Planning Commission defers Rosewood annexation and rezoning after concerns about future uses

The City of Columbia Planning Commission on a 4-2 vote deferred action on a pending annexation (1027 Rosewood Drive) and a related rezoning (1125 Rosewood Drive), asking the applicant and staff for more detail about how the property would be developed and whether future owners could change uses.

Commissioners signaled support for the project as presented but expressed concern that rezoning the parcels from Community Activity Center Corridor (CAC) to Mixed Use District (MU-2) could allow different future uses — including single-family detached houses or taller, higher-density development — unless legal or development controls were put in place. The commission said it wanted clearer assurances before forwarding a recommendation to City Council.

The two related cases together cover roughly 5.1 acres: the annexation application for 1027 Rosewood Drive (about 1.8 acres) sought assignment of an urban core neighborhood activity center land-use classification (UCAC 1) and MU-2 zoning; the rezoning application for 1125 Rosewood Drive covers about 3.31 acres and requested rezoning from CAC to MU-2.

Applicant representatives described a multi-unit, for-sale townhome project. George McCutchen, identifying himself as representing the Seawell family, said the project had been downsized from a previously proposed higher-density student housing plan and that “we think it's a good project and good for the area.” Tom Cannarello of CES Group Engineers said, “The intention is to do a residential development of town townhomes, in compliance with the MU-2 zoning regulations.” Owner Steve McNair said the firm expected about 71 townhomes and characterized the proposal as high-end urban infill.

Planning staff explained key differences between CAC and MU-2, including that CAC can allow up to 75 feet in height while MU-2 generally caps height at 60 feet and that MU-2 explicitly permits attached single-family/townhome building types that CAC does not. Staff also advised that rezonings cannot be made conditional on a site plan and that a separate site-plan review would return to the commission if the zoning is approved.

Commissioners pressed several points during discussion: whether the proposed townhomes would be considered single-family or multifamily under the city’s definitions; whether the site plan would return to the commission for review; and what mechanisms (planned development districts, horizontal regimes, deed restrictions, or other contractual tools) might limit future alternative uses. Commissioner Holcomb said allowing MU-2 without safeguards felt “like a downgrade” for a commercial corridor, while others said they supported the concept as presented but wanted more certainty about long-term land use.

After discussion, Commissioner (motion maker not specified in the record) moved to defer the annexation case (Annex-2025-0016, 1027 Rosewood Drive) and separately moved to defer the rezoning case (ZMA-2025-0016, 1125 Rosewood Drive). Both motions carried on roll-call votes. For each vote the tally was: Causey — yes; Cook — yes; Holcomb — no; Osorio — no; Coveney — yes; Cohn/Kohn — yes. The commission will take the cases back after the applicant and staff provide additional information and potential mechanisms to address the commission’s concerns.

The applicants said they were willing to work with staff and the builder to explore options such as a planned development approach, horizontal ownership regimes for townhomes, or other measures to provide assurances about future use and ownership patterns. Staff noted that any recommendation from the planning commission would be forwarded to City Council for public hearings and two readings.

Votes at a glance for these cases are recorded in the actions array below.