City of Columbia, Missouri  
Meeting Minutes  
Planning and Zoning Commission  
Conference Rooms  
Thursday, April 7, 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 submitted  
March 24, 2022 Work Session  
March 24, 2022 work session minutes adopted as presented.  
Move to approve work session minutes as presented  
A. Short-term Rentals - Discussion Summary & Moving Forward  
Chariman Loe introduced the topic and indicated a desire to include a purpose  
statement in the STR regulations given they were covering several different  
elements of land use. She noted that purpose statements existed for the zoning  
districts and that incorporating one into the STR standards would help identify the  
priorities considered as the Commission developed the STR regulations.  
Furthermore, Chairman Loe noted that establishing the purpose statement may  
guide the Commission as they further identify relevant “use-specific standards”  
that would establish the parameters under which STRs would be permitted to  
operate as either “accessory” or “guest accommodations”. Chairman Loe noted  
that she had been giving significant consideration to the purpose statement and  
that it was being brought forward for the Commissioners consideration. The  
proposed purpose statement was presented:  
Primary/Accessory Use of Land and Buildings: Short-Term Rental  
STR use is informed by the following priorities: promoting  
homeownership in the city, maintaining and growing the  
availability of affordable housing in the city, providing equitable  
opportunities for all Columbia residents, and promoting the  
development of strong, healthy, engaged neighborhoods that  
residents want to live in.  
There was significant Commission discussion regarding the purpose statement and  
the stated priorities. There was not Commission consensus that the language was  
fully inclusive of all the actions/considerations that the Commission undertook in  
arriving at the proposed regulations. There was discussion that the establishment  
of the purpose statement and priorities would be useful in helping focus attention  
on what issue drove the regulations to include particular elements and that such  
conveyance would potentially reduce Council initiated amendments once the  
regulations were moved forward to a public hearing. Several Commissioners felt  
that the Council would do with the regulations as they saw fit and that establishing  
a purpose/priority statement may be beyond the scope of what the Commission  
was asked to do.  
Mr. Zenner noted that he was uncertain that the purpose/priority statement was  
appropriate for inclusion within the proposed regulations given they would be  
spread access several different sections of the UDC. He noted that such a  
statement may be more appropriate as the staff and Commission prepared  
correspondence for Council’s considered regarding the complete regulatory  
package. He noted that including such a statement in that type of correspondence  
would allow for Council to express acceptance or disagreement with the issues the  
Commission identified as driving the regulatory development which in turn could  
lead to other topics being identified as important factors that may have been  
There was additional Commission discussion regarding the purpose/priority  
statement and it was determined that prior to acting upon it, Commissioner’s  
needed time to absorb what Chairman Loe had proposed. Mr. Zenner was asked to  
include the prepared statement in the minutes from the meeting such that the  
Commission could review it more thoroughly and take the topic up again at a future  
work session once members had assembled their thoughts about it.  
The Commission moved to the topics contained in the staff report prepared for the  
work session and noted that it was unclear if all the topics/issues noted in the  
summary of actions had been voted upon. The Commission reviewed the  
“dry-erase” board notes and identified that it appeared the issue of one STR per  
entity was not voted upon. A motion was made to only permit one STR per entity in  
all STR tiers.  
There was Commission discussion on the motion which generally focused on how  
this would apply to Tier 3 (fully commercial) STRs. Commissioners noted that Tier 1  
and Tier 2 STRs would be self-regulating given the “primary residence” concept that  
had been previously discussed; however, that Tier 3 STRs may need a somewhat  
relaxed provision given they were only proposed to be permitted within  
“mixed-use/non-residential” zoning districts. Concerns were expressed that  
without having controls established on the number of STRs registered to a single  
entity there could be de facto hotels being created in mixed-use districts via  
conversion of traditional multi-family dwellings moving to STRs as well as  
unintended consequences relating to the loss of affordable housing.  
Mr. Zenner pointed out that to address this issue, a CUP process could be created  
within Tier 3. The CUP process could contain criteria whereby the added impact of  
multiple STRs by the same entity could be evaluated. There was Commission  
discussion on this suggestion, but no consensus reached given the significant  
uncertainty on what the criteria would be. Mr. Zenner also pointed out that the  
original STR regulations contained a provision that addressed the number of STRs  
allowed within multi-family structures as another possible approach to address the  
concerns expressed.  
Several Commissioner’s expressed concern that the conversation had moved away  
from the underlying motion. They noted that it would be easier to make the  
standards less restrictive should “push-back” be received on the proposal than  
trying to tighten the regulation if they were too loose in the beginning. Following  
these observations, Commissioner MacMann “called the question” on the original  
motion to allow only one STR per entity. The Commission voted unanimously (9-0)  
in favor of including this provision within the final draft regulations.  
The Commission then choose to move onto the topic of “occupancy” which also  
appeared to have not been voted upon in prior work sessions. There was  
significant discussion on the concept of limiting occupancy to the standards  
specified in either the IRC (International Residential Code), IBC (International  
Building Code), or IPMC (International Property Maintenance Code). Mr. Zenner  
and Chairman Loe provided context related to how each respective code addressed  
the issue of occupancy. There was also acknowledgement of the desire to maintain  
consistency with occupancy standards established by zoning district and the  
definition of “family”. It was stated that tying occupancy to the definition of  
“family” may not be advisable given the issues with the definition and  
Mr. Zenner noted that considering occupancy based on the number “bedrooms”  
within a dwelling is considered most appropriate since this would leave out areas  
that could otherwise be considered “sleeping spaces”. Chairman Loe noted that  
the IRC did not include an occupancy load limit for single or two-family dwellings  
and that the IBC did for a “lodging house” which was a maximum of 5-bedrooms  
with no more than 10 occupants.  
There was additional Commissioner discussion on the differences between the IBC  
and the IPMC. There was confusion on the differences and which would be a  
potential better fit. There was discussion on the use of bedrooms as the basis of  
the occupancy cap; however, it was not clear that there was an understanding of  
how the calculation would be made. Mr. Zenner noted that the prior STR  
regulations utilized 2 persons per bedroom regardless of the bedroom’s size and  
referenced the standards that were included within the IPMC. Commissioner’s  
were not ready to make a final decision on the occupancy level for STRs. Mr.  
Zenner stated that he would provide a copy of the IPMC standards for consideration  
at the next work session.  
Having reached the end of the work session, Chairman Loe noted that conversation  
would continue on the issue of “occupancy” at the next meeting.  
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE - April 21, 2022 @ 5:30 pm (tentative)  
Meeting adjourned approximately 6:55 pm  
Move to adjoun