Columbia council rejects comprehensive-plan change and denies related rezoning near Troutwood Avenue

The City of Columbia council voted on Sept. 11 to reject a developer-led amendment to the city’s comprehensive plan for land near Troutwood Avenue and to deny the companion rezoning request tied to that amendment.

Developer Adam Crunk of Crunk Engineering told the council the applicants had coordinated with neighboring property owners on infrastructure, including a pump station and force main for sewer access, and described the requested density as limited. “The density that we're proposing here is only 2 units per acre,” Crunk said, and he urged council approval of the comprehensive-plan change to allow future rezoning and development.

But the planning commission had recommended against amending the comprehensive plan. City planning staffer Paul Keltner told council members the commission concluded the property’s future-land-use designation has been stable across recent plan versions and that changing the comp plan would push more intensive suburban development farther into areas the commission expects to remain rural-transition. “They did not feel it was the opportunity was right to change the comprehensive plan,” Keltner said.

Council voted on item 10.5, the first consideration of the comp-plan amendment, and the motion failed. With the comp-plan amendment rejected, council discussed item 10.6, the rezoning ordinance for property to be annexed (referenced as annexation by resolution 25-57). The city attorney advised members that one of the criteria required by municipal code (consistency with the comprehensive plan) could not be met because the comp-plan amendment had not passed; on that basis, the council moved to deny the rezoning. The motion to deny 10.6 carried.

City staff explained technical factors the developer proposed to address sewer and water constraints: Donnie Boshears described a planned pump station to route wastewater to Rockland Drive rather than through recent costly infrastructure in Casey Valley; staff said capacity exists to accept the additional flow once the developer installs the pump and associated force main and easements. Council members asked about why the planning commission turned the item down and about fire-flow and water pressure for the area; staff said the fire department’s response and CPWS (Columbia Power and Water System) letters had been considered and that the developer is responsible for facilities needed for service.

Why it matters: The comp-plan amendment would have reclassified the subject parcel to a suburban neighborhoods designation and enabled a more intensive transect (CD‑3) rezoning. City planning staff and the planning commission said the proposed change would shift the rural-transition edge and that adjacent properties retain existing entitlements under the current plan and zoning. Council’s decision maintains the current comprehensive-plan map and prevents the companion rezoning from taking effect.

What happened next: Because the comprehensive-plan amendment failed on first consideration, council voted to deny the rezoning (item 10.6) on the grounds it is not consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan. The items thus remain unapproved and would require a new application and supporting findings to move forward.

Speakers during discussion included the developer’s representative, city planning staff, utilities staff and council members. The council also received technical clarifications about the developer’s infrastructure plan (a pump station and force-main route) and about the planning commission’s rationale.

The council meeting record shows the votes as: item 10.5 failed on first consideration (tally recorded in the minutes as yes: 1, no: 5, abstain: 1) and item 10.6 was denied (tally recorded as yes: 7). The meeting transcript includes the developer presentation (Adam Crunk) and staff explanations (Paul Keltner and Donnie Boshears) as the substantive record for these items.