City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Conference Rooms

1A/B

Thursday, May 18, 2023

5:30 PM

Work Session

Columbia City Hall

701 E. Broadway

I. CALL TO ORDER

7 -

Present:

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

Jones, Robbin Kimbell and Peggy Placier

2 - Tootie Burns and Shannon Wilson

Excused:

II. INTRODUCTIONS

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Meeting agenda adopted unanimously

Move to adopt agenda as presented

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A. May 4, 2023 Work Session

May 4, 2023 work session adopted unanimously

Adopt May 4 work session minutes as presented

B. May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting

May 4, 2023 regular meeting minutes adopted unanimously

Adopt May 4 regular meeting minutes as presented

V. NEW BUSINESS

A. UDC Text Amendment -Marijuana Micro-Businesses

Mr. Zenner introduced the topic and with the assistance of Mrs. Thompson

explained the reason for the urgency to make the amendments to the UDC. It was

discussed that the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) had chosen to

accelerate the release and acceptance date for applications relating to marijuana

microbusiness licenses for dispensaries and wholesale (cultivation and

manufacturing) facilities. Forms for applications were to be released on June 6 and

acceptance of applications for the first of three-rounds of license issuance were

scheduled to begin on July 27. Issuance of licenses for the first round of

applications would be no later than October 4. The remaining two rounds of

licensure would occur on June 30, 2024 and again on April 4, 2025. Once all rounds

of licensure are completed it was noted that 6 microbusiness dispensary and 12

wholesale facility licenses would be issued - 2 dispensaries and 4 wholesale

facilities per round.

There was general discussion on the limited nature of the microbusiness facilities

provisions within the Article XIV of the State Constitution as well as discussion

relating to the need to have the amendments incorporated into the UDC such that

under-represented business owners could have equal access to the industry. There

was also discussion on the potential for the total number of facilities to be

expanded given the fact that the City of Columbia now lies within two (2)

Congressional Districts. Mrs. Thompson; however, noted that Article XIV clearly

states that licenses will be based on the Congressional Districts that existed as of

December 6, 2018. Given there has been no supplemental information provided by

DHSS and to her inquiries regarding how this matter is intended to be resolved, the

proposed amendments are based on the single Congressional District which would

result in a total of 18 facilities being permitted within the area.

There was additional discussion on the licensure limitations that current exist

within the “use-specific standards” as well as the distance and spacing

requirements. Mr. Zenner noted that the proposed amendments did not include

microbusiness dispensaries within the licensure limitation clause and that distance

and spacing standards would be the same for all microbusiness facilities as they are

for current “medical” and “comprehensive” facilities. There was discussion on the

potential for creating a new application procedure that would establish a different

set of spacing limits for the new facility types. However, after internal staff

discussion, it was concluded that the current application and evaluation criteria

found within the existing use-specific standards are sufficient.

Staff noted that a public hearing on the amendments, which are essentially the

same as those made for “comprehensive” facilities, has been advertised for the

Commission’s June 8 Regular meeting. Mr. Zenner explained that this schedule was

necessary to ensure that adequate time existed for staff to generate possible

zoning verification letters that may be required to accompany facility applications

to DHSS. He noted that any delay in processing the amendments would result in

them becoming effective after DHSS opens the application acceptance period given

that the Council’s July 3 meeting has been cancelled. Based on the June 8 Planning

Commission public hearing, the item would be introduced to Council on June 20

and final read on July 17.

The amendments will include new definitions for the microbusiness facilities,

updates to the Permitted Use Table to allow microbusiness facilities where their

equivalent medical and comprehensive facilities are allowed, and updates to the

use specific standards such that they are applicable to all types of marijuana

facilities capable of being licensed within the State.

Commissioners asked if the text proposed to be incorporated into the UDC could be

modified. There was concern with a reference contained within the definitions.

After discussing the proposed change, Mrs. Thompson and other Commissioners

agreed that since the amendment was copying directly what was defined within

Article XIV that no change to that text could be made. Mrs. Thompson and the

Commissioners agreed the language was not nearly as “tight” as what was desired,

but they were not asked to prepare it.

Finally, the Commission discussed two additional topics associated with marijuana

in general. The first dealt with marijuana transport services and the second dealt

with “smoking” lounges. Mr. Zenner responded to the issue of transport services

indicating that the State has a licensure process, but the UDC does not contain

specific regulations pertaining to where these types of businesses are allowed to

operate out of. He noted that the staff views these businesses similar to “taxi”

services and allows them in the M-C and IG zoning districts.

Mr. Zenner further noted that there has been discussion to define the use within

the UDC, but time has not permitted for such a definition to be created. Presently

staff is operating under a “Director Interpretation”, as allowed by the UDC, on

where the use is allowed based on its similarity to other uses defined within the

Code. Commissioner’s suggested that it would be best to define the use to get in

front of particular issues that may arise as the microbusiness’ are coming on-line.

Several Commissioners commented that given the limited level of State regulation

on the transport industry it may see significant increases in its activity levels.

Relating to the issue of “smoking” lounges, Mr. Zenner noted that there was

nothing specific in the UDC about this activity; however, he was aware of the

potential for this use to become more prevalent within the City now that

recreational marijuana usage is legally allowed. Present State regulations do not

permit public smoking of marijuana; however, a “private club” may be a safe haven

for such an activity. There was discussion that the City’s Smoking Ordinance may

have an impact on where it could occur. Mr. Zenner and Mrs. Thompson suggested

that staff could do further investigation of how these types of establishments were

permitted in other communities and come back with a future text change.

Commissioners were receptive to this idea expressing a desire to “get ahead” of a

possible issue before it became an issue.

Having addressed all relevant question relating to the proposed text change and

associated issues, staff noted that this matter would be on the June 8 Commission

agenda for public hearing. Mr. Zenner noted that due to his absence Mrs.

Thompson would be delivering the staff report that evening.

B. Voting and Requests for Council "Old Business"

Mr. Zenner introduced the topic and explained observations the he and others

were having related to the Commission’s voting practices. Mr. Zenner stated that

this topic was intended to be a “refresher” of the procedures relating to

Commission actions, specifically with respect to how a matter can be placed on the

Council’s “Old Business” agenda. He noted that “perception is often reality” and

based on recent comments from individuals appearing before the Commission

there was concern the Commission’s actions were not being as “objective” as

possible with some votes being cast to ensure an item ends up on the Council’s

“Old Business” agenda.

Mr. Zenner explained that there is a defined process in the UDC for when an item is

to be placed on the consent agenda. Generally, this occurs when more than 75% of

the Commissioners present vote to approve an item. He noted that there are

several different types of vote combinations that will result in less than 75% of the

Commission voting in favor of an item and often the one that is most confusing is

when only 8 Commissioners are present. In such an instance a vote of 6-2 is exactly

75% voting to approve a project and as such the item would normally go to the

Council’s “Old Business” agenda since it is not “greater” than 75%.

Mr. Zenner noted that while staff often gets the placement correct they are not

perfect and sometimes a matter will not be property flagged. He further noted that

within the defined provisions, the Commission can always request that a matter be

specifically placed on the “Old Business” agenda regardless of its vote. The best

practice to ensure that such action is taken by the staff, and ultimately the City

Manager, is to make a second motion relating to the item’s placement on the future

Council agenda before moving to the next business item. The Commission has

historically been consistent in taking this step; however, recent actions of the

Commission are causing this practice to come under additional scrutiny.

There was general discussion on this practice and it was urged by several

Commissioners that each member vote “their conscience” and that the practice

described by Mr. Zenner be implemented. Mrs. Thompson noted that the general

City Code also provides opportunity for “any member of the public” to request that

an item be removed from the Council’s “Consent” agenda and placed under its “Old

Business” agenda items. While the best practice would be to do as Mr. Zenner

described it was not essential. Mr. Zenner noted if the request to remove an item

from “Consent” to “Old Business” was not contained within the Commission’s

action such a request would need to be made to the City Clerk to ensure it was

effectuated.

Mr. Zenner further explained that the “Consent” agenda voting procedure being

discussed is only applicable to items that were before the Commission for public

hearings. For matter relating to subdivision actions, typically considered a

ministerial activity, a formal request for their placement on the “Old Business”

agenda would be necessary unless such request were made directly to the City

Clerk following the Commission’s action.

Mr. Zenner noted the purpose of this item was to ensure the integrity of the

Commission’s actions were protected and they retained respect as a deliberative

body. He thanked the Commissioners for their attention. There was additional

discussion on the matter of voting and it was suggested by the Chair that a simple

change in how the Commission moved from business item to business item could

be made. She offered to add at the end of the vote count and total announcement

a phrase similar to “are there any other motions the Commission would like to

make?”. She noted that this would be a prompt for any Commissioner desiring to

make a motion to request an item be moved to “Old Business”. Commissioners

agreed this change was appropriate and acknowledged that the prompt may not

always be needed.

There was limited additional discussion on other procedural matters relating to the

Commission’s meetings - specifically addressing the need to read the “Disclosure”

statement at the beginning of each case. Following Commissioner discussion and

advice by staff it was concluded that this matter would be retained as a part of the

meeting procedures.

VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS

VII. NEXT MEETING DATE - June 22, 2023 @ 5:30 pm (tentative)

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at approximately 7:15 pm

Move to adjourn