This presentation focused on why the Columbia Planning and Zoning Commission chose to recommend a parcel of land for annexation and attempts to reverse engineer their likely thought process. In the presentation, I focused on discussing short and long term goals of the city, various assumptions about population growth, and how Columbia is reconciling those issues. All graphics and data are sourced from the Columbia Imagined Plan and I claim no original work on those specific items.

1. Columbia Planning and
Zoning
Overview of Columbia’s strategy to address Land Use controls
in relation to a growing population

2. Columbia MO growth

3. Tensions: Encouraging growth in pragmatic
ways

4. Accomplishing goals
• By 2030 will [likely] experience within a range of twenty two to thirty five
percent (22-35%) population gain
• Estimate shows Columbia will need to build 11,486 and 16, 483 housing
units by 2030 to meet population demands.
• Question: Where do we we put these units? Also, why?
• Current policy is one that is slated on infill rather than promoting city sprawl

5. Why infill?
• Efficiency: Promotes density and return to
municipal tax base
• Example: Increasing density in existing
neighborhoods -- for instance by allowing
accessory dwelling units – may increase
affordable housing stock and allow senior
citizens more housing options
• Fewer costs: Extending infrastructure –
for example sewage – is costly and detailed
study of environmental impacts must be
completed. [See page 108 of Columbia plan]

6. Why infill? (Continued)
• Columbia currently has:
• A total of 5,100 acres of land that is both platted and un-platted
• 1,100 acres of final platted [meaning infrastructure is in place and building permits may
issue]
• 3,600 preliminarily platted [able to be developed after detailed review of construction
plans and final platting]
• 400 more need to be platted – but are developable.
• Significant resources have gone into infrastructure, engineering, and development
entitlements

7. Tension with infill and growth
• Infill has drawbacks: Increasing use on existing, aging, infrastructure may be
less effective than for allowing new construction
• Neighborhoods have an interest in protecting property values and
homeowners may object to increased noise, parking needs, etc.
• Problem for Columbia specifically – there is, potentially, not enough available
infill space to meet population growth

8. (Potentially)Worrying trends: Chart form

9. Current Housing Stock Supply
• If we accept the more aggressive CATSO model, then Columbia will need to
build 2,435 more units in the city and metro area. This translates for the
need to develop approximately 937 more acres of residential developmental
supply.
• Essentially, the City has to think both short term and long term – because if
Columbia grows aggressively, there should be an existing framework for it to
grow in to.

10. Creating that frame work
• Columbia wants to create a framework that promotes best practices
• Therefore, where infill is not appropriate – for reasons discussed earlier –
the City has to expand in a way that meets the Columbia Imagined Plan
• In that regard attention will be given to:
(1) The cost to the City
(2) How the annexation can provide the best return on investment

11. Cost to the City
• The City, when deciding to grow, needs to cross-reference those sites
proposed in a way that minimizes liabilities and promotes the best returns
• To do so, the City might think in a few ways:
• (1) Is this an area that is slated to fall reasonably within the Urban Service Area?
[See slide 3 for figure]
• See generally Mo. Rev. Statute § 71.015 – [Compact and contiguous, utilities provided
time frame]
• (2) Is the proposed annexation a net benefit to the City?

12. Is it a net benefit?
• The City performs a rough calculation to ask:
• Is (a) Revenue opportunity + (b) environmental benefit >(c) Cost of service
• Therefore, with regards to the annexation at hand, we can ask those
questions of the particular parcel

13. Case 18-42: 10 Acres at corner of Highway
KK and Scott Boulevard with M-N
(mixed use designation)

14. Is it a good investment? – Goal of Mixed Use
Development
• The City has articulated goals of creating nodal mixed use developments.
• The City has concerns about promoting growth in a outward, sprawling,
manner because it promotes reliance on auto-centric city scape
• In contrast, Mixed Use Developments would be strategically placed in
walkable [half-mile] intervals so citizens could walk from homes and access a
variety of services including: health, employment, and grocery
• Other benefits include: increased public safety, decrease in environmental
costs from autos, and

15. Node Concept

16. Sample Mixed Use District

17. What are environmental benefits for this parcel
provides?
• De-incentivizes auto-centric travel. This may have a two-fold benefit of
reducing emissions and improving health by walking
• While not a clear benefit from this parcel – the City believes annexing land
prior to extending sewage has the added benefit of removing septic tanks
and lagoons
• There is one residential unit on land so may have these structures

18. Columbia Walk Score Map

19. Cost to the City

20. Concerns about Cost
• This falls outside the USA, so extending sewer service would have greater costs
• A forced sewer main would need to be extended approximately 3,000 feet NE
• The Staff report on the issue notes that this does not “prevent the annexation of
the property as Columbia Imagined lays out possible considerations when analyzing
a site that is outside of the USA. Principally, City contributions for CIP projects that
would benefit sites should be limited, and impact fees should be considered”
• Because costs will be borne by applicant – there is less concern about that issue

21. Conclusion
• Taken together, while we can see current focus is towards infill, the City
needs to consider viable opportunities for future growth
• When they do consider possibilities for future growth – they will consult
limiting factors: (1) Statutory annexation limitations (2) environmental
concerns and then engage in a rough balancing of interests
• Here, the opportunity for a worthwhile investment seems to be met and so
the City voted in favor of annexation