City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

CONFERENCE RM

1A/1B

Thursday, April 18, 2024

5:30 PM

WORK SESSION

CITY HALL

701 E BROADWAY

I. CALL TO ORDER

9 -

Present:

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

Jones, Peggy Placier, Shannon Wilson, Zack Dunn and Matt Ford

II. INTRODUCTIONS

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously

Agenda adopted as presented

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

April 4, 2024 Work Session

The April 4, 2024 work session minutes were approved unanimously with

Commissioner Wilson abstaining.

Approve minutes as presented

V. NEW BUSINESS

A. Council Assignments

Mr. Zenner provided the Commissioners with an overview of a newly assigned text

amendment presented at the April 1, 2024 Council meeting by Engineering Surveys

and Services, on behalf of their client The Puri Group, relating to hotel height. Mr.

Zenner explained the amendment was tied to a recent concept review for a new

hotel that would be built southwest of the intersection of Hanover Drive and Clark

Lane between I-70 and a future relocated 63 Connector interchange proposed with

the overall Improve I-70 project. The new interchange would be created by the

extension of Hanover Drive south of its current intersection with Clark Lane and

extend under I-70 to I-70 Drive SE.

Mr. Zenner continued to explain that with the requested text amendment, the

applicant submitted proposed UDC language for consideration. The proposed text

recommended increased hotel height could be considered when a property was

within a particular distance of I-70, US 63, and Stadium Boulevard zoned M-C

(Mixed-use Corridor). Additionally, the applicant’s proposed code text suggested a

maximum height of 8 stories and allowing height to increase 5-feet for every 1-foot

of increased setback above the minimum required in the M-C district. Finally, the

proposed code text noted “neighborhood protection” standards would apply to

future hotels in the locations where additional height would be permitted.

After explaining the context of the amendment, there was significant Commission

discussion on the applicant’s proposed UDC text. Concerns were expressed that

what was proposed may be inappropriate given surrounding land use context and

that the amendment text seemed to be prepared with little evaluation of the

impacts upon possible allowable locations and used a limited sample of sites to

arrive at the recommended standards. Mr. Zenner noted that staff had not

performed any research at this time - the language proposed was completely from

the applicant.

He further noted that research would be done before a final amendment was

presented to the Commission at a future work session. He also expressed that staff

shares several of the Commission’s concerns; however, is generally supportive of

the amendment given its benefits to reduce development sprawl, align with

current development trends, maximize infrastructure investments, and streamline

the development approval process by eliminating Board of Adjustment variances

and potentially PD requests.

Commissioner’s offer several suggestions on what to consider in the research

phase of the amendment. Mr. Teddy suggested that a GIS analysis similar to that

performed when medical marijuana was approved at the State level prior to

adoption of local regulations could be undertaken. Such an analysis would map the

radii offered by the applicant to see what property would be eligible. This

suggestion was seen as appropriate by the Commission. Several Commission

expressed significant reservation to see hotels along the “central” section of

Stadium Boulevard given the possible impacts to adjoining residential

development.

Mr. Zenner noted that the timeline for the amendment was not defined given the

other activities the Commission was engaged in as well as the uncertain timing of

the completion of the design plans for the I-70/Hanover interchange. Mr. Zenner

noted that pursuing development plan approval for the new hotel would require a

rezoning of the property as well as platting. Without a clearer understanding on

the final design of the interchange it is uncertain how much land will be needed to

construct it out of the subject property upon which the new hotel would be

located. Mr. Zenner noted that the existing processes through which hotel height

can be increase (variance or PD) are still available should the final design of the

roadway projects proceed faster than anticipated and the text amendment is

lagging behind.

With that said, Mr. Zenner noted, staff will begin analysis as recommended by the

Commission and come back in the near-term with its research results and a

proposed text change.

VI. OLD BUSINESS

A. UDC Text Amendment - Small Lots

Mr. Zenner indicated that since the prior work session preparation of proposed

use-specific provisions proceeded slower than anticipated. He noted what had

been prepared and presented in the work session packet involved significant

review of existing UDC provisions and consideration of the new standards could be

integrated into the old. Mr. Zenner noted that he was looking for existing UDC

standards that could be tweaked and applied to the new small lots more so than

trying to develop totally new requirements. Furthermore, he stated that he was

experiencing difficulty in finding examples from other communities that capture

the essence of what the Commission desired.

Following his opening remarks, Mr. Zenner presented proposed use-specific

standards relating to “lack of open space” and “lack of diversity”. With respect to

the first topic, Mr. Zenner noted that the UDC currently requires 15% of a site to be

left in open space for all land uses other than single-family, two-family live/work

uses or zoning. As a means of ensuring developments containing small lots are

required to provide dedicated open space, it was proposed that development

greater than 30 lots where 75% or more of the lots are smaller than 5000 sq. ft

provide 300 sq. ft. of common open space. If the development were within ¼-mile

radius of a public park connected to the development by sidewalk it would be

exempt from the standard.

Having explained the provision there was general Commission discussion.

Concerns were raised that the standard seemed low and Commissioners asked that

the percentage be verified. It was recommended that establishing a standard

based on a population threshold (i.e. open space/persons or open space/acre)

would be more defensible and could be “scaled” up or down. It was also requested

that presentation of numbers be consistent within the text language (i.e.

percentage vs fractions).

Mr. Zenner continued to the second topic presented in the work session memo

dealing with “lack of diversity”. He noted that for the proposes of the use specific

standards he viewed “diversity” as being associated with architectural diversity

such that a development did not appear monotonous and cookie-cutter. He further

noted that several of the proposed standards were pulled from other location

within the UDC, specifically the M-DT provisions.

Again, Mr. Zenner noted that the general UDC requirements applying to design

standards and guidelines exempt single-family development. To address this, a

revision to the exemption provisions is proposed such that compliance with the

existing design standards would be activated when development of a single-family

home on a lot less than 5000 sq. ft. was proposed. In addition to making this

revision, a new subsection was proposed that included specific standards intended

to ensure “diversity” within small lots developments that contained more than 30

lots of which greater than 75% were less than 5000 sq. ft.

Mr. Zenner explained the proposed “diversity” elements require no fewer than 2

different building styles and 20% architectural treatment variations between

dwelling units be incorporated into new small lot developments. Additionally, no

more than 6 dwelling units using the same floorplan could be adjacent to each

other and “mirroring” a building floorplan to enhance diversity was highly

encouraged. Finally, the proposed “diversity” elements proposed to address

transitions between buildings of different sizes by using the existing neighborhood

protection standards (i.e. step-down or increased setback) applicable to

multi-family development adjacent to single or two-family dwellings.

The Commission has significant discussion relating to the necessity of the proposed

architectural requirements. There was also discussion that staff misunderstood

what the Commissioners sought when it discussed “diversity”. Several

Commissioners noted this was intended to focus on the types and sizes of

proposed construction whereas other Commissioners did agree design was

intended. Mr. Zenner noted that he would be developing standards that would

more directly address building form and use and understood from the

Commission’s prior discussion this was a separate use-specific standard captured

under the topic of “encourage variety in housing styles and topologies (i.e missing

middle, bungalow court, MUSE).”

With this clarification, additional comments and concerns were expressed that the

proposed architectural standards may potentially drive up costs. Several

Commissioners; however, expressed support for the standards noting that they