City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Conference Rooms

1A/1B

Thursday, April 21, 2022

5:30 PM

Work Session

Columbia City Hall

701 E. Broadway

I. CALL TO ORDER

9 -

Present:

Tootie Burns, Sara Loe, Joy Rushing, Anthony Stanton, Michael MacMann, Valerie

Carroll, Sharon Geuea Jones, Robbin Kimbell and Peggy Placier

II. INTRODUCTIONS

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously.

Approve agenda as presented

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

April 7, 2022 Work Session

April 7, 2022 work session minutes adopted as presented.

Approve April 7 work session minutes as presented

V. NEW BUSIESS

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

role.

VI. OLD BUSINESS

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

code.

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

6-3.

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

motion.

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