City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

CONFERENCE RM

1A/1B

Thursday, July 18, 2024

5:30 PM

WORK SESSION

CITY HALL

701 E BROADWAY

I. CALL TO ORDER

7 -

Present:

Sara Loe, Anthony Stanton, Valerie Carroll, Sharon Geuea Jones, Shannon Wilson,

Thomas Williams and Robert Walters

2 - Peggy Placier and Carl Baysinger

Excused:

II. INTRODUCTIONS

Chairman Geuea Jones recognized and welcomed the Commission’s newest

Commissioner, Bob Walters, to the group. She asked that each Commissioner and

staff member introduce themselves and requested that Mr. Walters provide a little

about his background.

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously

Adopt agenda as submitted

7 - Loe, Stanton, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Wilson, Williams and Walters

Yes:

2 - Placier and Baysinger

Excused:

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

June 20, 2024 Work Session

Adopt minutes as presented

V. SPECIAL ITEMS

A. Central Columbia Urban Conservation Ordinance and Design

Guidelines (Status Report)

Mr. Teddy introduced the topic and provided the full staff report. He began his

presentation by requesting that the Commissioners offer feedback on the April

meeting materials that were presented by the City’s consultant H3 Design Group.

He further noted that the full April public meeting materials were available on the

City’s engagement and public feedback portal Beheard.

Mr. Teddy indicating that the following the April public meeting there was a

request made that the process be slowed down to permit the public to more fully

understand the three conceptual scenarios presented during the meeting. Mr.

Teddy indicated that there was some confusion expressed on what the consultant

was seeking in the way of input. As a result of these requests, a “follow-up”

meeting would be held to go over the scenarios in greater detail.

Mr. Teddy provided an overview of the consultant’s contracted activities noting

that there were two components. First was to offer recommendations on the

development of overlay standards for neighborhood preservation purposes within

the study area. Second was to develop design guidelines that would provide

opportunities to integrate new construction or redevelopment into the existing

neighborhoods within the study areas. Mr. Teddy further noted that the consultant

was working on 3D models based on the current UDC standards.

Mr. Teddy return to discussing what the objectives of the April public meeting

were. He noted that the consultant was seeking input on how many overlays

should be created. Mr. Teddy noted that the consultant had previously divided the

study area into three geographic parts. One part being west of Providence Road

north of W. Broadway, a second part being east of Providence north of E. Broadway,

and the third part being east of College Avenue and south of E. Broadway. Within

these three areas the consultants showed potentially 5 overlays being established.

One overlay would contain neighborhoods west of Providence and north of W.

Broadway, a second overly would generally contain the North Central

neighborhoods between Providence and College north of E. Broadway, the third

overlay would contain the Benton-Stephens neighborhood, and the fourth and/or

fifth overlays would contain the East Campus neighborhood (east and west).

Mr. Teddy was asked to define the term “urban conservation” and explain how

overlay zoning functioned. Mr. Teddy indicated that “urban conservation” generally

was intended to mean preserving existing development patterns while allowing for

new construction or redevelopment to occur. Examples were offered to help

provide context on the term as well as to explain the concept of overlay zoning.

There was general Commission discussion.

Mr. Teddy continued with his presentation noting the there was general consensus

on the creation of an overlay for the area west of Providence north of W. Broadway,

generally containing the neighborhoods located within the West Central Columbia

Neighborhood Plan. However, he noted that there was not consensus on the other

overlay areas presented. He then went on to discuss the three various

development scenarios presented by the consultant at the April meeting for of the

three larger planning areas.

Mr. Teddy commented on the significance of the requested input from the public

during the April meeting and noted there was limited added context to assist those

in attendance with what was truly being sought in the way of feedback. He offered

several examples of the concerns that were expressed by those in attendance. He

reiterated that given these concerns a “follow-up” meeting would be held;

however, the public and the Commission were being asked to comment on the

scenarios that were posted to Beheard. Mr. Teddy noted the consult is reviewing

those comments as it continues to move forward with the project.

The Commission asked when their input was to be sought by the consultant. Mr.

Teddy noted that the consultant’s schedule included a presentation to the

Commission once the regulatory framework was developed; however, this

presentation was not to be seen as an authorization to begin revising the UDC.

Council would need to specifically authorize the Commission to begin working on

regulatory changes that may be recommended by the consultant’s final work

product that would be formally presented to City Council.

There was significant Commission discussion relating to the consultant’s work. The

Commission indicated that the 3D models being prepared needed to include the

proposed “small lot” standards even though they were not adopted. Additionally,

the Commission questioned the manner in which the consultant performed its

analysis to arrive at the three generally planning areas, the potential 5 overlays,

and the development scenarios.

Mr. Teddy explained that he did a driving tour of the study area with the

consultants and that they had obtained significant GIS data resources from the city.

Mr. Teddy noted that there was no single “special” group meeting at which the

consultants collected feedback, but rather all feedback was obtained from the two

public meetings that have been held. Mr. Teddy did note the consultants met with

stakeholder groups for value decision; however, otherwise used market data and

their professional experience to devise the proposed solutions presented during

the April meeting.

The Commissioners noted that the consultant’s work was missing physical and

social implications that could inform how redevelopment would impact the West

Ash area. It appeared to many Commissioners that neighborhood stabilization was

only being provided within the Area 2 (east of Providence north of E. Broadway)

and Area 3 (east of College south of E. Broadway). Commissioners noted that the

consultants needed to protect those individuals without resources and that

emphasis needed to be placed on those areas that were under-represented. It was

suggested that the consultants obtain the list of contacts that Dr. Boston (the Boone

County Housing Study consultant) had obtain to reach the under-represented and

get them engaged into this project.

The Commissioners further requested that Mr. Teddy seek to obtain the public

comments in their “raw” form from the consultants to ensure that what was being

presented was actually what was being offered. The Commission further desired

that the consultant’s work provide greater “qualitative” research to support their

recommendations, submit a housing stock analysis for review, discuss regulatory

approaches with the Commission before finalizing them, and incorporate more GIS

data into their findings.

Mr. Teddy thank the Commission for their attention and contributions. He noted

that he would pass them along to the consultant.

VI. NEXT MEETING DATE - August 8, 2024 @ 5:30 pm (tentative)

VII. ADJOURNMENT