City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Columbia City Hall

Conference Rm 1A/1B

701 E Broadway

Thursday, September 4, 2025

5:30 PM

Work Session

I. CALL TO ORDER

8 -

Present:

Anthony Stanton, Sharon Geuea Jones, Shannon Wilson, Robert Walters,

McKenzie Ortiz, Les Gray, Kate Stockton and Cody Darr

1 - David Brodsky

Excused:

II. INTRODUCTIONS

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously.

Approve the work session agenda as submitted

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

August 21, 2025 Work Session

The August 21, 2025 work session minutes were approved unanimously with

Commission Geuea Jones abstaining.

Approve work session minutes as presented

V. OLD BUSINESS

A. Planning Commission Correspondence - STR Amendments

(follow-up)

Chairperson Geuea Jones introduced the topic and provided some background with

respect to what she understood the issues to be with the letter from the prior work

session minutes. There was general Commission discussion on the updated

correspondence. Mr. Zenner provided some added context with respect to the

changes that were made to address Commissioner concerns.

Chairperson Geuea Jones asked if the Commissioners were satisfied with letter and

its changes. Commissioners indicated that the changes adequately addressed the

concerns and better represented the circumstances/actions surrounding the final

vote. A single comment was made regarding a minor edit which involved keeping

the “voice” of the correspondence active throughout. Based on this comment, Mr.

Zenner made one revision to the letter during the work session. He noted given

the Commission was satisfied with the correspondence that he would submit it to

the Council with all the other public comments relating to the text change.

Chairperson Geuea Jones noted that this correspondence was a “one-off”

precipitated by the public discussion surrounding the topic and was prepared as a

means of explaining more directly why the changes were being sought. She noted

that preparing such correspondence would not be a regular occurrence whenever

public opposition or controversial decisions were made by the Commissioners. She

thanked the Commissioners for their contributions to the correspondence.

B. Small Lots - Art. 5 [Subdivisions] Revisions - Discussion

Mr. Zenner introduced the topic and picked up from where the Commission had left

off at its last meeting on the matter (August 7). He began by discussing the need to

address the issue of “lot frontage” and “lot access” given new small lots, especially

those in “infill” situations, may not always have either. In such situations new

small lots could be a second tier of lots that would need to be accessed and fronted

to something other than a public street. Mr. Zenner noted that currently the

regulations did authorize the option of allowing a “shared” ingress/egress to be a

substitute for public street access; however, want to make clear in these sections

that such an access would be acceptable and know if there needed to be some type

of additional limitation added to avoid unanticipated consequences by placing a

driveway/access on a property line.

Mr. Zenner further explained that while previously discussed standards already

addressed this topic with respect to single structure development on a new or

existing lot, there had not been conversation on how this matter would be

addressed when “redevelopment” of a deep lots occurred. Making sure adequate

consideration of how to ensure legally compliant “stacked” small lot could be

created was really the underlying intent of address this matter within the

referenced sections.

There was general Commission discussion on this matter. Concerns were

expressed that allowing a driveway to serve as access to multiple lots that

otherwise did not have roadway frontage could create issues for an adjacent lot

that was not seeking to redevelop with additional small lots. Commissioners felt

the provisions needed to be amended to allow a “shared” access to fulfill the

requirement of lot “frontage” and “access” in redevelopment/infill scenarios, but

also noted that in a “greenfield” situation there is no need to allow for such

modifications. The logic expressed for this variation was given the “greenfield”

subdivision would be brand new and could meet general “frontage” and “access”

standards as described in the code.

Given this conclusion, the Commissioners requested that staff prepare

amendments that would allow for a “shared” access to serve as “frontage” and

“access” to new redevelopment/infill small lots subject to the access/driveway

placement being off-set from the adjacent property line by 5-feet as is the current

UDC standard. Mr. Zenner noted he understood what the Commissioners were

looking for and would draft language accordingly.

Mr. Zenner then proceeded to discuss a matter that was not unique to the small lot

integration project, but rather to all subdivision actions. The matter had to deal

with the process/considerations associated with the approval and/or denial of

design adjustments following the criteria described in Sec. 29-5.2(b)(9) of the UDC.

He noted that this topic has previously caused confusion for certain Commissioners

and felt that addressing this matter as a part of the small lot project was timely

given it is possible that a higher number of design adjustments may be triggered.

Commissioners generally agreed that discussion and addressing the confusion

would be worthwhile.

Mr. Zenner drew the Commissioner’s attention to one specific passage within the

design adjustment criteria which appeared to some Commissioners as requiring all

criteria listed in the section be met prior to recommending approval of a requested

design adjustment. Mr. Zenner provided general context on what the purpose of

the section was about and how staff approached its evaluation of design

adjustments. He noted that a design adjustment was envisioned as a means of

allowing modifications to the standards within the UDC when the alternative being

proposed was either “equal to” or “better than” the regular requirement based on

the unique characteristics of the proposed development. He further noted that the

language of the section when applied to the Planning Commission’s review

appeared more permissive than that of the Council’s action which clearly stated

“the Council shall consider” the criteria in rendering a decision on the design

adjustment.

There was Commissioner discussion the issue at hand. Chairperson Geuea Jones

provided some examples of where this issue arose already and asked for legal

clarity on the matter. Mr. Craig provided a response and indicated that it would be

best to have harmony between the Commissioners responsibilities with the review

criteria and those of the Council’s. Based on this reply, the Commission agreed that

the confusion with the significant of the criteria could be simply addressed

requiring both the Commission and Council be required to consider the criteria in

their respective decision-making processes. Mr. Zenner stated he understood what

the Commissioners sought as the correction. He would rework the language to

state the “Planning Commission and Council shall consider” the criteria in deciding

the outcome of a design adjustment request.

Mr. Zenner noted that the remaining provisions within Sec. 29-5.2 of the UDC were

not needing revision given the standards described were “procedural” and that all

future subdivision actions for small lot developments would need to follow the

existing process. Having address the revisions to Art. 5 [Subdivisions] of the UDC,

Mr. Zenner continued on to revisions within Appendix A.

Mr. Zenner noted that Appendix A included the provisions addressing roadway

design and minimum right of way widths. He further reminded that the

Commissioners that there is on-going consultant review of the street standards and

that the completion of that project could impact what would be discussed now as a

part of the small lot project. Notwithstanding this current work, Mr. Zenner

indicated that within Appendix A there are already several existing street standards

that need to be considered for revisions given the level of activity surrounding

proposed “cottage lot” developments and that the Commission’s consideration of

these changes would be timely.

Mr. Zenner began by noted that within all of the street standards of Appendix A

there was a general “disconnect” between the minimum fire code width of streets

and that stated. This disconnect was likely given the Appendix A standards were

created prior to the current adopted Fire Code which development is now subject

to, but there had never been a comprehensive revision to the UDC precipitating a

need for changes until now.

Given this disconnect, Mr. Zenner noted that he would communicate with the Fire

Department to gain clarification on the minimum right of way, travel lane width,

and on-street parking restrictions that would be applicable to new small lot

developments. Understanding these limitations would likely be very informative

in formulating possible exceptions to the standard requirements described within

the street details.

Mr. Zenner further noted that one of the primary objectives in looking at

alternatives to the standards presently communicated in Appendix A was to reduce

overall development costs, but not impact public service/safety delivery options.

He also noted that possible revisions would be more applicable to “greenfield”

developments than “infill” projects.

Commissioners generally agreed that tailored revisions would be needed. There

was some concern expressed on this would be clearly communicated. Mr. Zenner

noted that creating specific “exception” language would be one approach or

creating a separate regulatory section specific to small lot development would be