City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Conference Rooms

1A/B

Thursday, January 19, 2023

5:30 PM

Work Session

Columbia City Hall

701 E. Broadway

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. INTRODUCTIONS

8 -

Present:

Tootie Burns, Anthony Stanton, Michael MacMann, Valerie Carroll, Sharon Geuea

Jones, Robbin Kimbell, Peggy Placier and Shannon Wilson

1 - Sara Loe

Excused:

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously

Approve as submitted

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Approve all sets of minutes as presented

A. November 29, 2022 Special Work Session

B. November 30, 2022 Special Work Session

C. December 1, 2022 Special Work Session

D. December 6, 2022 Special Work Session

E. January 5, 2023 Work Session

V. OLD BUSINESS

A. UDC Text Amendment - Drive-through facilities (follow-up)

Mr. Zenner provided an overview of the staff memo and explained the status of the

public engagement process and surveying that was discussed at the prior work

session. He noted that staff anticipated to have the survey out by the beginning of

the following week and would be collecting comments that would be summarized

and presented back to the Commission during a scheduled public hearing on

February 23, 2023.

Mr. Zenner noted that a new public hearing was believed necessary to allow for

public comment to be received on the record. Additionally, the public hearing

would allow the Commission to provide a “fresh” recommendation to the Council

on the proposed text change based on the added input from the public. Mr. Zenner

noted that depending on the outcome of the public hearing the staff would be

prepared to provide Council with an updated recommendation on the text

amendment for Council’s March 6, 2023 meeting or request that there be an

additional delay in Council action to allow the text amendment to be revised to

address public comments.

Commissioners agreed with the format described and directed staff to proceed

forward.

VI. NEW BUSINESS

A. Planning Commission Training - Sunshine Law & FOIA

Ms. Thompson from the City’s Law Department provided a PowerPoint

presentation of the State’s sunshine law as well as FOIA requirements to the

Commission as part of its annual training on the topics. She discussed the various

provisions of each regulation and offered insights as to where each were applicable

to the Planning Commission in their operations and where particular situations may

arise. Following her presentation there was general Commission discussion which

focused principally on the issue of conflicts of interest and disclosure.

Commissioners also discussed closure of meetings and how such an action would

likely be very limited given the topics covered by the Commission itself and the

criteria within the Sunshine Law pertaining to such meetings.

With respect to the requirements of posting agendas and the possibility of creating

sub-committees of the Commission, Mr. Zenner provided guidance that such

sub-committees should be avoided whenever possible. He stated that such groups

stretch staff resources and, at times, do not lend to robust discussion of matters

before the Commission. He noted Commissioners working on assignments such as

the STR data compilation are permissible and often valuable and that they do not

constitute a sub-committee since all discussion on the finding are brought back

before the full Commission in an unedited/raw format. He noted his caution on

creating sub-committees was in light of the significant tasks the Commission will

face in the coming year and the desire to ensure the full Commission hears those

issues collectively rather than in smaller groups giving abridged reports back to the

full body. There was general Commission discussion on this point and support for

not utilizing sub-committees.

B. Potential UDC Amendment (i.e. small lots) - Discussion

Mr. Zenner presented the topic and identified an approach via his observations

with prior text changes that may prove useful to produce a more productive and

efficient review of text changes. He recommended that the staff present proposed

adjustments to the Commission with the purpose of gaining insight not for the

purposes of gaining consensus. Utilizing this approach, he believed, would allow

staff to more efficiently move from drafting text changes for routine matters to the

required public hearing on those matters than has been experienced in the recent

past.

He noted that it appears the Commission desires to “perfect” amendments rather

than rely on the staff to draft changes to the current standards it believes are

necessary for effective management and administration of the UDC. Mr. Zenner

noted that more significant regulatory changes such as STR or new lot area/zoning

districts may require a more methodical approach where multiple work session are

required to fully understand the topic. In such instances, he believed the approach

that was taken on STRs would be appropriate.

Mr. Zenner further noted that the Commission can always disagree with the staff in

its approach to a text change or its breadth during the required public hearing.

Those comments would always be forwarded to Council for their ultimate

consideration. The proposed change simply is to keep more routine text changes

flowing through the process without getting hung up in sometime what appears to

be endless discussion. Mr. Zenner noted the code is always capable of being

amended again if an initial change misses the mark or produces other unintended

consequences.

There was general Commission discussion on this proposed shift in text change

presentation. Recommendations as to how to streamline or better inform/educate

the Commission prior to engaging in specific amendments was discussed. It was

suggested that there be some type of “pre-education” data presentation that the

Commissioners would be expected to review to gain understanding of what the

current code offered and why a change was being proposed. Mr. Zenner noted that

such a procedure could be implemented and it could be in a web-cast format.

Commissioners noted it didn’t necessarily need to be that complicated or

advanced. Several Commissioners noted that understanding the Code was part of

their responsibility as a Commission member and burdening the staff in such a

manner wasn’t likely good use of their or Commissioners time.

Mr. Zenner also noted that before the Commission begins its next round of “major”

text changes such as that dealing with the lot area discussion, the Council needs to

be consulted and asked to bless that activity. It is possible the Council may want

the Commission to focus on other higher priority (at least in their minds) activities.

With respect to the current topic of discussion, it is likely that Council will agree

some consideration by the Commission on the topic of lot area and density may be

valuable and useful for the consultant that they have asked be hired to address

“central-city” redevelopment activities. It is essential that the Commission be

given clear authorization before we go head-long into a text change discussion that

may not be desired.

There was also discussion if the text changes to address cottage-housing should be

prioritized along with the lot area/density discussion. Mr. Zenner indicated that it

was and proceeding forward with such a discussion at this time was viewed as

appropriate. He stated that the potential change in how the process for authorizing

cottage-housing in the development process was viewed as more of an

administrative change to increase UDC effectiveness and efficiency.

He noted that he would recommend that correspondence, on behalf of the

Commission, be prepared and forwarded to Council for authorization to proceed

with two separate text amendments one for “cottage-housing” and the other

pertaining to lot area/density. The Commission agreed that producing the

correspondence was appropriate and direct Mr. Zenner to do so.

With respect to discussing the specific attachments to the agenda item, given Ms.

Loe’s absence it was agreed that the matter would be carried forward to the next

work session agenda. Mr. Zenner provided context for what was included in the

packet noting it contained not only the cities used in the research sample, but also

several graphics prepared by Commissioner Loe for the UDC’s current lot coverages

for several zoning districts and the “cottage-style” dimensional standards.