City of Columbia, Missouri  
Meeting Minutes  
Planning and Zoning Commission  
Columbia City Hall  
Conference Rm 1A/1B  
701 E Broadway  
Thursday, December 4, 2025  
5:30 PM  
Work Session  
I. CALL TO ORDER  
8 -  
Present:  
Sharon Geuea Jones, Shannon Wilson, Robert Walters, McKenzie Ortiz, David  
Brodsky, Les Gray, Kate Stockton and Cody Darr  
1 - Anthony Stanton  
Excused:  
II. INTRODUCTIONS  
III. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS  
Prior to approval of the agenda, Mr. Zenner noted that there would be a couple of  
announcements on topics not formally published on the work session agenda that  
would be made by Mr. Craig and Mr. Smith that were determined to be timely. Mr.  
Zenner noted that full discussion of these topics was not possible given they had  
not been formally published on the agenda; however, if a more robust discussion  
were desired staff could add them to a future agenda.  
With these comments made, Mr. Zenner turned the meeting over to Mr. Craig who  
made an announcement with respect to a question that had been presented to the  
Law Department about the “automatic forfeiture” provisions relating to Planning  
Commissioner service following 5 total absences within a 12-month period. Mr.  
Craig explained the current procedure used for calculating absences. This  
procedure counted absences within a chosen period of 12-months beginning June 1  
and ending May 31 and had been consistently applied over the past several years.  
Mr. Craig noted that the choice of a specific 12-months was not consistent with the  
current language contained within the UDC relating to this matter and that the  
“plain” reading of the language within the UDC would be that the collection of  
absences resulting in the forfeiture of office were to be considered on a “rolling”  
12-months. While this inconsistency has been identified, he noted that the status  
quo would be upheld at this time and that moving forward the 12-month  
“lookback” period would be applied to all Commissioner absences. What this would  
mean is that any Commissioner presently having 5 absences would automatically  
forfeit their office upon their next absence given there would be 5 within a  
“rolling” 12-months.  
Mr. Craig noted that a report to the Council is anticipated to be prepared that would  
provide an explanation of the consequences of conforming to the “rolling”  
12-month requirement. He further noted that if the Commission wanted to discuss  
in greater depth possible changes to the attendance provisions of the UDC it would  
be appropriate to schedule the matter as a published work session topic.  
Upon concluding his comments, Mr. Craig turned the meeting over to Mr. Smith  
who provided comments regarding the recent Council meeting outcomes on the IG  
rezoning request located off of Paris Road and his intended strategy to address the  
concerns expressed by Council with respect to the possible use of the land for a  
“data center”. Mr. Smith noted that he was directing staff to prepare a text change  
that would create a definition for “data center” and make the use allowed only  
after issuance of a conditional use permit (CUP) which would allow for both  
Commission and Council added discussion with respect to such uses.  
He noted that his proposed approach would not be a “fine-tuned” solution;  
however, would be an interim measure allowing staff to develop tailored  
use-specific standards regarding the land use after conducting some additional  
research. He expressed concern that without such an action it would be possible  
that any request for IG zoning could be impacted. He further noted that prior to this  
matter being brought before the Commission, a report would be given to the City  
Council on the proposed paths forward which would be followed by the formal text  
changes.  
Mr. Smith also discussed the outcome of a recent short-term rental request that  
had a petition of opposition associated with it and the Council’s reaction to the  
petition versus the Commission’s apparent lack of reaction to the petition. He  
noted that based on his observations of Council, which is why he was bring the  
matter up, it appeared the Council gave greater weight to the petition signatures  
than the evaluation performed by the Commission in its overall deliberations on  
the matter.  
While the request was ultimately approved by Council like it was by the  
Commission, Mr. Smith noted these types of observations/insights may prove  
helpful as the Commission tries to understand how their actions impact Council  
decisions. He noted that moving forward the work session agendas would include a  
new agenda item where staff (i.e. himself) would be able to provide the  
Commission with updates on Council cases that may have longer term impacts in  
the relationship between the Commission and Council.  
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA  
Meeting agenda adopted unanimously.  
Adopt minutes as presented  
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  
November 20, 2025 Work Session  
The November 20, 2025 work session minutes were approved with Commissioners  
Wilson abstaining.  
Adopt minutes as presented  
VI. SPECIAL ITEMS  
A. 2026 PZC Deadlines & Hearing Schedule  
Mr. Zenner distributed the 2026 Development Submission Calendar to the Commission  
and went over the meeting dates for the upcoming year.  
VII. OLD BUSINESS  
A. Small Lot Integration Text Amendments - Article 5 & Appendix A  
Mr. Zenner provided an overview of the progress made on the text revisions to  
Article 5 noting that his progress was less than anticipated. He discussed the  
changes proposed with the “flag/tier” lot provisions discussed at the prior meeting  
and the realization that the platting process had two very distinct tracks which in  
some cases required both the Commission and Council action and in others just  
Council action.  
As a result of this realization he explained that the proposed “flag/tier” lot  
provisions were restructured such that they were more specifically tailored to  
“unplatted” and resubdivided or replatted property. He noted that the new  
provisions provided a distinction between a platting action where only 1 new lot  
was being created out of the original parcel and situations in which more than 2  
new lots, up to a maximum of 4 lots, were being created. Mr. Zenner explained  
that the existing provisions for “flag/tier” lots would generally apply in situations  
were only 1 new lot was being created. Whereas in situations where more than 2  
new lots from the original parcel were to be created entirely new standards would  
be applied such that the “stem” could serve as roadway frontage and access to the  
new lots as well as address driveway placement and length maximums that were  
previously discussed.  
After explaining the revised provisions there was general Commission discussion.  
Commissioners questioned if it was truly necessary to create the new provisions  
since the UDC already allowed for the creation of “irrevocable access easements” to  
access lots that were not otherwise accessible from the primary roadway frontage.  
Mr. Zenner stated that in newly created subdivisions this was a correct assessment  
and that the provisions would not generally be applicable since the property  
undergoing subdivision was doing so for the first time. He added that in such  
instances there would potentially not really be a need to create a “flag/tier” lot  
given other alternatives (i.e. alleys) could be used to access such lots and could be  
integrated into new development.  
Mr. Zenner explained that the proposed revisions were prepared more to address  
the issue of activating unused deep lots within the already “built-out” portions of  
the city as well as to provide clarity on when and how “flag/tier” lots would be  
permissible. Given prior UDC amendments opened up the possibility to legalize  
historically substandard deep lots, the amendment language provides clarity on a  
property owner’s ability to seek resubdivision approval in an effort to activate the  
unused portion of those lots. Mr. Zenner noted that without the text changes the  
ability for the City Council to approve a “flag/tier” lot on a parcel deemed legal  
would be otherwise restricted since the current language applies only to  
“unplatted” lots which also includes non-legal lots.  
Given the “dual” purpose of the amendment, Mr. Zenner felt that it was  
appropriate; however, did note that it was possible that the standards directly  
applicable to small lots could be pulled out from the “general” subdivision  
standards and moved into a single location within the UDC that specifically  
addressed the issue of “Small Lot Development”. The Commission generally  
agreed that moving all the standards applicable to “small lots” to a single location  
was appropriate.  
There were additionally questions asked with respect to the maximum length of  
the “stem” to access the rear lots on a parcel being set at 250-feet and being limited  
to a maximum of 4 lots. Mr. Zenner noted that the choice of 250-feet was made  
based on what was presently allowed in the creation of a “flag/tier” lot. The cap at  
4 lots was chosen since that is the maximum number of lots off a “shared driveway”  
for residential development. The Commissioner’s acknowledged the rational for  
these provisions; however, also asked if the Fire Department would be accepting of  
the maximum length. Mr. Zenner noted he would follow up with the Fire  
Department staff to ensure this was the case. He stated that the last thing desired  
was to create an impact that could only be mitigated by installation of a turnaround  
or extension of a waterline with a fire hydrant on it.  
Finally, the Commission questioned the reasoning for the “stem” providing access  
to the rear lots needing to be platted as part of the lot furthest from the primary  
roadway serving the overall parcel given that same “stem” would need to be within  
a platted “irrevocable access easement”. Commissioners commented that the  
regulatory provision appeared to be more complicated than necessary.  
It was recommended that the provision be modified such that only an “irrevocable  
access easement” be required to be platted across each lot being created to  
provide a location for the “common driveway”. Commissioners noted that doing so  
would simplify the platting action, result in the newly created lots spanning the  
entire width of the parent parcel, and potentially eliminate the need for the extra  
exception language regarding the easement area being counted in the required  
setback. Mr. Zenner noted that he would have review the proposed change and  
work with Mr. Craig on how the easement dedication language would need to be  
shown on a future plat, but generally saw what was proposed as an acceptable  
alternative to achieving the concept of a defined “shared” access within a “stem”  
benefiting all newly created lots and serving as “frontage” and “access” as required  
by the UDC.  
Having reached the end of available work session time, Mr. Zenner noted he and  
Mr. Kunz would be working to prepare additional text revisions and a small lot  
“visualization” for the December 18 work session. There were no business items to  
discussion December 18; therefore, the work session would be extended to 7:30  
pm with the Commission’s holiday meal occupying approximately the first 30  
minutes of the meeting.  
VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE - December 4, 2025 @ 5:30 pm (tentative)  
IX. ADJOURNMENT  
Meeting adjourned at 6:55 pm.  
Motion to adjourn