City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

City Hall

Conference Room

1A/1B

Thursday, April 10, 2025

5:30 PM

Work Session

701 E. Broadway

Columbia, MO.

I. CALL TO ORDER

7 -

Present:

Sara Loe, Anthony Stanton, Peggy Placier, Shannon Wilson, Thomas Williams,

Robert Walters and McKenzie Ortiz

2 - Sharon Geuea Jones and David Brodsky

Excused:

II. INTRODUCTIONS

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously

Adopt agenda as submitted

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

March 20, 2025 Work Session

The March 20, 2025 work session minutes approved unanimously

Adopt the work session minutes as presented

V. NEW BUSINESS

A. Definition of "family" & Potential UDC Revisions - Discussion

Mr. Zenner indicated that Mr. Teddy had prepared the work session topic and

turned the meeting over to him to present the research and preliminary

recommendations.

Mr. Teddy provided a background of why the topic was before the Commission by

way of providing a statement that came directly from the recently completed

“Housing Study for Columbia/Boone County” which gave specific recommendation

to review and amend the definition of “family” such that barriers associated with

housing availability could potentially be addressed. Mr. Teddy explained that the

recommendations contained in the report were applicable to not only the City and

County, but every municipality within Boone County. He also added that

eliminating the current occupancy limits may potentially open up opportunities for

“home sharing”.

Mr. Teddy provided an overview of the report that was provided as part of the work

session packet starting with “historical” background and how the current the

definition was linked to the current residential (R-1, R-2, and R-MF (formerly R-3)

zoning districts. He noted that the current definition was a compromise between

the City Council and effected/interested residents that did not want more

unrelated persons within exclusively zoned single-family districts (i.e. the R-1

district).

Mr. Teddy then discussed his findings within the research he performed for other

“peer” cities. He noted many communities still were attempting to define family

by relationships, but several took a broader more “straight-forward” approached,

but there was a great deal of variation. He further noted that the research used the

term “family” and that this search parameter may have resulted in some skewing of

the research results.

Mr. Teddy stated that the idea of a multiple unrelated person within a home could

potentially be better captured in a definition that focused attention on the idea of

the unrelated person’s functioning as a “single house-keeping unit”. Mr. Zenner

added that the simplest approach to address the immediate challenge within the

current definition, if Mr. Teddy proposed solution were to be implemented, would

be to just change the allowance in the R-1 district to a maximum of 4 unrelated

residents. Such a change would result in a single maximum permissible occupancy

in all residential zoning districts.

He noted that staff would need to perform some GIS analysis to assess how

significant the impact of this change would be specifically the “central city”

neighborhoods. Mr. Zenner noted that intuitively he believed the impact could be

very minimal given the majority of existing zoning in these areas was generally

already R-2 and R-MF. A bigger concern he saw in making such a change would be

potential parking implications.

There was general Commission discussion on these ideas. Concerns were

expressed as to how would there be protections against possible abuse, what

would be the substitutions for “person” limits, and possibly establishing a limit that

would result in “displacement”. However, in general, Commissioners supported

the concept of using a “broader” definition that did not have all the permeations of

who may be considered family as the current definition does.

With respect to the issues of abuse and substitutions of the “person” limits, it was

discussed that if a change were implemented, abuse would be a “reactive”

enforcement issue similar to the way this matter is addressed presently. Mr. Teddy

noted that “over-occupancy” cases were fairly rare in the enforcement records

maintained by Neighborhood Services on an annual basis. Mr. Zenner noted that

there could be provisions added that dwelling “capacity” could be address in a

manner similar to STR occupancy, based on the IPMC, with a maximum of 8 persons

regardless of family relationship. Doing so would further align the short- and

long-term rental processes. He further noted that adjusting the parking

requirements for single- and two-family dwellings could be examined such that

required parking would align more closely with what is presented required for

multi-family dwellings which is based on “bedrooms” per dwelling.

There was further discussion on these possible approaches and how they may not

recognize family size and cultural differences on what is or is not acceptable.

Commissioners discussed the issue of dwelling unit capacity and the desire as

inclusive as possible such that multi-generational and “non-traditional” family units

could occupy a dwelling together. The Commission also recognized that there may

be issues created, within certain locations, with parking if the definition were

changed and that this should be thoroughly evaluated.

Mr. Teddy stated that the information provided was extremely helpful. He noted

that some additional research would be performed expanding a literature review

that sought out definitions not solely focused on the term “family” and GIS analysis

would be performed. Mr. Zenner noted that given other work session topics that

need to be discussed this topic would re-appear on the Commission’s work session

agenda at their June 5 meeting.

VI. OLD BUSINESS

A. Small Lots - Art. 5 (Subdivisions) & App. “A” Revisions -

Discussion

Mr. Zenner introduced the topic and provided an overview his findings with respect

to potential UDC revisions to Article 5 (Subdivisions) and Appendix A relating to the

small lot integration text amendment. He noted that development of specific

revisions would take some additional time and was hopeful more substantive

discussion could be had at an upcoming work session.

Generally speaking, there were approximately 18 references within Art. 5 and

Appendix A that would need to be reviewed to ensure, from a subdivision

approach, that the new small lots could be created. Mr. Zenner noted that changes

to Art. 5 would be fairly limited given much of the impacted regulations were only

referenced in Art. 5 and actually defined/regulated by provisions within Appendix

A. He noted that there were two exceptions to this. The first dealt with the topic of

“Design Adjustments” and the second were dealing with sidewalks. Given recent

discussions Mr. Zenner noted that he felt these topics were timely to consider;

however, cautioned on tying them to functional revisions necessary to produce

small lot efficiently given they could be more challenging to address in an

agreeable amendment.

Given the limited amount of work session time, Mr. Zenner just provided an over of

the standards subject to revision with some context as to why they needed to

change. There was no specific Commission discussion on the identified 18

references. Commissioners understood a more detailed discussion was to occur at

an upcoming work session.

VII. NEXT MEETING DATE - April 24, 2025 @ 5:30 pm (tentative)

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 7 pm

Move to adjourn