City of Columbia Plan Commission met September 25.
Here is the minutes provided by the Commission:
1. Call To Order
The Plan Commission meeting of the City of Columbia, Illinois held Monday, September 25, 2017 was called to order by Chairman Bill Seibel at 6:30 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Upon roll call, the following members were:
Present: Chairman Bill Seibel and Commissioners Russell Horsley, Virgil Mueller, Caren Burggraf, Amy Mistler, Gene Bergmann, Tony Murphy and Doug Garmer.
Absent: Commissioner Karin Callis.
Quorum Present.
Administrative Staff Present: Director of Community Development Emily Fultz, Building Official Justin Osterhage and Accounting/Clerical Assistant Sandy Garmer.
Administrative Staff Absent: None.
Guests present: None.
3. Approval Of Plan Commission Minutes Of Monday, September 11, 2017
The minutes of the Monday, September 11, 2017 Plan Commission Meeting were submitted for approval.
A. Motion:
It was moved by Commissioner Doug Garmer and seconded by Caren Burggraf to approve the minutes of the Monday, September 11, 2017 Plan Commission Meeting with corrections as discussed, presented and on file at City Hall. On roll call vote, all Commissioners present voted yes, with Commissioner Virgil Mueller and Gene Bergmann abstaining. Mo-tion Carried.
4. New Business
A. UMSL Fundamentals of Planning and Zoning Courses
Director of Community Development Emily Fultz referred to the flyer distributed to the Plan Commissioners on the University of Missouri St. Louis Fundamentals of Planning and Zoning courses and requested if anyone is interested in attending to let her know as soon as possible, since the courses fill to capacity quickly. Emily explained you can choose to complete the full course (all seven modules) or only select modules based on your availability or interest, the city will pay the program fees and three people have signed up for the courses so far.
5. Old Business
A. Discuss Zoning Code
Emily opened the discussion by referring to her memo regarding Zoning Code Changes to Date and the Columbia Municipal Code Title 17 – Zoning distributed in the Plan Commissioners packet. Emily briefly reviewed the additional revisions which included the addition of a planned development district. Emily explained the planned development district included: (a) similar language to other communities in our region; (b) it would be a zoning district – not an overlay; (c) potential to foster creative development; (d) suggested minimum lot size of one acre (some have no minimum lot size) and (e) permitted uses shall generally be permitted in the C-2, BP-1 and MXD districts. There was a lengthy discussion which included the following concerns and questions:
• how does the planned development district differ from the mixed use district?
• previous discussion of revising the mixed use district to allow for a wider variety of uses
• developer who wants to do a mixed use can apply for a planned development since it follows the same procedure
• need for a separate planned development district
• potential development of different type of residential housing where homes are denser on smaller lots with larger common ground area fostering community
• clarification that residential development is covered under the community unit plan
• benefit of mixed use district, planned development district and community unit plan is that special uses and variances can be granted
• may not want to limit acreage on planned development district
• continue to strive to simplify zoning codes
• clarification of properties being annexed in as A-1
• defined classification of major and minor changes under Section 17.44.010
• few minor text corrections noted
• added language under Section 17.56.010 for compliance with state statute, transfer language and expiration date
Emily concluded by noting the revisions discussed and reviewing topics to be addressed in the future meetings which will include suggested language for mixed uses, neighborhood overlay district, telecommunications and draft matrix of uses in each zoning district.
B. Subdivision Code
Emily said she has continued to work with city consultant Scott Hanson, city staff and local developers on the draft lan-guage of the subdivision code with two meetings scheduled in October and plans to have the draft ready for the Plan Commissioners to review in the near future.
Emily began the discussion with a few policy questions related to options for posting performance bonds for new devel-opments and possible elevation note requirements for final plats. The following discussion related to the options for posting performance bonds for new developments included: (1) clarification of current options for a developer which included the specifics of the performance bond and timeline of submittal of the bond; (2) concerns with ability of a developer to post a performance bond and final plat approval prior to infrastructure; (3) pros and cons of the current policies from a developers point of view; (4) potential issues for the city if with development is abandoned; (5) currently most communities accept a bond for both residential and commercial development; (6) cost of improvements are provided by the developers engineer and reviewed by city staff to determine the performance bond amount; and (7) revised policy to be compliant with state statute limit of 110% for performance bond amount.
The suggested elevation note requirements for final plats discussion included the following comments and concerns: (a) should the city require notes on the final plat of required minimum elevation for foundation openings and indicate whether each individual lot can have a walkout basement?; (b) problems with subdivision plat grading plan not being followed when lots are sold to another contracting company; (c) elevation note requirements would be an additional cost to the builder; (d) examples of lots being changed to walkout basements that were not intended to be and flooding problems associated with the change; (e) currently only the developments requiring the elevation notes are in the flood plain or have a floodway located on the property; (f) elevation requirement would be an additional expense for builder but avoid future problems; (g) the requirement would necessitate a sealed site grading plan; and (h) city approval of original elevations requirements would provide a record if lot grading is changed.
6. Staff Reports
A. Emily provided a brief update on the annexation and zoning classification of the parcels discussed at the August 14 Plan Commission meeting by explaining the only parcel that was annexed was the parcel at 217 W. Sandbank Road since there was no opposition and there is no further anticipated action at this time.
An update on the St. Louis Regional Freightway organization will be provided by Emily at the next meeting.
7. Public Input
A. None.
8. Meeting Adjourned
Since there was no further business to discuss, Chairman Seibel entertained a motion to adjourn.
Motion:
Motion was made by Commissioner Gene Bergmann and seconded by Commissioner Doug Garmer to adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Columbia Plan Commission held Monday, September 25, 2017 at 7:55 p.m. On roll call vote, all Commissioners present voted yes. Motion Carried.
https://il-columbia3.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/9434
Alerts Sign-up