City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

CONFERENCE RM

1A/1B

Thursday, March 21, 2024

5:30 PM

WORK SESSION

CITY HALL

701 E BROADWAY

I. CALL TO ORDER

8 -

Present:

Sara Loe, Anthony Stanton, Michael MacMann, Valerie Carroll, Sharon Geuea

Jones, Peggy Placier, Shannon Wilson and Matt Ford

1 - Zack Dunn

Excused:

II. INTRODUCTIONS

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously

Adopt agenda as submitted

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

March 7, 2024 Work Session

The March 7, 2024 work session minutes were approved unanimously.

Approve March 7, 2024 minutes as submitted

V. OLD BUSINESS

A. UDC Text Amendment - Small Lots

Mr. Zenner introduced the topic and referenced the staff memo that was part of the

work session packet. He noted that discussion would start with the second topic in

the memo (i.e.; graduated ground floor area) which was believed to be a bit more

challenging. Mr. Zenner then noted he would circle back to the definitions

discussion that was not covered during the March 7 work session.

Mr. Zenner explained the staff concerns and challenges with what he understood

the Commission was seeking within the graduated ground floor area calculation.

He noted that to keep the proposed regulations simple, predictable, and easier to

explain to future users, staff thought it best to keep the calculation at the proposed

limits. The limits were initially established using approximately 32% of the total lot

area of each of the four lot size ranges (3000-3499, 3500-3999, 4000-4499, and

4500-5000). After initial concern expressed by the Commission, staff consolidated

the four ranges into two (3000-3999 and 4000-4999), calculated the average square

footage between the four ranges, and then assigned 1250 sq. ft. (approximately

mid-point) to the lower band and 1450 sq. ft. to the higher band.

Commissioners explained that what they were concerned about was that an

applicant would make the lot 1 sq. ft. larger to gain the greater ground floor area

which in essence may remove any incentive to construction homes on the smaller

lots. Upon making this statement, there was additional discussion about the

underlying premise for having the ground floor coverage requirements in the first

place. Mr. Zenner noted that the limitation was to ensure that home scale was

proportionate to available lot area and building area. Commissioners recognized

this purpose; however, still noted that a more flexible sliding scale would better

address the matter.

There was further discussion with respect to how the original ground floor

calculation was computed. Commissioners recommended that creating a flat 35%

percent lot coverage with the opportunity to seek a bonus may be a better

approach. Mr. Zenner noted he’d have to look at what the actual percentage should

be such that lots smaller than 5000 sq. ft. would not be permit greater ground floor

area than a standard 5000 sq. ft. lot such that conventional lot development be

discouraged. Commissioners agreed that evaluating this impact was appropriate.

With respect to the potential for a bonus in ground floor area, it was recommended

that a maximum of 40% may be appropriate if such lots were to utilize traditional

setback standards or standards similar to those found within the UDC relating to

solar or conservation subdivisions. Mr. Zenner stated he would look at the possible

standards that could be utilized from these existing provisions. He also

recommended that an increase in ground floor coverage could be tied to

“use-specific standards” applicable to the newly created lot sizes.

Having gained the added clarity on the Commission’s desired outcome relating to

the ground floor area limitations, Mr. Zenner moved onto the unfinished business

of definitions. He noted that the Commission’s prior discussion had raised concern

with the term “floor area”. Mr. Zenner noted the UDC and the City’s Taxation

provisions contained definition relating to this term. The UDC’s definition was

specific to uses within the floodplain regulation. Given the narrow nature of the

UDC’s definition Mr. Zenner noted that the Taxation definition was more

appropriate. He further noted that bolded text within the Taxation definition

would exclude all accessory structures (i.e. ADU’s, detached garages, and sheds)

from counting toward a lot’s maximum FAR.

There was general discussion on this point. It was a noted that by counting

everything within the foundation walls would also include a basement. There was

some concern with this; however, it was noted that such an inclusion is how

property is taxed and if a different definition was created it would likely result in

more confusion than clarity. A question was asked about the instance of a carport

being attached to a dwelling in lieu of a garage. Mr. Zenner noted that he’d have to

research that question, but thought given the exterior supports of the carport

(holding up its roof) were not on a foundation wall such area may not count toward

the dwelling’s FAR. There was also discussion on how this definition would impact

the new style of lots that could accommodate an ADU.

Mr. Zenner noted that Commissioner Loe raised a question at the March 7 Regular

Planning Commission meeting when discussion was occurring on the ADU

amendments about a statement in the work session memo in which it stated ADUs

were not being permitted on small lots. To clarify, Mr. Zenner noted that the

statement was meant to apply to lots smaller than 5000 sq. ft.. So with respect to

how a “medium-sized” lot using the reduced setbacks would be impacted by the

proposed Taxation definition of “floor area” it was noted that an ADU of any size

could be constructed on such a lot provided the total ground floor area limits that

were just discussed were not being exceeded.

Given this clarification, the Commissioners agreed to support the definition of

“Floor Area Ratio” based upon the Taxation definition of “Total Floor Area”. Having

resolved this matter Mr. Zenner recapped the other definitions that were discussed

and agreed upon previously to ensure everyone understood that the UDC would

now cover all aspects of lots with respect to the lot sizes - building area, building

envelope, and Floor Area Ratio.

Mr. Zenner noted that he would be providing the Commissioners with the

previously distributed form-based code provisions relating to the “detached”

frontage type as a primer for potential “use-specific standards” that could be

considered applicable to new small and medium lot subdivisions. He further noted

that the City’s consultant preparing design guidelines for the Central City Study

Area may also have standards that could be incorporated in the future. Finally, Mr.

Zenner noted he would continue to work to identify UDC subdivision standard

revisions to ensure effective integration of the small/medium lots into the built

environment.

VI. NEXT MEETING DATE - April 4, 2024 @ 5:30 pm (tentative)

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 6:55 pm.

Move to adjourn