City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Conference Rooms

1A/B

Thursday, February 22, 2024

5:30 PM

Work Session

Columbia City Hall

701 E. Broadway

I. CALL TO ORDER

8 -

Present:

Sara Loe, Anthony Stanton, Michael MacMann, Valerie Carroll, Sharon Geuea

Jones, Peggy Placier, Shannon Wilson and Matt Ford

1 - Zack Dunn

Excused:

II. INTRODUCTIONS

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously

Approve agenda as submitted

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

February 8, 2024 Work Session

The February 8, 2024 work session minutes were approved unanimously

Approved the minutes as presented

V. OLD BUSINESS

A. UDC Text Amendment - Small Lots

Mr. Zenner introduced the topic explaining that staff has incorporated revisions

(highlighted within the staff memo) relating to the proposed dimensional

standards for small and medium-sized lots. He noted that in essence the maximum

ground floor area limitations were collapsed from four categories to just two and

that the permitted area for the lower tier of lot sizes was the approximate average

of all four original lot size tiers. He noted that with that the proposed consolidation

and increase in allowed area, the smallest possible lot (3000 sq. ft.), would still not

exceed the maximum buildable area for that sized lot. He further noted that he did

not change the ground floor area for the second tier of lots given the separation

between that tier and a standard 5000 sq. ft. lot was believed appropriate to ensure

a “stepped” approach to increased development intensity on the smaller lots.

There was general discussion on the revisions to the dimensional standards table.

There was back and forth relating to the underlying methodology that produced the

square footage limitations. Concerns were expressed relating to the application of

the new standards with respect to greenfield and infill development. Mr. Zenner

noted that the prior revisions to address lot consolidations principally impacting

the already built environment (i.e. infill) would be impacted by this amendment if

passed since the proposed lots contained within the prior amendment would

become legal, albeit existing lots not considered “legal” would need to pursue

platting as authorized by the most recent UDC changes.

Mr. Zenner noted that it may be possible to create a clean break between infill

development and greenfield development by including a provision within the

enabling ordinance of the new provisions that they only applied to lots created

after the effective date of the new provisions. He noted this would be similar to

what is done for determining “legal lot” status today. Ms. Thompson expressed

caution in pursuing such a distinction given that it may make matters more

complicated. There was additional Commission discussion that addressing the

issue of integration of small/medium lots into “infill” areas would hopefully be

addressed by the consultant currenting looking at the “central city”.

After additional discussion, the Commission was polled to determine if what was

being presented by staff in the dimensional standards table was unacceptable. The

majority of the Commission expressed support of the standards presented and

directed staff to pursue forward with the additional UDC revisions needed to make

small/medium lots function, specifically from a subdivision platting perspective.

Mr. Zenner then discussed the proposed definitions needed within the UDC to

make sure the terms “buildable area”, “building envelope” and “Floor Area Ratio

(FAR) were clearly understood. Mr. Zenner noted that “buildable area” was already

defined in the UDC and its definition was not to change. He further expressed that

“building envelope” was used by staff interchangeably with “buildable area”;

however, really should be defined since it refers to the three-dimensional

influences of lot development not just the two-dimensions associated with

“buildable area”. Furthermore, inclusion of a definition for “building envelope”

was supported by the fact a definition for FAR would be added to the UDC since it

also was expressing a three-dimensional aspect of lot improvement.

Commissioners were supportive of the continued use of the definition of

“buildable area” and the proposed definition for “building envelope”. There was

considerable discussion with respect to the definition for “Floor Area Ratio (FAR)”.

Concerns were expressed by the Commission that the definition did not specifically

draw the distinction between “gross” or “net” floor area. Commissioners noted

that the UDC had a definition for “floor area, gross” and a definition for “total floor

area” within Chapter 26 of the City Code [Taxation]. Commissioner requested that

the definition of FAR be revised to match the definition found within the UDC. Mr.

Zenner noted that he would look into how the definition could be modified.

As part of the discussion with the definitions, Mr. Zenner noted that the City did

not review single or two-family home construction plans. As such, the definition of

FAR would need to take this into account least there be an expectation that permit

staff be required to obtain information that is not readily provided today. Mr.

Zenner noted that as with many text changes, minor tweaks to internal process are

sometimes necessary. The inclusion of total square footage on a plot plan would

be an example of such a tweak, but is not believed to be something

insurmountable to ensure that the introduction of a FAR factor can be successfully

integrated into the regulations and applied on small and medium lots in the future.

In an effort to define next steps with this amendment, the Chairman asked if the

Commission was ready to let staff move onto its further work with preparing

possible subdivision regulation revisions relating to this topic. Concerns were

expressed that an insufficient amount of visualization had been prepared to fully

consider the impacts of the proposed dimensional standards. A request was made

for additional graphics. Mr. Zenner noted that Mr. Kunz was working on refining

what he had presented previously; however, was diverted to other projects