City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Columbia City Hall

Conference Rm 1A/1B

701 E Broadway

Thursday, December 18, 2025

Work Session

5:30 PM

I. CALL TO ORDER

9 -

Present:

Anthony Stanton, Sharon Geuea Jones, Shannon Wilson, Robert Walters,

McKenzie Ortiz, David Brodsky, Les Gray, Kate Stockton and Cody Darr

II. INTRODUCTIONS

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously.

Approve the agenda as submitted

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

December 4, 2025 Work Session

The December 4, 2025 work session minutes were approved with Commissioners

Stanton abstaining.

Approve minutes as presented

December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting

The December 4, 2025 regular Planning Commission minutes were approved with

Commissioners Stanton abstaining.

Approve the minutes as presented

V. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & LEGAL COUNSEL UPDATES

Mr. Craig provided information on the final decision arrived at with respect to the

Commissioner attendance and forfeiture provisions. He noted that beginning with

the first PZC meeting in June 2026 (June 4) and moving forward the rolling

12-month “look-back” period will become effective. This conclusion means that

beginning on June 4, 2026 any Commission who has accumulated 5 absences within

the prior rolling 12 months shall “automatically” forfeit their Commissioner

position. This conclusion was arrived at after reviewing the text of UDC as it relates

to calculating absences.

Mr. Craig noted that if the Commission desired to discuss this matter in greater

depth and/or propose revisions to the text it could be placed on a future

Commission work session agenda. Commissioners acknowledged the information

and did not indicate a desire to further discuss the matter at a future work session

agenda.

Mr. Smith provided an update on 2 City Council agenda items. The first dealt with

the review and outcome of the STR request on Eastham Drive. He noted that the

City Council looked at the 300-foot separation between the licensed STR along

Green Meadows and Eastham more critically than the Commission. Council did not

view the fact that the two STRs were accessed from different streets as a reason to

not apply the 300-foot separation standard. While this was an observed issue,

ultimately the Council voted to deny the request based on the operational/open

violation issues associated with the dwelling in a manner similar to that of the

Commission.

The second item that Mr. Smith discussed was the rezoning action that was

recommended for approval by the Commission at the intersection of Highway 63

and E. Broadway (i.e. The Broadway Apartments). Mr. Smith noted that the Council

had questions regarding application of the provisions of Chapter 12A of the City

Code (Stormwater) and development within the floodplain and floodway.

Notwithstanding these concerns, the Council recommended to approve the request

given the proposal would move the acreage out of the “Planned Development” into

open R-MF zoning and that the new development proposed would be restricted

based on the current Chapter 12A requirements that would be evaluated as part of

a formal site plan submission.

VI. OLD BUSINESS

A. Small Lot Integration Text Amendments - Article 5 & Appendix A

Mr. Zenner provided an overview of the changes made to the “flag/tier” lot

provisions discussed at the prior meeting. He explained that the new text

attempted to simplify the procedures and incorporated recommended revisions

from the prior meeting. He further explained some of the dimensional limitations

that would be imposed on existing lots if they were to be further divided to create

new “flag/tier” lots. Mr. Zenner noted that not all existing lots (conforming or

otherwise) may be able to be further subdivided without the potential of the

existing home on the property being removed. Such situations would most

frequently arise given the placement of the existing dwellings on narrow lots (less

than 50-feet) given the need to accommodate the 20-foot “irrevocable access

easement” and ensure the existing dwelling was not with the easement. Mr.

Zenner reiterated that the provisions for “flag/tier” lot creation now clearly

delineated the area dedicated for the “irrevocable access easement” could be

included in a regulatory required setback.

Commissioners had general discussion on the proposed revisions. There was

general support for what was proposed. Mr. Zenner noted that relief from the

regulatory standards could be sought at the time of plat approval like any other

“design adjustment” if the parcel was just short of being fully regulatorily

compliant.

Having discussed the major change made to Article 5, Mr. Zenner moved through

the remaining provisions pointing out where “no changes” were needed given the

existing language of the Code and the changes proposed in the creation of

“flag/tier” lots. He also pointed out where other minor modifications were made

within Sec. 29-5.2 dealing with “design adjustments” and a technical correction

relating to an errant subsection reference.

Having completed all revisions to Article 5, Mr. Zenner moved onto discussing

proposed changes to Appendix A. He noted that regulatory standards within the

Appendix were applicable to both “public” street projects and “private”

development projects on unplatted and replatted land. He further noted possible

creating a section that addressed “small lot” development specifically would be a

worthwhile investment of time to simplify where a developer desiring to create

such subdivisions could seek guidance.

Mr. Zenner continued by stating that many of the street standards included several

common issues that would need to be corrected. He noted that he was unable to

get to all of these “common” corrections, but would have those addressed prior to

having the comprehensive revisions on the code completed. For now, he

explained that what was shown for the “residential” street standard would

generally set the bar for what would be applicable for other street types given the

other street types referenced back to the “residential” standard.

He pointed out that given the change in the interpretation of the minimum

roadway width sufficient to accommodate on-street parking, a caveat needed to be

created that would exempt existing constructed streets from the proposed

revisions. Given this observation, where parking was shown within the standards it

was proposed that a provision be added that exempted roadways constructed prior

to a specific date (i.e. the effective date of the revised Appendix) such that existing

on street parking would not be impacted. Commissioners agreed that this made

sense.

Mr. Zenner then discussed proposed provisions that would be specifically

applicable to “small lot” developments for 16 or more lots. He noted that the

choice of the number 16 was to remain consistent with the other provisions created

as a part of the UDC revisions with respect to this new style of development. If a

developer was proposing fewer than the 16 lots they could request a “design

adjustment” to permit the new right of way width. Mr. Zenner explained that the

choice of a 36-foot right of way with 24-feet of paving would allow for sidewalks

and a compliant roadway to be installed. He noted that reducing the right of way

and paving may be possible to something less, but he’d have to follow up with the

City’s Traffic Engineer and Fire Department personnel.

The Commission suggested that possibly allowing the use of “one-way” street

networks within new “small lot” greenfield developments could be a means by

which to reduced right of way width and paving standards. It was noted that the

objective was to create alleys in new “greenfield” developments that would serve

as the primary “service” corridor to new lots and primary roadway frontage was

really only for secondary/emergency access. Mr. Zenner noted he had not

considered that as a possible option would discuss it with the other staff members.

He cautioned that before saying such an option was truly viable he wanted to

ensure there was not an issue in service delivery.

Having discussed the last prepared amendment to the Appendix, Mr. Zenner noted

that he would continue to work on the remaining revisions and provide an update

to the Commission at their January 8 work session. He noted that it was likely all

amendments would be address by this meeting and the full “small lot” regulatory

package would be ready to submit to consultants by the end of January for test.

B. Small Lot Integration Visualization & Regulatory Observations

As a conclusion to the current work session, Mr. Zenner noted that Mr. Kunz had put

together a “small lot” visualization that evaluated the proposed provisions

discussed over the past year. The basis for the visualization was the Evergreen

Cottage development off of Ballenger Lane in northeast Columbia which was the

first approved “cottage development” through the Board of Adjustment process.

With this brief introduction, Mr. Zenner turned the meeting over to Mr. Kunz.

Mr. Kunz provided an overview and description of the visualization process and

several observations that staff had gained from working the proposed regulations

into an existing “cottage” development. One observation identified was that

typically corner lots would often not be capable of meeting the “small lot”

standards given their need to be larger to accommodate setbacks. An additional

observation was that potentially the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) and limitation on

ground floor site coverage proposed within the regulations may be more restrictive

than necessary to produce neighborhoods that have dwelling unit variations. Mr.

Kunz went over specific lot area calculations to reinforce the observations and

sought comments from the Commissioners with respect to these observations.

There was general Commission discussion which included comments relating to the

potential need to eliminate or rethink how FAR and ground floor coverage could be

considered. Commissioners noted that the current “cottage” design and the

proposed standards were fairly aligned. It was further noted that the design

professional likely needed to “sharpen their pencils” to make the current “cottage”

design conform to the proposed standards. Concerns were expressed that making

significant changes before having the design professionals tell staff and the

Commission what was not workable may result in further project delays.

Commissioners were appreciative to see the proposed standards applied to a “real”

development parcel and thanked staff for their efforts in producing the

visualization. They commented that what was just presented provided clarity on

what was within the proposed regulatory text. It was concluded that while several

changes could be explored with addressing the FAR and ground floor area

maximums it would be best to leave the standards as they are and let the design

professional tell the staff and Commission what was not possible.

With that guidance, Mr. Kunz and Mr. Zenner thanked the Commission for their

comments and attention. Mr. Zenner noted that the final textural revisions were

hopefully going to be presented at the January 8, 2025 work session.