City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

CONFERENCE RM

1A/1B

Thursday, January 23, 2025

5:30 PM

WORK SESSION (REVISED)

CITY HALL

701 E BROADWAY

I. CALL TO ORDER

7 -

Present:

Sara Loe, Anthony Stanton, Sharon Geuea Jones, Peggy Placier, Robert Walters,

McKenzie Ortiz and David Brodsky

2 - Shannon Wilson and Thomas Williams

Excused:

II. INTRODUCTIONS

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted modified to add discussion on IPMC occupancy

determinations as related to STR dwellings.

Approved amended agenda

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

January 9, 2025 Work Session

The January 9, 2025 work session minutes approved with Commissioners Brodsky

and Ortiz abstaining

Adopted as presented

V. OLD BUSINES

A. PZC Recommendations & Authority - Discussion/Follow-up

Mr. Craig provided an overview of the topic and noted that after performing

research it was concluded that the Commission’s recommendation authority was

restricted such that they could not apply conditions on standard rezoning requests

as was questioned by Commission members after reviewing the provisions of Sec.

29-6.3(e) of the UDC. He noted that while the written text within the UDC would

appear to allow for this, after reviewing case law and the Chapter 89 of the Missouri

Statutes pertaining to Planning and Zoning, Commission actions on such matters

needed to be applied uniformly within the zoning district with respect the zoning

standards established in the UDC. The standards in the UDC establish minimum

requirements for ensuring that the public health, safety, and welfare are being

met. Furthermore, the language within Sec. 29-6.3(e) states that conditions can

only be applied if those conditions are “required” to bring the development

proposed into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. In the context of rezoning

actions, compliance with the Comprehensive Plan is subjective and often focuses

on land use compatibility, as illustrated on the Future Land Use Map, and

competing Plan goals and objectives.

The Commission is authorized discretion and the ability to apply conditions where

that power is expressly stated within the UDC. Such power is typically associated

with conditional use permits (CUPs) or planned development (PD) requests. It was

noted that aside from these specific processes the Commission’s authority must be

uniform with the adopted regulatory provisions generally applicable to that zoning

district. Mr. Craig noted that if the Commission believes revisions to standard

provisions within a specific zoning district are needed to provide added protection

to the public health, safety, or welfare or to assure greater compliance with the

Comprehensive Plan, then a formal amendment to the UDC would be required.

Such an amendment would need to follow the standard process to amend the UDC

which begins with seeking Council direction first.

Commissioner’s thanked Mr. Craig for his follow-up on the topic. There was limited

discussion and it was recommended that should there be a future UDC amendment

proposed, the language of this section may be ripe for modification to provide

clarity.

B. UDC Text Amendment - Small Lot Use-Specific Standards

Mr. Zenner provided an overview of the proposed additional use-specific standards

that were created to address the topics of “lot diversity” and “transitions” within

and between developments that would be using the small lot standards. He noted

that these provisions were developed based on his understanding of prior

Commission discussion seeking enhanced protections between existing

development and new small lot development and a desire to ensure lot type

variety was created that would accommodate varying building styles. Mr. Zenner

also noted that several other adjustments were made to the prior “use-specific

standards” draft from June 2024 to provide added clarity and reminded the

Commission that what was being proposed was not in “correct” ordinance revision

format, but shown for context purposes only.

Mr. Zenner provided some additional background of why and how the Commission

and staff arrived at the stage of this project. Commissioner’s Loe and Geuea Jones

also provided additional clarification on the scope of the project. Following this

brief history, Mr. Zenner explained that the provisions relating to variations in “lot

topology” would only be required when a development of more than 30 lots was

being proposed. He noted that giving this provisions it would not necessarily be

applicable to an “infill” development scenario, but rather apply to “greenfield”

projects. He further noted that the purpose of the standards was to ensure that a

developer of a “new” small lot development did not create lots of all the same size;

thereby, reducing the potential for buyers to have options that may fit their

economic situations. Additionally, by requiring lot size diversity it was believed

that it would create greater potential to ensure housing style diversity.

There was significant discussion on this proposed use-specific standard. Several

Commissioner did not think that this was necessary given the architectural diversity

provisions that were being proposed. Concern were also expressed that the

regulations were becoming to prescriptive which could reduce their usage. Finally,

there was much discussion on the threshold at which these standards as well as

others being proposed would triggered. Mr. Zenner was asked if there was another

threshold that could be considered.

Mr. Zenner noted that the choice of a 30-lot development was chosen due to its

relationship to other provisions within the Code. However, based one the current

discussion, he noted that using the threshold that differentiates a “minor” and

“major” subdivision would be an alternative. If this standard were to be used, it

would reduce the total number of lots that could be created to no more than five

(5) prior to the proposed use-specific standards being triggered. The Commission

discussed this option; however, did not clearly express a preference on retaining

either the 30-lot or 5-lot thresholds. It was further discussed that current provisions

within the UDC applicable to “cottage” standards indicated that no more than 1-acre

of land could be replatted for cottage use without first obtaining approval of a

“cottage” subdivision. Given this provision and based on a 3,000 sq. ft. minimum

lot, approximately 14 lots could be created prior to a full-blown subdivision action

being triggered. It was concluded that additional discussion the “triggering”

threshold would need to occur before a final decision was made.

Mr. Zenner than proceeded to discussion revisions to address concerns about

transitions between existing development and new small lots. He noted that from

prior discussion it was agreed that the same provisions that apply to multi-family

development adjacent to single- and two-family development could be modified

to address future small lot construction. Mr. Zenner explained that this makes

sense from the perspective that small lot construction on narrower lots will likely

result in taller structures such that building floor area is maximized. The current

neighborhood protection standards were developed to mitigate the impacts that

taller multi-family structures have on smaller single- or two-family structures.

Given the similarity of concerns relating to structural height differences between

future small lot structures and their neighboring properties the proposed use

specific standards were created. The changes modify when the neighborhood

protections would become applicable for single-family construction. Mr. Zenner

explained that single- and two-family are presently exempt from having to comply

with neighborhood protections. As such, the amendment that is proposed seeks to

have neighborhood protections only apply to newly created small lots in the R-1,

R-2, or R-MF districts that are less than that base lot area for single-family

construction (i.e. smaller than 7,000 sq. ft in R-1 or 5,000 sq. ft. R-2 & R-MF).

There was Commission discussion on these proposed changes. Given time

constraints, discussion was not completed. The Commission noted that it would

continue its discussion on the two proposed use-specific standards at its next

meeting.

NEW BUSINESS

A. IPMC Occupancy Determinations

Mr. Zenner distributed an except from the adopted IPMC (International Property

Maintenance Code) relating to how occupancy within a structure is determined. He

noted that the purpose for discussing this matter was to add clarity to how the

Housing and Neighborhood Services (HNS) staff are interpreting these provisions

and applying them with respect to maximum occupancy of short-term rentals.

Mr. Zenner noted that HNS approached him seeking clarity on how occupancy was

to be evaluated and determined given the regulatory standards included both

bedroom and “sleeping” spaces. HNS staff explained that they determined

occupancy based on bedroom floor area only not sleeping space areas (i.e.

generally living or dining rooms). The portion of the IPMC that addressed minimum

required area of living and dining rooms exists to ensure “over-occupancy” of a

dwelling does not occur. Mr. Zenner noted that HNS staff indicated that the two

tables within the IPMC work in tandem - not independently.

As an example, Mr. Zenner noted that if bedroom area within a dwelling was

determined to permit a particular level of occupancy, but there was insufficient

area in a living, dining, or combination living/dining room to support the level of

bedroom occupancy the dwelling’s final occupancy would be restricted to

whichever occupancy was most restrictive. In some instances, this could be less

than what a Council approved CUP stated was allowed. Mr. Zenner noted that since

beginning regulatory inspections in June/July of 2024 there have been no instances

where occupancy determinations were questioned based on the regulatory

standards of allowing both bedrooms and “sleeping” spaces to be given. HNS staff

told Mr. Zenner that the homes inspected to-date all had sufficient living, dining,

and/or combined living/dining areas sufficient to accommodate the CUP approved

occupancy limitations with the exception of the one triggering their inquiry.

Mr. Zenner noted that he wanted to inform the Commission of the HNS procedure

such that they wouldn’t potentially not be caught off-guard if approached by an STR

operator. Mr. Zenner also stated that he thought the Commission needed to have

this information to help understand that the two provisions relating to dwelling

unit occupancy were applied in tandem with the most restrictive applying. Given

this clarification, Mr. Zenner suggested that simplifying the occupancy

determination may be appropriate. Such a revision could propose a maximum

occupancy of 2 persons per bedroom, subject to IPMC compliance, with a maximum

dwelling occupancy of 8 transient guests. This change would be consistent with HNS

administrative procedures and would reduce ambiguity to applicants

There was general discussion of the Commission and acknowledgement of the

procedure used by HNS staff. The Commission did not state a preference to making

any revisions to the current regulatory language. Mr. Zenner noted that minor

revisions to the application form for STR submissions was being made to remove

reference to providing “sleeping space” areas.

VI. NEXT MEETING DATE - February 6, 2025 @ 5:30 pm (tentative)

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 7:05 pm.

Motion to adjourn