City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Conference Rooms

1A/B

Thursday, February 8, 2024

5:30 PM

Work Session

(REVISED)

Columbia CIty Hall

701 E. Broadway

I. CALL TO ORDER

7 -

Present:

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

Jones, Peggy Placier and Shannon Wilson

2 - Zack Dunn and Matt Ford

Excused:

II. INTRODUCTIONS

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously

Approve as submitted

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

January 18, 2024 Work Session

The January 18, 2024 work session minutes were approved unanimously.

Approve the minutes as presented

V. NEW BUSINESS

A. UDC Text Amendment - Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

Mr. Zenner introduced the topic explaining that what was before the Commission

was the result of Council’s assignment and was based on correspondence received

from Adriene Stolwyk. Mr. Zenner explained that the amendment was focused on

the three points contained in the correspondence submitted to Council and would

result in revisions to the use-specific standards impacting ADUs found within sec.

29-3.3(gg) of the UDC. Additionally, the revision would impact the dimensional

standards table within sec. 29-4.1 specific to single and two-family dwelling

construction within the R-MF zoning district.

Mr. Zenner explained the content of the text changes by first discussion the

reduction in required lot width and area. The amendment proposes to allow an

ADU on any legal lot meeting that definition as recently revised (reduced lot width

and area), except in the R-1 district where such a use would still need to be located

on a lot having a minimum of 5000 sq. ft. of area. However, Mr. Zenner noted that

an R-1 lot having between 30-ft to 60-ft of lot frontage would be capable of

accommodating an ADU. He stated that the staff’s rational with this amendment

was to ensure that unintended increases in density on smaller R-1 lots was made

less likely. He added that the lot area restriction was not carried forward into the

R-2 and R-MF districts given these districts already permitted multiple dwelling

units on a lot.

Mr. Zenner then explained that the revisions to use-specific standard # 4 was to

remain unchanged even though the published discussion draft showed several

revisions. He stated this determination was made after conferring with Ms.

Thompson and discussing when it would be appropriate to add the proposed

language relating to the Commission’s ongoing discussions about small and

medium lot integration into the R-1, R-2, and R-MF districts. There was Commission

discussion about the proposed revisions and their future timing as well as the

inclusion of a standard that would address the issue how much floor area (inclusive

of the principal structure and ADU) on a future small or medium-sized lot.

Commissioners generally expressed support of the proposed future changes;

however, wanted to consider the specific wording once the final version of the

small and medium lot text change was completed.

Mr. Zenner then explained that use-specific standard # 6 was completely removed

from the regulations. Deletion of this standard would allow for a second “front”

door to face the subject property’s principal roadway frontage when the ADU was

either “part of” or “attached to” the primary residence.

Finally, Mr. Zenner explained that the dimensional standards of sec. 29-4.1(a),

Table 4.1-1 were to be revised specifically with respect to single and two-family

construction within the R-MF district. This amendment would reduce the side yard

setback for these styles of development to 6-ft instead of the current 10-ft. Mr.

Zenner explained that this amendment was proposed to address the issue of parity

between the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts were a 6-ft setback was the standard and

doing so would permit greater lot coverage as well as flexibility in placing a

detached ADU on an R-MF property.

There was general Commission discussion about the proposed amendments and

Ms. Stolwyk was present to participate within the discussion. Several questions

were addressed to Ms. Stolwyk with respect to if the proposed changes would

address what she identified as issues within the current regulations. Ms. Stolwyk

indicated that the changes would help. She noted that several individuals she

knew had previously made decisions to create ADUs that were not fully

“self-sufficient” to ensure that they did not violate the code. The proposed

changes would allow “true” ADU construction thereby permitting better possible

outcomes.

There was discussion regarding the possibility of removing the CUP process from

the current regulations. Mr. Zenner noted that this could be proposed if desired;

however, the issue of potential density increases being permitted in the R-1 district

was a concern. He noted that with each previous Commission CUP approval a

condition was established that only one of the dwellings on the site could be

registered as rental unit. The Commissioner’s acknowledged this fact; however,

believed that such a condition may not be helping to alleviate the present housing

shortage and that the CUP process was burdensome.

Mr. Zenner agreed that the CUP process was burdensome; however, expressed

concern that without some control/limitation in place, an R-1 property with two

dwellings in rental status would potentially undermine intent of the district as a

“single-family” zone. He suggested that a new use-specific standard, not unlike

what was recent done with STRs, could be employed here as well. The standard

would in essence state that when a property has an ADU and principal residence

only one could be registered as a rental.

Commissioners felt that this was a possible solution. There was discussion on if the

amendment to remove the CUP process should be merged within the current text

changes being discussed. After lengthy discussion, the Commissioners concluded

the two amendments should be separated. This would ensure that if removing the

CUP process became more controversial it could be set aside while the less

controversial changes could move forward.

Having worked through the possible options for approaching the amendments

requested by Council and the additional amendment to remove the CUP criteria,

Mr. Zenner noted that he would be capable of having the Council amendments

advertised for the Commission’s March 7 meeting. Commissioners were

comfortable with that meeting date and directed staff to proceed as discussed.

VI. OLD BUSINESS

A. UDC Text Amendment - Small Lots

Mr. Zenner introduced the topic and explained that his attention on this matter was

diverted to allow for the preparation of the text change addressing ADUs;

therefore, he was still working on making the changes to the text presented at the

January18 work session. He noted that for the February 22 work session he would

have the revisions relating to the maximum ground floor area for lots between 3000

to 5000 sq. ft. calculated and a definition for “building envelope” created for the

Commissioner’s consideration. He then noted that Mr. Kunz was prepared to

explain the graphic that was distributed at the end of last work session meeting.

Mr. Kunz provided an explanation of the two rows of lot examples. There were

several questions asked about the data used to generate the graphic and what the

“colors” on the graphic were intended to represent.

Mr. Kunz noted that the data he used for the lower line of examples was from the

coverage layer of the City’s GIS and represented the mode, median, and mean of

lots within the R-2 and R-MF districts. The “colors” on this line of examples were

intended to illustrate how much of a lot, represented by the mode, median, and

mean, would be covered with a structure (the blue shading) if an average lot

coverage percentage was applied to each lot. The green shaded area within this

line of the examples was intended to illustrate how much of the described lots

could have been covered if a building filled the building envelope and was built to

its maximum height using current UDC setback requirements.

Mr. Kunz then explained what the upper row of examples was intended to

illustrate. This row was showing what would be possible on optimally-sized lots

that were using the proposed reduced setback for the lot sizes proposed within the

data tables prepared by he and Mr. Zenner. He explained how the ground floor

building area on lots sized 3000 to 5000 sq. ft. was calculated by taking approximate

32% of the overall lot size and that on lots 5000 to 7000 sq. ft. this same ground floor

area was variable, but increased as the lot size increased. He noted the area shaded

in red for the small and medium lots was what was within the building envelope,

but could not be developed given the proposed FAR maximum for that specific lot

size/type.

There was general Commission discussion with respect to what Mr. Kunz was

attempting to illustrate in the graphics. A question was raised if the efforts with

the current amendment were about trying to replicate existing conditions or create

new opportunities for different types of lot styles and possible coverages within

the community. It was stated that the information presented was informed by the

present built environment. Staff noted that an underlying purpose of the exercise

was to illustrate that the ground floor coverage maximums and overall building

area standards based on FAR would work together to produce a built environment

that was not out of scale with the existing development patterns.