STR impacts were permissible, but avoiding out-right conflicts  
with what was regulated by the IRC (International Residential Code) should be  
avoided at all costs. Anything containing more bedrooms or accommodating more  
guests than the IRC provisions for “lodging house” would force such a structure to  
comply with the more stringent requirements (i.e. sprinklers, emergency access,  
etc) of the IBC (International Building Code).  
Having addressed the issue of the opinion relating to owner-occupancy of single or  
two-family dwellings, the Commission discussed the classifications (“P”, “C”, “A”)  
for STRs in the “accessory” use section of the Permitted Use Table. There was  
concern expressed that allowing such uses to occur without the presence of an  
owner may not address negative impacts upon adjoining residential uses. There  
was also concern expressed about the fact that the details associated with  
maximum occupancy or bedroom use was not clearly defined. Without these  
issues being fully vetted some Commissioners were uncomfortable in classifying  
where an STR should be allowed as an accessory use to the principal single, two, or  
multi-family dwelling.  
Several Commissioners noted that the additional restrictions would be developed  
as the next step in the regulatory drafting process. It was stated that the primary  
focus at this moment was to identify in what zoning districts an STR was believed to  
be a compatible uses with the primary residential dwelling. Following additional  
discussion, a motion was made to approve the proposed use categorizations as  
shown in the Permitted Use Table attached to the agenda. The motion was  
approved 8-1, with Commissioner Burns voting no.  
B. Short-term Rental Regulations - Proposed Defintions  
There was discussion on the adoption of several definitions during the course of  
the meeting for the purposes of adding clarity to how individual “use-specific  
standards” would be applied to the different categories of STR (i.e. accessory or  
“Guest Accommodation). There were questions asked if the definitions being  
considered were to only apply to the first category of STR approved (accessory) or if  
the definitions would be applicable to all categories. Mr. Zenner explained that the  
definitions would be application to all categories.  
A motion was made to adopt the definition for “Short-term Rental” that was  
proposed by Commission Geuea-Jones. There was discussion regarding the  
wording in the definition regarding the phase “not more than 30 days”. Several  
Commissioners questioned the phase and sought clarification on the motion and  
definition to be considered since there was a similar definition presented in the  
staff’s compilation of definitions.  
Mr. Zenner explained that the definition offered by the staff was the same as that  
prepared for consideration in the original STR ordinance from 2019. He noted that  
the phase in question in the staff’s definition referenced “less than thirty-one (31)  
days”. He stated that this language was prepared to match the definitions provided  
in other City ordinances dealing with lodging and taxes. Mr. Zenner noted that  
whichever definition the Commission wanted to adopt would be acceptable and  
could be “tweaked” prior to adoption if necessary to ensure cross-consistency  
among the several codes that could be impacted.  
Commissioner Carroll noted that the phrases in question said the same thing and it  
was really a matter of semantics. After additional discussion the Commission  
moved to approve the definition for STR as presented in the staff’s definition list  
from their December 30, 2021 memo. The motion was approved by a vote of 9-0.  
There was additional discussion on the adoption of a definition for “Owner”. Mr.  
Zenner pointed out that this would be critical as the categories of STR (accessory or  
“Guest Accommodation”) would rely on a clear understanding of this aspect. He  
noted that the definitions provided in the staff memo from December 30, 2021  
offered several different options listed A-F; however, he felt that focusing on  
options A-E were more relevant given option F was a two-part definition and  
focused on a topic of “primary residence” which, up to this point, had not been fully  
discussed with the Commission.  
Mr. Zenner noted that the first definition was an adaptation from the 2018  
International Building Code (IBC) definition for owner with some modifications to  
include provisions that were previously discussed by the Commission. He further  
stated that the IRC did not define the term “owner”. The adaptations were to  
provide recognition that a “tenant” could be considered an owner.  
There was significant discussion on this definition. Concerns were expressed that it  
was not sufficiently narrow to address possible issues with investor operations and  
that it may not be fully accurate to the IBC definition. There was discussion of using  
Option F (permanent resident) in lieu of term “owner”. There were also questions  
asked that if this definition would be applicable to all STRs or if it would only apply  
to those classified as accessory. Mr. Zenner noted the intent was to have it  
applicable to all STRs and that through use-specific standards limitations could be  
create that more narrowly defined how an owner could use a dwelling for STR  
Following additional discussion, the Commission made a motion to adopt the  
Option A definition of “owner” as presented in the December 30, 2021 staff report.  
This motion failed to garner support of the Commission. It was noted that the  
Commission would continue its discussion on the other definitions of “owner” at  
the upcoming February 24 work session.  
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE - February 24, 2022 @ 5:30 pm (tentative)  
Meeting adjourned approximately 7:00 pm  
Move to adjourn