City of Columbia, Missouri  
Meeting Minutes  
Planning and Zoning Commission  
Columbia City Hall  
Conference Rm 1A/1B  
701 E Broadway  
Thursday, March 20, 2025  
5:30 PM  
Work Session  
I. CALL TO ORDER  
8 -  
Present:  
Sara Loe, Anthony Stanton, Sharon Geuea Jones, Peggy Placier, Shannon Wilson,  
Robert Walters, McKenzie Ortiz and David Brodsky  
1 - Thomas Williams  
Excused:  
II. INTRODUCTIONS  
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA  
Meeting agenda adopted unanimously  
Approve agenda as presented  
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  
March 6, 2025 Work Session  
The March 6, 2025 work session minutes approved unanimously  
Approve work session minutes as presentedd  
V. OLD BUSINESS  
A. UDC Text Amendment - Small Lot Use-Specific Standards  
Mr. Zenner introduced the topic and provided an overview what the Commission  
discussed at the March 6 work session. He noted that following the meeting it was  
brought to his attention that the revisions the minimum number of lots at which  
point the proposed “Design Standards” would be triggered could be problematic  
given it was not a number divisible by 3. Mr. Zenner suggested that the threshold,  
16 lots, could result in unnecessary calculation challenges for applicants and the  
staff leading to less use of the new provisions. He suggested that the threshold be  
modified to either 15 or 18 lots.  
There was general Commission discussion on this issue. It was noted that there  
were several other factors that may impact the threshold being reached and it was  
noted that the discussion at the March 6 meeting did propose the threshold be  
established at 15 lots. After additional discussion it was concluded that lowering  
the threshold to 15 lots would be acceptable. Mr. Zenner noted that this was  
simplify the administration of proposed standards by reducing potential confusion  
amongst staff and applicants.  
Having addressed this follow up issue, Mr. Zenner continued to summary the  
proposed regulatory standards for the benefit of the newer Commissioners. There  
was discussion with respect to proposed verbiage within the “Architectural style”  
provisions of the regulations aimed at adding clarity to what constituted sufficient  
change in building materials to meet the proposed 20% requirement. Commission  
requested that the existing verbiage be changed to “Changes in material color or  
paint color alone shall be insufficient”.  
There was general discussion with the remaining provisions that Commissioners  
had previously discussed ranging from parking exceptions and/or placement to  
expanding the applicability of “Neighborhood Protection Standards” to small lots  
created with less than the minimum lot area or width required within the R-1, R-2,  
and R-MF districts. As these provisions were explained, Commissioner’s expressed  
concern that it was difficult to understand how the modifications and new  
provisions would actually impact proposed small lot development without seeing  
them applied from a development plan.  
Mr. Zenner acknowledged this concern and noted that the staff was working on a  
graphical exhibit that would hopefully show all the proposed standards working  
together. He noted that this graphic exhibit would provide an opportunity to see if  
certain standards would not work “practically” providing an opportunity for the  
Commission to make more critical decisions on the standards prior to them being  
submitted to the design community for them to “test”. He noted that staff needed  
to complete its preparation of the requested use-specific standards before it could  
move onto the evaluating the UDC subdivision standards to ensure the proposed  
new lot types could even be created without triggering multiple design  
adjustments. The preparation of the graphical exhibit would likely assist in  
identifying possible subdivision issues more readily.  
Mr. Zenner then proceeded to present the final use-specific standard requested by  
the Commission which addressed sidewalks and street tree placement. He noted  
that sidewalk placement within new developments was already mandated by the  
UDC and under certain circumstances (i.e. development along arterial/collector  
roads); however, was also caveated under several other circumstances. Mr. Zenner  
further explained that as a result of the somewhat challenging provisions dealing  
with sidewalk installation for development he was not overly concerned about new  
“greenfield” projects, but was more concerned about “infill” development. As a  
result, the proposed provisions attempted to address this by providing an  
“exemption” to new subdivisions including small lots.  
The exemption proposed would not require the installation of sidewalk in new  
developments creating 4 or fewer small lots. An exception to exemption was  
proposed that stated if any of the small lots proposed had frontage on a  
arterial/collector roadway that the sidewalk along that frontage would be required  
to be installed. Mr. Zenner noted that this provision, if acceptable, was really  
intended to be tailored to “infill” situations. He noted the provision would not  
require installation on sidewalk along most residential streets in locations within  
where continuous sidewalk systems my not exist and where there was a higher  
predominance of lots capable of being divided to accommodate the proposed small  
lots through subdivision.  
There was general Commission discussion on this proposal which expressed  
concern that it would undermine the concept of ensuring sidewalk networks would  
be established throughout the city providing safe routes for pedestrian movement.  
There was discussion suggesting that the provisions be modified to require  
sidewalk installation in locations where sidewalks on adjacent property or within a  
specific distance of a proposed small lot development/replat action may exist as a  
means of providing future connectivity options. Mr. Zenner sought clarity with  
respect to this proposed revision given in many situations there is sidewalk on one  
side of the street and not the other and there is no identified plan to construct new  
sidewalk on the opposite side of the street.  
Commissioners acknowledge this point; however, did not provide any clarity on  
how they desired to the proposed revisions to be worked into the exemption being  
proposed. There was further discussed on the possible cost implications and  
production of small lots if sidewalk installation were simply required “just  
because” the new lots were being created following adoption of the UDC in 2017. It  
was noted that potentially this issue could be addressed as part of the city on-going  
evaluation of its “Complete Streets” policy.  
Mr. Zenner stated he would to work on a proposed revision to the standards  
presented to address the Commission’s concerns. He noted that having a process to  
exempt sidewalk installation would result in fewer requests for “design  
adjustments”, streamline the regulatory process to create small lots, and give  
greater certainty to individuals seeking to use the new standards.  
Mr. Zenner noted that the last part of the use-specific standards to discuss was the  
topic of street tree placement. He noted that this topic was previously addressed  
in a prior text change to the UDC that concluded it was not appropriate to have  
street trees required on rights-of-way classified as a “residential street” - those  
rights-of-way 50-feet or narrower. As a result of this text change, and the  
likelihood that most small lot developments (greenfield or infill) would be created  
using this type of street it was staff’s position that nothing needed to be addressed.  
If street tree installation standards were critical to create a “walkable”  
environment, provisions to require street tree placement were seen as a private  
development matter given they would not be in the public right-of-way. Mr.  
Zenner acknowledged the value of having street trees included in the development  
of small lots, but was having difficulty given past actions of the Commission and  
Council that just because of the type of lot being created there should be a  
“special” mandate that they be required.  
There was general Commission discussion on the staff’s position and lack of  
including any provisions about street trees within small lot developments.  
Commissioners acknowledged that given prior actions that what was requested  
would be a private matter and that the city should not be responsible for street  
trees outside the public right-of-way. It was suggested that use of possible  
“common areas” within a small lot development, when triggered, could be a  
location for street trees that were otherwise required. Mr. Zenner noted this  
recommendation could be considered and text prepared laying out specific  
performance criteria.  
Having completed the discussion of the last use-specific standards, Mr. Zenner  
noted that staff was prepared to move forward with its analysis of the subdivision  
provisions of the UDC. He further stated that the staff would continue to work on  
the development of a graphical exhibit illustrating all the standards discussed into a  
single document. Mr. Zenner noted that the preparation of the graphic will take  
additional time to prepare and will not be presented at the upcoming work session.  
However, so as to not lose momentum on this project, staff would begin presenting  
potential subdivision standard changes at the next work session.  
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE - April 10, 2025 @ 5:30 pm (tentative)  
VII. ADJOURNMENT  
Meeting adjourned at 7 pm  
Move to adjourn