done some preliminary research.
There was general Commission discussion on the subject and several questions
were asked. There was general agreement that the placement of a drive-thru
window did need to consider what the adjoining land use was (i.e. prohibiting such
next to residential uses or zoning). There was also discussion regarding the
development of a potential set of defined criteria that was not subjective that
would better establish what the community objective of the screening
requirement was and when a design exception (PD projects) or a zoning variance
(straight zoned projects) would be required.
Given the discussion on this topic was wide ranging, Mr. Smith asked for
clarification on what the Commission would desire the staff to further investigate
and come back to them with in the way of a proposed text amendment. He asked
for votes on three “themes” that appeared to be common throughout the discuss
which included flexibility in window location, regulation specific to the location of
a window when adjoining residential property, and regulations that addressed site
layout issues such as stacking lanes that may block drive aisles. The Commission
made motions to approve that staff perform the necessary research on these
themes and come back at a later meeting with proposed text amendments.
Mr. Smith noted that there were other topics contained within the work session
memo that he desired to cover; however, given the time constraints and the other
agenda items he would yield the remaining work session time to the next topic. He
thanked the Commissioners for their contributions.
B. Comp. Plan Public Outreach - Research & Recommendations
Mr. Zenner and Mr. Cantin provided an overview of the topic and noted that
following the December 9, 2021 work session meeting there was additional internal
discussion regarding the engagement processes used by peer communities to
which the City of Columbia’s upcoming plan should attempt to utilize. Mr. Zenner
noted that many of the processes previously identified as worthy of emulation
were undertaken prior to the COVID 19 pandemic occurring. As such, he asked Mr.
Cantin to perform additional research to determine if any planning activities similar
to that the City was preparing to engage in occurred. The outcome of that
additional research did not yield any significant findings.
As a result of these limited findings, it will be imperative that the chosen
consultant to assist in the engagement phase of the upcoming Plan update have
extensive experience in hybrid meeting formats. Mr. Cantin further reiterated the
importance of the concept of “Plan Ambassadors” as the bedrock of the updating
process for keeping the community engaged.
Mr. Zenner further added that the Health Department had recently presented a
public engagement process to the City Council showing an estimated budget of
over $200, 000 that would be managed by two full-time employees whose sole job
would be to manage engagement. He noted that engagement strategies would
likely be underway prior to the beginning of the Comp. Plan update and the success
of the proposed approach could be used as a model as well as a budget
measurement tool. He noted the 2013 Comp. Plan was completed with a budget of
only $130,000 which likely was not sufficient to meet current community