City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Conference Rooms

1A/B

Thursday, February 23, 2023

5:30 PM

Work Session

Columbia City Hall

701 E. Broadway

I. CALL TO ORDER

7 -

Present:

Tootie Burns, Michael MacMann, Valerie Carroll, Sharon Geuea Jones, Robbin

Kimbell, Peggy Placier and Shannon Wilson

2 - Sara Loe and Anthony Stanton

Excused:

II. INTRODUCTIONS

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously

Move to adopt

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

February 9, 2023 Work Session

Attachments: Work Session Minutes

February 9, 2023 work session minutes adopted as presented.

Move to approve as presented

V. OLD BUSINESS

A. UDC Text Amendment - RC (Residential Cottage) District

Attachments: Staff Report to Planning and Zoning Commission

Mr. Zenner gave an overview of the proposed structure of the new zoning district

based on the memo that was distributed with the Commission work session

agenda. He apologized for not having something more substantive to present to

the Commission; however, in light of the staff changes that were forthcoming he

noted that time did not permit him to work on the textual version of the proposed

changes.

As a means of providing context for the proposed changes Mr. Zenner displayed the

City Code and Chapter 29. He noted to accommodate the RC district several

sections of Chapter 29 would be altered. A few of the immediately obvious

changes that would be required included a new definition for “cottage dwelling” in

Section 29-1.11, a new district designation in Section 29-2.1, and a description of the

RC district in Section 29-2.2 similar to that of the other residential districts. Mr.

Zenner then noted that the more substantive changes would occur within Article 3

beginning with the Permitted Use Table and the “use-specific standards” ending

with revisions to Article 4 specifically address dimensional standards for residential

districts.

Mr. Zenner noted that the concept with the revisions to the Permitted Use Table

would include creating a new zoning district column for the RC zone and

transferring over the dimensional standards from the R-2 district relating to

“cottage”. Commissioner’s asked a question about the “cottage” standard

remaining available in the R-2 district following the proposed RC district creation

and removal of the Board of Adjustment approval provisions. Mr. Zenner noted

that this could happen; however, this would not provide the guarantee that

cottage-style development would occur which was the underlying purpose for

creating the new RC district.

Commissioners stated that the intent with leaving the option for cottage-style

development within the R-2 district following the proposed change was to

potentially offer a way for existing substandard lots within the R-2 and/or possibly

R-MF districts to be redeveloped without the necessity of consolidation. Mr.

Zenner explained that what was being suggested may be a potential option;

however, the issue with R-MF substandard lots was the definition of “legal lot”

within the code which did not include R-MF zoned land. He noted that to convince

a property owner to downzone to R-2 to allow for redevelopment without a replat

may be challenging given the current situation is that most owners of vacant R-MF

land are engaged in a “waiting gaming” with their neighbors in hopes that they can

acquire more R-MF property that can be consolidated; thereby, allowing the

benefits of the R-MF zoning to be realized.

There was additional discussion on this topic. Mr. Zenner noted that to

accommodate what the Commission was suggesting he would need to determine

dimensional standard boundaries for cottage-style development so that there

would be assurance that the desired style of development (i.e. small footprint

detached single-family housing) was all that could occur on a substandard lot.

There was discussion of some possible approaches.

Mr. Zenner further noted that part of the Permitted Use Table changes would also

involve determining what other uses would be allowed within the RC district. He

noted that given the small lot area that would be associated with the district

accessory uses such as ADUs, home-based businesses, daycares, etc may be

problematic. Mr. Zenner stated that one way in which these issues could be

addressed may be to include an “exception” in those uses’ existing “use-specific

standards” such that they not be allowed in the RC district.

Mr. Zenner also noted that it was likely that there would need to be unique

“use-specific standards” created for the RC district. Such standards would establish

particular design criteria and other standards that would be desired for the type of

construction occurring. He noted that he intended to develop such a list of

standards from some of the form-based code provisions considered when the UDC

was being drafted.

Mr. Zenner then noted that there would need to be changes to the dimensional

standards table that is found in Article 4. It was within this table that the summary

information that was provided in Section 29-2.2 would be more fully explained. He

reiterated that the provisions shown under “cottage” in the R-2 district column

would be shifted over to the new RC column and there potentially would be some

adjustment to ensure there was a clear break between allowable lot sizes. He

noted that his initial inclination was to have the minimum lot area expressed as a

range from 3000 sq. ft.- 4,999 sq.ft to ensure the only type of product to be built in

the RC district was a “cottage” sized home. He noted that without specifying a range

there would be limited incentive to ensure the type of housing desired (i.e. small

footprints) would be constructed.

Commissioners questioned if the lot area should be segmented and referred back

to ensuring that “cottage” was retained within the R-2 district. Retaining such a use

in the R-2 would potentially allow substandard lots (based on lot width) the option

to construct a small footprint home when the lot contained more square footage

than the RC district without the need for requiring a replat of the property. Mr.

Zenner understood the point and stated he would figure out how to incorporate

such development within the R-2 district. To do so may require reducing the

minimum lot frontage for “cottage-style” lots in the R-2 to include lots ranging from

30-feet to less than 60-feet width. Commissioners also discussed correspondence

submitted by Commissioner Loe, given her absence, that offered observations on

the setbacks and lot area discussed in the Staff Memo on this topic. Her

correspondence suggested considering reductions in setbacks, retaining historical

lot areas, and potentially considering the imposition of a maximum lot coverage

ratio.

Mr. Zenner acknowledge that he had received Commissioner Loe’s correspondence

and would look at the comments offered as he proceeded forward. He noted that

he should be capable of preparing a more complete text change relating to this

topic for the March 9 work session.

VI. NEXT MEETING DATE - March 9, 2023 @ 5:30 pm (tentative)

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:55 pm

Move to adjourn