City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Conference Rooms

1A/B

Thursday, April 6, 2023

5:30 PM

Work Session

Columbia City Hall

701 E. Broadway

I. CALL TO ORDER

7 -

Present:

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

Jones, Robbin Kimbell and Peggy Placier

2 - Tootie Burns and Shannon Wilson

Excused:

II. INTRODUCTIONS

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously

Approve agenda as submitted

IV. OLD BUSINESS

A. RC (Residential Cottage) District - Discussion (continued)

Mr. Zenner gave an overview of the proposed R-C District by beginning with the

definitions and working through the proposed changes. He noted that since the

item’s presentation at the March 9 meeting several changes to the ordinance

amendment had been made. He noted that the definition of “cottage” dwelling

may need to remove reference to a maximum square footage given the desired

outcome was to allow for “small-lot, small-footprint” homes to be constructed not

only in the proposed RC district but also in the R-2 and R-MF district on substandard

lots.

Mr. Zenner continued to describe the changes that would be necessary to the

district descriptions in Article 2 noting the revision to the R-2 district and the

removal of the reference to the Board of Adjustment’s role within the approval

process for cottage-style development. He then discussed the necessary changes

to the “summary” table of dimensional standards that would be required with the

proposed amendment indicating that a new description and summary table for just

the R-C district would be created.

There was Commission discussion relating the proposed changes to the table and a

question was asked to clarify that what was being proposed was necessary as it was

originally understood that staff was just going to prepare an amendment to create

the R-C district. Mr. Zenner noted that what was being discussed incorporated not

only the change to make a new R-C district, but also preparing the R-2 and R-MF

districts to allow small-lot, small-footprint development possible. He noted that

the combined effort was to potentially address the current issue associated with

“substandard” lots with less than 60-feet of frontage and creation of a pathway to

avoid future lot consolidations that were perceived as eroding neighborhood

character.

Commissioners discussed this approach to the amendment and were generally

supportive of the efforts; however, recommended that in presenting this matter to

Council that the idea of the R-C district be presented first with the revisions to the

R-2 and R-MF districts being a secondary activity least the whole amendment

process be misunderstood. Mr. Zenner acknowledged the observation and

indicated such a tactic could be utilized as the item proceeded through the

regulatory process.

As Mr. Zenner continued to explain the dimensional standard table revisions to the

R-2 district there was discussion relating to the required front yard setback. Mr.

Zenner noted that following the March 9 meeting he had reviewed the setbacks

and concluded that it was more appropriate to retain a 25-foot setback in the R-2

when cottage-style development would be permitted and not accessed from an

alley. This revision would require an additional 5-feet be provided; however,

would ensure consistency with all other zoning classifications and provide

additional depth when a vehicle was parked in the front yard versus the minimum

20-feet that is typically necessary. He further noted that a reduction to a 10-foot

front yard would be possible if the lot utilized alley access as it means of

ingress/egress.

There was significant discussion on the impact that this revision would create. As

part of the discussion, the issue of “median” front yard setback was brought up. Mr.

Zenner indicated that based on the way the amendments were prepared the

conflict being discussed was not contemplated. He noted that in instances were a

cottage-style home would be proposed in the midst of a developed block that the

provisions of median setback would over-rule that of the dimensional standards

table. He further noted that Article 4 contained the “actual” dimensional standards

applicable to each zoning district and that what was being shown in Article 2 was

just an excerpt of those standards without any footnotes.

Mr. Zenner noted that, if desired, a specific “exception” in the median front yard

setback provisions to exclude R-C from its rules could be drafted. There was

additional Commission discussion relating to this suggestion which concluded with

the majority of Commissioners not in favor of it. It was further noted that the

reduced front yard setback would ostensibly only really be of value in new

“greenfield” construction where it may be possible to have alley construction

supporting the cottage-style development and not necessarily in “infill”

development. As such, it was agreed that returning the front yard setback to the

original 20-feet with a footnote being added to the dimensional standards table in

Article 4 noting required compliance with the “median” setback would be

acceptable.

Having reached the end of the allotted work session time, the Chair asked Mr.

Zenner what the next steps were. Mr. Zenner indicated that he’d like the

Commission to review the remainder of the amendment with specific attention

being given to the possible “use-specific standards” and the Permitted Use Table

revisions. He noted that same materials presented at tonight’s work session would

appear on the April 20 work session agenda.