City of Columbia, Missouri  
Meeting Minutes  
Planning and Zoning Commission  
Conference Rooms  
Thursday, April 21, 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 presented  
April 7, 2022 Work Session  
April 7, 2022 work session minutes adopted as presented.  
Approve April 7 work session minutes as presented  
A. FY 2023 Capital Improvement Plan Overview  
Mr. Zenner described the upcoming Capital Improvement Program (CIP) review  
schedule. He said the CIP was updated annually and was a long-range budget  
document for capital improvements of all types. He said the attachments and  
dashboard were for the Commissioners to review ahead of time so that they may  
ask questions of the department staff which would attend at the May 5 meeting,  
with the goal of preparing a memo at the May 19 meeting with their  
recommendations. As in the past, the Commission would be expected to comment  
on the upcoming projects and offer recommendations to the Council and insight  
based upon their knowledge of recent development requests, growth metrics, the  
Commission’s work program, and planning processes such as the implementation  
of the Comprehensive Plan and area plans. The Commission may also identify if  
they perceive a mis-match of projects relative to community goals and needs. Mr.  
Zenner asked the Commission to review the CIP dashboard. He noted the same  
attachments would be attached to the May 5 work session agenda. There was  
general discussion of the upcoming review schedule and the Commission’s review  
A. Short-term Rental - Occupancy Standards  
Chairman Loe introduced the topic and described the attachments she had  
provided the Commission to help illustrate how occupancy may be calculated for  
different housing floor plans and room sizes based upon the IPMC (International  
Property Maintenance Code). The IMPC contains standards related to property  
maintenance, including occupancy standards, and is used by the City’s Office of  
Neighborhood Services in conjunction with administration of the Rental  
Conservation Law - Chapter 22 of the City Code.  
Mr. Zenner and Ms. Loe described the need for a framework to calculate occupancy  
for the purposes of STR licensure. This would be the first step for limiting the  
number of occupants; they would also discuss other potential limitations to guest  
numbers and regulations to address neighborhood concerns using “use-specific  
standards” (e.g. parking regulations, etc.) as the ordinance was drafted. Mr. Zenner  
noted that maximum occupancy (i.e. density) could be calculate either based on  
the square footage of the entire dwelling or based upon the number of bedrooms.  
There was general discussion of density based upon dwelling units and as an entire  
structure. The IPMC was based upon each dwelling unit, Mr. Zenner said. How  
transient guests and occupancy by bedroom were defined in previous (un-adopted)  
versions of the proposed STR regulations were discussed. Concerns with the  
definition of a family, both in how it was determined and the potential legal issues  
associated with it, were discussed. The definition of a family is still used in  
long-term rentals to permit occupancy of three unrelated persons in the R-1 zone  
and four in the R-2 and R-MF (multiple family) zoning districts. Challenges and  
benefits of using the same standard for STRs was debated.  
The Commission has noted fair housing concerns of using the definition of a family  
in previous discussions- there have been court challenges to the effect. The  
benefits of not using the family definition and only using the IPMC with  
use-specific standards was discussed. Ms. Loe discussed the illustrations that she  
had prepared and staff distributed and how this option may work for discussion by  
the Commission. She proposed that at the end of the meeting’s discussion the use  
of the IPMC may be voted upon as a density/occupation calculation option.  
Ms. Geuea-Jones said using the IPMC makes sense. She cited concerns she had with  
using the definition of a family moving forward. She said the IPMC provided a clear  
line based upon math, and had less interpretation guess-work. It was more  
quantitative rather than qualitative. She desired a clear standard. She proposed  
they vote on using the IPMC first, and then vote on a potential cap of eight or ten  
guests as a hard cap regardless of the occupancy possible under the IPMC.  
Ms. Carroll said she agreed with Ms. Geuea-Jones. She preferred the IPMC as it was  
a simple reference without recreating the wheel.  
Mr. MacMann said he wanted as simple a process and as clear a measurement as  
possible. He was concerned of confusion or issues with using square footage  
calculations for some persons.  
Ms. Burns described the comments she had heard in the previous ordinance  
processes. She was concerned about neighborhood impacts. She said that if the  
IPMC dictated occupancy, then there may not be the ability of a specific site and a  
neighborhood to accommodate that occupancy, causing issues to the  
neighborhood. She cited traffic, parking and trash as negative impacts. She had  
concerns with the use of living rooms as bedrooms and the negative impacts of  
such allowance.  
Ms. Kimball said she would be interested in the IPMC but also a cap at 10. She  
posed questions for discussion and to reach clarity on the use of bedrooms in the  
IPMC space calculations. There was general discussion.  
Mr. MacMann said it would be difficult to pull back later if too much occupancy was  
allowed initially, and it was found to be an issue that needed to be scaled.  
There was discussion on how the presence of the owner (and their family  
members) in owner-occupied STRs and how occupancy would then be calculated  
with the IPMC. The owner family would be counted as individuals relative to the  
total occupancy allowance. The Commission discussed how this would work as they  
had voted to have owner-hosting in residential districts or a registered agent  
available to guests. STR use would be considered an accessory use in the zoning  
Ms. Burns said the use of the IPMC was unfair, in her opinion, to long-term rental  
operators and neighborhoods as it was a different standard of occupancy.  
Ms. Geuea-Jones suggested they have three votes on three separate questions  
with the understanding that the framework they choose would come before  
use-specific standards for other concerns. The first vote would be whether to use  
the IPMC or not as the standard for occupancy. The second would be a cap of 10 or 8  
persons total. And the third vote would be if there should be a conditional use  
permit (CUP) or administrative waiver process to allow greater density in  
commercial zones (but no more than could be safely accommodated based upon  
the IPMC’s calculations of habitable square footage).  
Mr. Zenner noted that 10 persons was the maximum number of guests in the  
lodging house definition for guest occupancy of five rooms defined as bedrooms in  
the IBC.  
Ms. Smith noted that the third vote would apply to residential properties in  
commercial zones. There was general discussion that commercial properties, such  
as hotels, permitted in commercial zones (and build under commercial codes)  
would not be applicable to such a process for additional density as it would be  
handled differently under building codes.  
Ms. Placier presented hypothetical scenarios to help the Commission clarify the  
application of the IPMC square footage based upon the examples Ms. Loe had  
provided. She discussed how bedrooms may be setup in different ways. There was  
discussion on the common use of studio space, such as in finished basements, and  
how this layout would be used for occupancy calculations. Ms. Placier described the  
need for safety standards and the inspection process for safety.  
The use of how occupancy was defined in terms of preserving affordable rentals  
was discussed. Mr. MacMann described a real-world example he had come across  
when homes are split into multiple dwelling units and how bedrooms or spaces are  
often carved out, not always to the betterment or safety of renters. He discussed  
various concerns.  
There was discussion of “problem rentals” and how some neighborhoods were  
burdened with more rental issues and potentially more STR issues due to their  
location relative to campus, downtown, the stadium, and other generators of  
guests and renters.  
Some Commissioners noted that the existing real estate community may have  
familiarity with the IPMC. The difference between zoning and building codes on  
regulating safety versus land use impacts was also discussed. Mr. Teddy said the  
building code was for the safety of occupants, and the zoning code was designed  
for the protection of neighbors and neighborhoods. There would be opportunity to  
use site-specific analyses to help apply the zoning-related aspects of the ordinance  
as it was drafted and administered. Issues of flooded basements was also cited as  
an inspection concern for safety as some basements are not dry all the time and if  
rented when dry, there may be underlying mold issues from times of flood.  
There was a reiteration and additional discussion on the three votes proposed by  
Ms. Geuea-Jones. Ms. Carroll seconded Ms. Geuea-Jones first motion, to use the  
IPMC to determine the occupancy of STRs.  
Ms. Loe called the question after discussion was complete. Voting yes or no on the  
use of the IPMC for occupancy: MacMann, NO; Burns, NO; Stanton, YES; Carroll, YES;  
Geuea-Jones, YES; Kimball, YES; Loe, YES; Rushing, NO; Placier, YES. Motion passed  
There was discussion on the second vote proposed by Ms. Geuea-Jones to limit the  
total occupancy to either eight or ten persons as had been briefly discussed as  
potential cap numbers in prior discussions.  
While Ms. Geuea-Jones had proposed the second vote to be made in her initial  
framing of the issues, Mr. Stanton was the Commissioner to make the motion. Mr.  
Stanton made a motion to cap the maximum occupancy at eight persons as a hard  
cap in addition (“not to exceed”) to the IPMC. Ms. Geuea-Jones seconded the  
There was discussion on the motion. It was noted that any such hard cap would first  
be subject to whether the dwelling unit’s square footage and layout supported that  
number of persons; if the dwelling unit under the IPMC permitted fewer persons  
that would be the cap, and any use-specific standards-related caps would also  
apply. There was discussion on how a dwelling unit is determined using the IPMC.  
The occupancy would be for each dwelling unit on a site, so if a structure had  
multiple dwelling units, the IPMC calculation would be applied to each unit.  
There was discussion on the “guiding principles” the Commission were using to  
inform their ordinance development process- they desired to keep the ordinance  
as simple as possible and wanted it to apply as equally as possible without specific  
“carve-outs” or loopholes they had perceived as developing during previous  
ordinance processes. They felt such carve-outs addressed the business practice of a  
few vocal minority operators. The Commission saw such amendments as a downfall  
of previous ordinances that had been proposed for STRs (but not passed).  
There was additional discussion on how they could tighten up the ordinance for  
negative externalities and unintended consequences by using real-life examples to  
see if the desired outcome of the ordinance was achieved when applied. This  
“code-breaking” exercise could help to make the regulations better thought-out as  
it was common for operators to try to stretch any regulations in their favor as a  
natural occurrence in a rational system. There was discussion on how the rental  
certificate could specify occupancy for each unit once each unit had been evaluated  
when the ordinance was in place. The fact that enforcement was often  
complaint-driven was also discussed.  
After discussion on the second vote as made by Mr. Stanton was complete, Ms. Loe  
called for a vote of the Commission. Voting yes or no on eight persons as a  
maximum cap on a dwelling unit’s occupancy: MacMann, YES; Burns, NO; Stanton,  
YES; Carroll, YES; Geuea-Jones, YES; Kimball, YES; Loe, YES; Rushing, YES; Placier, YES.  
Motion passed 8-1.  
There was discussion on the potential for a third vote to allow a waiver or CUP  
process to permit occupancy above eight but no more than the IPMC in residential  
properties located in a commercial zone. How such a process may work or what it  
would look like was discussed. There could be an administrative or regulatory (e.g.  
CUP) process. The types of site-specific conditions and neighborhood-level analysis  
related to occupancy in such situations was briefly discussed. Whether a  
commercially-zoned property was adjacent to other commercial properties, or  
adjacent to residential properties, was the type of scenario the Commission felt  
would warrant consideration. The impact of residential versus commercial building  
codes and the possible presence of sprinkler systems was discussed as another  
factor to consider. There were many elements and scenarios the Commission may  
need to consider herein. Ms. Smith suggested they bring this discussion back due to  
the need to think about such scenarios.  
The Commission said they would also like Ms. Smith to provide a new data update.  
They had appreciated the previous data update on the landscape of the STRs  
locally, and would like to have that research updated with current information as a  
way of helping to craft future “use-specific standards”. Ms. Smith said she could  
provide a data update comparing present data points with previous data to show  
trends and the current landscape of STR numbers and operation metrics.  
Mr. Zenner asked if the Commission wanted the staff to start to prepare potential  
use-specific standards to begin to react to, noting the Commission had identified  
areas of concern that may be addressed by such standards, such as trash, parking,  
landscaping and screening. The Commission said that the public would be  
interested in knowing how such issues would be addressed.  
Mr. Zenner said they could have a data update and the beginnings of use-specific  
standards for the Commission’s reaction at the second meeting in May (May 19). He  
said they would welcome staff guests from several department to discuss the CIP at  
the next meeting.  
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE - May 5, 2022 @ 5:30 pm (tentative)  
Meeting adjourned approximately 6:56 pm.