City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

CONFERENCE RM

1A/1B

Thursday, May 23, 2024

5:30 PM

WORK SESSION

CITY HALL

701 E BROADWAY

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. INTRODUCTIONS

8 -

Present:

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

Jones, Peggy Placier, Shannon Wilson and Zack Dunn

1 - Matt Ford

Excused:

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously

Approve agenda as submitted

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

April 18, 2024 Work Session

The April 18, 2024 work session minutes were approved unanimously with

Commissioner Dunn abstaining.

Approve April 18 minutes as presented

V. NEW BUSINESS

A. Inclusionary Housing Article

Mr. Zenner provided an overview of how this item was placed on the agenda and

explained that given the current zoning provisions within the UDC that the City of

Columbia’s zoning requirements do not explicitly preclude housing styles and price

points similar to that which were referenced in the article resulting in the the State

of New Jersey implementing an “inclusionary” zoning mandate for its communities.

Mr. Zenner noted that the topic of inclusionary zoning was previously discussed

with the City Council and that Tim Teddy had prepared a report on the topic.

Following the report, no further direction was given for staff to work on specific

revisions to implement such a zoning framework.

Mr. Zenner further noted that implementation of inclusionary zoning into the Code

would require significant research and additional staff resources for effective

management. Additionally, he noted that it is more likely the reason segregation

within the city’s neighborhoods with respect to housing availability and

affordability is not necessarily a zoning matter, but rather one more rooted in

lending practices and profit motivations by development professionals. He

reiterated that the city’s zoning has many options available to allow for the

production of a wide spectrum of housing types. This is in stark contrast to what

was occurring within New Jersey in which State Legislation was needed to address

that culture.

Following Mr. Zenner’s remarks, Commissioner Wilson, who requested that this

matter be added to the agenda, gave a personal testimonial about the impacts and

challenges that presently exist within the local market to finding “quality”,

affordable housing. She also suggested the city could do better and that everyone

deserves a decent place to live. Chairman Geuea Jones noted that her takeaway

from the article was that it illustrated a “cautionary tale” of how not to zoning or

development standards that unintentionally price housing out of reach for every.

She noted that some of the concern raised in the article may be directly applicable

to the Commission’s current efforts in establishing use-specific standards for “small

lot” development.

There was additional general Commission discussion relating to the article. This

discussion focused primarily on the lack of examples of what types of housing are

now being built in New Jersey to meet the enacted legal requirements for

inclusionary housing. Some Commissioners cited that it may be being met by

construction of multi-family dwellings. Mr. Zenner reminded the Commission that

the small lot regulations were focused on increasing lots available for a variety of

single-family, small footprint homes and did not include multi-family housing as an

option on the smaller lots. To switch direction at this point would be possible;

however, such an endeavor may be a separate activity. Given the lack of direction

to do that activity and the other pressing issues that will be coming to the

Commission, Mr. Zenner noted that tackling the topic of inclusionary zoning may

need wait.

In response to that recommendation some Commissioners expressed frustration

and compared the suggestion to other historical events such as the movement to

end segregation and the establishment of black voting rights. It was suggested that

if the recommendation to wait on addressing those issues were followed, as it had

been recommended, the matters may still not be addressed today. A rhetorical

question was raised “if not now, when”.

Mr. Zenner was asked to produce the report prepared by Mr. Teddy to help further

the Commission’s understanding of what was previously discussed with respect to

inclusionary housing. Mr. Zenner noted he would gather that information and

provide it to the Commission for their review. He further noted that the project the

Commission was presently engaged in is a step in the direction of addressing

housing needs; however, also acknowledged that the success of this new zoning

option lies fully with those that produce housing and finance it.

VI. OLD BUSINESS

A. UDC Text Amendment - Small Lots use-specific standards

Mr. Zenner provided an overview of the revisions that were made since the April 18

work session noting that he had added to the work previously done and would

continue to do so moving forward so all the use-specific standards were in a single

document. He stated that he had updated the previously presented text to ensure

consistency as in describing distances or fractional parts of a development in

decimals as was requested by Commissioner Wilson.

Mr. Zenner further discussed how he came up with the 300 square feet of open

space centralized open space in development greater than 30 lots. He noted that as

he reviewed the standards is occurred to him that such a requirement was actually

potentially creating an unintended consequence that may drive up development

cost. He asked the Planning Commissioners to reflect on what they were truly

trying to achieve with the requirement of open space outside a privately

maintained lot and they could “circle back” to the topic at a future work session. He

recommended a couple of options to allow for currently protected development

features to be considered for “common” open space that may result in not creating

the need for a neighborhood or homeowers association for the maintenance of

these features.

The discussion of the updated use-specific standards transitioned to the how to

“not have parking requirements drive development form”. He went through the

proposed provisions which contained two possible options. The first addressed the

ability to move a parking space on a lot less than 5000 sq. ft. and narrower than

59-feet to the property line. He explained that this technique would encourage the

development of private driveways of 10-ft on either side of a shared property to

serve as a “common” driveway to potentially a rear detached garage. There was

Commission discussion on this proposed revision and Commission indicated

general support of the change.

The second revision proposed allowing on-street parking to be counted for the

required off-street parking. Mr. Zenner noted that staff was not supportive of

reducing the parking requirements and offered several examples as to why. He

noted that the proposed amendment would again apply to lots less than 5000 sq. ft

only and would be controlled by 3 factors. There was Commission discussion this

recommended option and it was noted that a revision should be made to ensure

that for “every” vehicle parked off-site a minimum of 23-feet of curbline frontage

should be present in front of the subject lot. Mr. Zenner recognized what this was

recommended and noted it could be addressed in a future revision. Discussion on

this proposed amendment was not completed prior to the end of the work session

and it was noted that it would resume at the June 6 meeting.

As a part of the general discussion on the existing use-specific standards it was

request that a definition of “New Development” be created so it was understood

what staff meant by the term in the context of the use-specific standards.

Additional Commissioners sought to have the information on the zoning district

distribution (i.e. acres per zoning district) over time provided. It was noted the last

time such information was provided may have been 2-3 years ago. Mr. Zenner

noted he would prepare the new definition and have the acreage table re-run for

the next work session.

Mr. Zenner thanked the Commission for the comments and noted that the staff

would continue to work on preparing the remaining use-specific standards

identified during the April 4 work session.

VII. NEXT MEETING DATE - June 6, 2024 @ 5:30 pm (tentative)

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 6:55 pm

Move to adjourn