Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves rezoning at 5320 Clark Lane for hotel; controversy over Takaro Court access persists
Summary
Council rezoned 2.56 acres at 5320 Clark Lane to MC to allow a proposed hotel and approved the preliminary Armstrong Subdivision plat after rejecting a condition that would have required a public street extension (Amendment 2). The plat was approved with a date correction amendment.
The Columbia City Council on Aug. 18 approved rezoning for roughly 2.56 acres of a 9.1-acre tract at 5320 Clark Lane to Corridor Commercial (MC) to accommodate a proposed hotel and approved the preliminary plat for the Armstrong Subdivision with a clerical date correction. Council rejected a proposed amendment that would have required the developer to extend Takaro Court or provide a formal public access easement to an adjacent undeveloped parcel.
Why it matters: The rezoning shifts a portion of the property from Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MN) to Corridor Commercial (MC), increasing allowable intensity and triggering enhanced buffering requirements between commercial development and nearby multifamily housing. The council's decision determines the zoning for land near the I-70/Clark Lane interchange and sets conditions for final platting.
What the council decided - Rezoning: Staff told council the applicant sought to place a hotel against I-70 to buffer nearby residential uses; the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended rezoning by a 6-2 vote. On final action council approved the rezoning ordinance. - Preliminary plat (Armstrong Subdivision): The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the seven-lot preliminary plat 7-1. Council approved the preliminary plat after adopting an amendment to correct the plat date (Amendment Sheet No. 1). A second proposed amendment that would have required, prior to final platting, either the extension of Takaro Court as public right-of-way or a negotiated access easement (Amendment Sheet No. 2) failed on council vote.
Access and dispute The central disagreement involved whether the subdivision applicant must provide a public-street extension (Takaro Court) or an access easement to an adjoining landowner in Logan Acres. Staff said the adjoining parcel already has a 20-foot-wide platted ingress/egress easement across a funeral-home parking area and that the city's Unified Development Code does not compel an extension when alternative legal access exists. Opponents and an adjoining property owner argued the 20-foot easement is substandard for future commercial development and asked the council to secure public right-of-way now to avoid a costly condemnation later. The developer and their representatives said tying the property to a public-street extension would impose a large cost and could make the development infeasible.
Buffering and development standards City planning staff noted that MC zoning increases permitted intensity and that UDC neighborhood-protection standards require a Level 3 buffer along the MC/PD boundary adjacent to multifamily zoning: a 10-foot landscape strip plus an 8-foot screening device (fence, combination, or dense planting achieving 80% opacity within four growing seasons). Maximum heights differ by district (45 feet in MC; 35 in PD). Staff also described the site's grading and a roughly 80-foot separation between the proposed MC parcel and the existing multifamily structures.
Public testimony and parties Speakers included Tim Crockett of Crockett Engineering (applicant's engineer), David Bandre (attorney representing the prospective purchaser/developer), Elton Fay (representing the seller's estate), and Caleb Colbert (attorney for the objection party). Crockett said, "That's enough to provide fire access to a piece of property." The council debated access, traffic study recommendations and whether extension of public right-of-way was necessary now.
Outcome and next steps - Rezoning ordinance adopted by roll call vote. - Preliminary plat R9125 approved with Amendment Sheet No. 1 (date correction); Amendment Sheet No. 2 (requiring access dedication prior to final plat) failed. The developer may proceed toward final platting consistent with the approved preliminary plat; staff noted that final platting will be reviewed for engineering and public improvement compliance.
Ending note: Council left discretion to require right-of-way for future plats but did not force a Takaro Court extension at this stage; the access issue could resurface if the adjacent parcel develops or if future council actions require public right-of-way acquisition.
