City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Conference Rooms

1A/B

Thursday, January 5, 2023

5:30 PM

Work Session

Columbia City Hall

701 E. Broadway

I. CALL TO ORDER

8 -

Present:

Tootie Burns, Sara Loe, Anthony Stanton, Michael MacMann, Valerie Carroll,

Sharon Geuea Jones, Peggy Placier and Shannon Wilson

1 - Robbin Kimbell

Excused:

II. INTRODUCTIONS

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously

Move to approve

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

December 22, 2022 Work Session

December 22, 2022 work session minutes adopted as presented.

Move to approve

V. NEW BUSINESS

A. UDC Text Change - Drive-through facilities (remand)

Mr. Smith gave an overview of the topic indicating that he was seeking consensus

on potential revisions to the text change and how staff envisioned on engaging the

public as requested by City Council. He explained that the text change was

remanded following several comments made during the Council’s November 7

meeting most specifically concerns expressed by the Columbia Board of Realtors

(CBOR).

Mr. Smith stated that with the November 7 remand there was a request that the

Commission respond with any changes to the amendment by the Council’s January

17 meeting. Given the Commission was focused on completing the STR ordinance,

Mr. Smith noted, meeting this deadline was not possible. He indicated that staff

had prepared a report for Council’s consideration explaining the situation and

sought to have until the Council’s March 6 meeting to respond. The report will be

presented with the revision’s reappearance on the Council’s January 17 agenda.

The delayed deadline for a Commission response was believed to sufficient to

accommodate the Council’s request for public outreach.

Mr. Smith further noted that within the body of the report he had attempted to

address several questions raised during the November 7 meeting. These questions

were generally the result of there being some confusion on what provisions were

really being amended versus being restated or moved. Commissioner Loe sought

greater clarification on the actual direction provided to the Commission from the

Council with the remand. Mr. Smith noted there really were only three topics

raised during the Council meeting - signs facing R-1 & R-2 districts, consideration of

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) policy resolution

compliance stemming from the porte-cochere requirement), and the need

additional Neighborhood Association (NA) involvement.

There was general discussion of the content of the remand and there was concern

expressed that no specific changes to the actual provisions of the amendment were

asked to be examined. Several Commission expressed frustration that the

comments offered by the CBOR were not provided to them at the Commission’s

public hearing. Mr. Zenner noted that it was not uncommon that Council was

provided correspondence and public comments following the Commission’s review

process. He noted that this is often strategic and seen as an “end-run” by those

opposed to regulatory changes given the Council has final say on such matters. The

Commission acknowledged they understood this fact; however, stated it did not

follow established procedures for providing comment.

Mr. Zenner stated he understood the Commission frustration, but this type of tactic

is something that occurs frequently and given the Council’s authority relating to

legislation, the remand is providing the Commission an opportunity to respond to

the comments now. The alternative, should the item not have been remanded,

would have been to have had Council deal with the amendment with no additional

comment from the Commission.

Mr. Zenner caution the Commission that not considering the concerns expressed by

the CBOR as well as others during the Council hearing may create a situation similar

to that which occurred within the first STR ordinance review process whereby the

PZC submitted its version, the Council requested 14 amendments, and the

Commission recommended denial of the Council amended ordinance. This

response ultimately failed to produce any text change hence the reason for the

second STR attempt that was just presented.

There was general Commission discussion on what, if any, amendments to what

was presented were necessary. Several Commission expressed that they had

worked diligently on the amendment and many comments raised in the CBOR

letter were given consideration and discarded for various reasons. The majority of

the Commission indicated that they did not feel that changes to the amendment as

presented was necessary.

There was additional discussion on ways to improve communicating the purpose of

the amendment and expressing it was actually an “expansion” of opportunities for

applicants to meet the UDC’s intent. Several Commissioner’s expressed that if the

Council were not happy with the amendment, the UDC provisions relating could be

left as it is currently written requiring applicants to go before the Board of

Adjustment for relief. Commissioner MacMann stated he had explained to several

Council Members what the intent of the amendment was, but was not successful in

making those members understand its benefits.

There was also discussion of more public engagement with Neighborhood

Associations. Several Commissioners expressed a belief this was not likely

necessary and that the focus of communication needed to be on those that had

expressed concern due to potentially not understanding the amendment.

Commissioners offered several recommendations such as using graphics to

illustrate the need for the changes as well as keeping the purpose of the

amendment simplified. Mr. Smith noted that he had considered making the

request for additional public comment more like a survey versus open-ended

questions. Mr. Zenner noted that while the Commission did not believe additional

public comment was necessary in this particular instance the remand specifically

requested that it be solicited by Council. As such, staff will have to do it and will

incorporate the Commission’s recommendations for better outcomes once the

request for comment is released.

Mr. Smith noted that he was intending on preparing the survey questions and a

response to the CBOR letter for the Commission’s review for the January 19 work

session. He also noted he intended to prepared a “cleaned-up” version of the

proposed amendment to address the confusion of what was actually being revised

versus what was just being restated or moved. There was Commission discussion

on this approach.

Mr. Zenner noted that preparing the response to CBOR and the survey questions

really needed to be handled by the staff to ensure that progress was made with

addressing the Council directive. Chair Geuea Jones stated that she agreed the

Commission did not need to be involved in the response or survey given they are

not typically. The remaining Commission indicated that they supported a

“staff-driven” response and survey.

Mr. Smith summarized the direction that staff was provided during the work

session. There were to be no changes made to the content of the amendment

present on November 7. Staff was to prepare a response for CBOR and survey

questions to solicit additional public input as requested by City Council. On January

19, a “cleaned-up” version of the amendment would be shared attempting better

address what was being amended and just moved or restated. Commission agreed

that this was a correct summation.

VI. NEXT MEETING DATE - January 19, 2023 @ 5:30 pm (tentative)

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:55 pm

Move to adjourn