City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Columbia City Hall

Conference Rm 1A/1B

701 E Broadway

Thursday, November 20, 2025

Work Session

5:30 PM

I. CALL TO ORDER

8 -

Present:

Anthony Stanton, Sharon Geuea Jones, Robert Walters, McKenzie Ortiz, David

Brodsky, Les Gray, Kate Stockton and Cody Darr

1 - Shannon Wilson

Excused:

II. INTRODUCTIONS

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously.

Adopt minutes as presented

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

November 6, 2025 Work Session

The November 6, 2025 work session minutes were approved with Commissioners

Gray and Stockton abstaning.

Adopt minutes as presented

V. OLD BUSINESS

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

Mr. Zenner introduced the topic, provide a synopsis of what progress he had made

in preparing the text changes as well as explained that Mr. Kunz was working on the

graphic visualization that the Commission sought to see how all the regulations

worked together. He noted that he hoped to have the majority of the text

amendments completed by the December 4 work session. Mr. Zenner further

noted given there was no “regular” business to be conducted on December 18,

there would be an extended work session to allow Mr. Knuz time to present the

visualizations of the proposed amendment provisions and wrap up “loose-ends” on

the text changes. Given this schedule could be met, the proposed fully text change

would be presented to the local design community in January 2026 for testing.

Optimistically, Mr. Zenner commented that the proposed text changes would be

presented to the Commission for a public hearing in April 2026.

With this introduction Mr. Zenner ran through approximately half of the specific

text changes within Article 5 and Appendix A that were identified as part of the

Commission’s earlier discussion. Mr. Zenner noted that provisions were added to

clarify that reductions in minimum lot size (area and width) and preservation

bonuses would not apply to small lots. He also noted that given the M-OF and M-N

districts had been included in the proposed text revisions given single-family

detached housing was allowed within these districts.

There was discussion on this addition and if it were actually necessary given there

were no general dimensional (i.e. lot standards) for this type of development

within the zoning districts. It was noted that the majority of the residential

development occurring within these districts was actually multi-family not single-

or two-family development. Mr. Zenner acknowledged that this was a correct

statement; however, noted that if a property owner were to consider using

property so entitled to develop small lots without undergoing a rezoning action it

would be necessary to ensure that such development could not benefit from the

existing reductions, in essence “double-dipping”. There was additional discussion

on the topic which concluded that given the limited nature of single-family

development in the districts leaving the exception as written was appropriate.

Mr. Zenner then discussed the proposed text changes address the issue of when

sidewalk installation would be triggered with creation of small lots. He noted that

to address this matter a new subsection needed to be created that essentially

created a “carve-out” for installation on longer infill properties were an irrevocable

access easement would be created to access lots not fronting an existing public

street. Mr. Zenner noted the proposed amendment language essentially required

property being subdivided to create additional small lots to install sidewalk along

the primary street frontage, but be exempt from having to install sidewalk along

the irrevocable access easement.

There was general Commission discussion on the proposed text. It was noted that

there really was no reason to include the first full sentence of subsection (iii) which

was describing the lot sizes that would be exempt. Rather the Commissioners

believed the new subsection was complete by simply expressing that sidewalk

construction on irrevocable access easement would not be required provided they

were less than 250-feet in length. Mr. Zenner explained the origins of the 250-foot

distance which is consists with the maximum length of a “residential” street not

required to install sidewalks. It was further discussed that if a proposed irrevocable

access easement were longer or there was a desire to not install sidewalk at all

along the primary street frontage, an applicant would need to seek a “design

adjustment” just like they would today with standard lot development.

Mr. Zenner then proceeded to discuss text amendments that would allow the

Commission and Council the ability authorize the creation of “flag/stem” lots on

previously unplatted (subsection “a”) and platted (subsection “b”) property. It was

noted an oversight was made in the preparation of these text changes that failed to

identify the distinction between the two subsections with respect to what review

body (i.e. Commission or Council) would have principal authority in authorizing the

creation of the “flag/stem” lot. “Flag/stem” lots described in subsection “a” were

primarily reviewed by the Commission and then Council. Whereas, “flag/stem” lots

described in subsection “b” were the sole purview of the Council. Given this

oversight, the proposed provisions within subsection "b" (specifically i, ii, and iii)

needed to be added to subsection “a”. Furthermore, it was agreed that using the

same limitations on lot width shown in subsection “a” should not be repeated in

subsection “b” given existing lots that may be substandard and sought for further

subdivision using a stem may have more than 59-feet of roadway frontage.

Mr. Zenner noted that the purpose of creating the new provisions relating to

“flag/stem” lots would generally only be applicable to “infill” development

scenarios given the “flag/stem” created would also need to be encumbered by an

irrevocable access easement. In new “greenfield” development “stacking” lots and

using “flags/stems” as an access alternative would be discouraged and the use of

alleys in such development would be encouraged instead.

Having completed the discussion of all prepared text changes and receiving

supportable feedback, Mr. Zenner noted that he would condition to work to

complete the remaining amendments. He noted that the Commission’s discussion

on this topic would continue at the December 4 and 18 meetings.

VI. NEXT MEETING DATE - December 4, 2025 @ 5:30 pm (tentative)

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 6:55 pm.

Move to adjourn