advertisement

Striving for unity in Crosscreek Center

Monday, June 23, 2008 | 7:46 p.m. CDT; updated 2:29 p.m. CDT, Tuesday, July 22, 2008

COLUMBIA —Jim Muench used to have a life.

That was before the Shepard Boulevard Neighborhood Association, which he chairs, took on the proposed Crosscreek Center development and its developer, Stadium 63 Properties. The dispute peaked on March 3 during an hours-long meeting of the Columbia City Council in which Stadium 63’s plan was rejected, largely in response to public outcry against a proposed car dealership.

CROSSCREEK TIMELINE

2004: Initial zoning request submitted. 2006: Zoning request amended to include hotel. October 2006: The City of Columbia, Boone County and the Missouri Department of Transportation join to create an Environmental Impact Statement to explore various alignments for the proposed extension of Stadium Boulevard, which would bisect the Crosscreek Center. Dec. 20, 2007: Stadium 63 Properties submits Crosscreek Center development plan, and the first public hearing for the development is held. The Planning and Zoning Commission tables a request to amend the planned commercial, or C-P, uses to allow an automobile dealership and to rezone 5.09 acres of MoDOT right-of-way from A-1 to C-P. Jan. 10: Planning and Zoning Commission votes to recommend the Columbia City Council reject the requests tabled at the December meeting. Feb. 4: The City Council tables Stadium 63’s request to allow a car dealership as part of the Crosscreek Center development. March 3: The City Council votes 4-3 to reject the development plan and suggests Stadium 63 Properties and nearby residents further discuss the matter. May 22: Members of Shepard Boulevard and Timberhill Road neighborhood associations enter formal mediated talks with Stadium 63 Properties; participants sign a confidentiality agreement. June 5: Public comment on proposals for a Taco Bell and a Break Time on two Crosscreek lots are scheduled for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting but postponed until June 19 following a late-afternoon request from the developers, who later cited their desire to let the mediation process “run its course.” June 17: Timberhill Road residents sign mediation agreement with Stadium 63 Properties. June 19: After public comment from developers and neighborhood association members, Planning and Zoning commissioners vote 6-3 to table consideration of the Taco Bell and Break Time proposals until July 10, when plans for the rest of the development will be considered.


Related Articles

The disagreement prompted Stadium 63 to hire a mediator to help the Shepard Boulevard and Timberhill Road neighborhood associations, both of which opposed the development, communicate their complaints to the developer. On May 22, the groups entered into formal talks with Stadium 63.

Although developers and affected residents often negotiate the character of new development proposals, it is less common for mediators to become involved. And for a neighborhood organization that usually deals with issues such as whether median grass is being cut in the neighborhood, negotiating architectural designs and zoning regulations poses a new challenge.

“This is precedent setting,” Muench said. “I had no idea I was getting into this.”

The parties involved signed a confidentiality agreement that prohibited them from talking publicly about the mediated discussions. But Muench confirmed the process helped foster “congenial conversation.”

On June 17, after weeks of meetings — some as long as four hours — the Timberhill association and Stadium 63 reached an agreement, ratified by a 7-to-3 vote at Timberhill’s annual meeting.

But Shepard Boulevard did not sign the agreement because the nearly 400-household association (in contrast to Timberhill’s 14), has had no opportunity to vote, Muench said. They’ll meet July 8 to discuss the agreement.

“When you do these things, you really can’t rush them,” Muench said. “We are a big organization. We have to get the notice out by putting flyers on people’s doors, so it takes time to get us moving.”

A Toyota dealership proposed for one of the Crosscreek lots remains the main bone of contention. The mediation agreement, which specifies architectural guidelines to give Crosscreek’s appearance some visual unity, excludes the Toyota dealership.

“We are uncomfortable with the car lot at that location,” Muench said. “Could we live with one under certain restrictions? Yes. But their prototype looks like something from outer space.”

Toyota has a standard design for its dealerships, and company spokesman Joe Tetherow said this is the first time he can remember a community opposing the appearance of a dealership.

“I doubt we would compromise our architectural standards,” he said. “We have an exemption from the developer, so we plan to move forward.”

Both Gregg Suhler, former president of the Timberhill Road association, and Muench spoke at Thursday’s meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, when a Taco Bell and a Break Time proposed for two small Crosscreek lots were on the agenda. Stadium 63 decided to submit site proposals piecemeal after the City Council’s blanket rejection of the development plans on March 3.

Urging the commission’s approval of these two lots, Stadium 63 lawyer Bruce Beckett summarized the terms of the mediation agreement with Timberhill Road residents, rattling off the sign-height restrictions and the “unified theme” of brick-and-stone buildings, which would complement the surrounding businesses.

Suhler also spoke in favor of approval, praising the “evidence of quality” he had seen in the development, such as cast-iron light poles.

Muench, however, spoke against plans for the two sites, once again citing the Toyota building’s “space age” design and emphasizing Shepard Hill’s wish that Crosscreek be “aesthetically unified.” He doesn’t want the area to look like Clark Lane, which “in 30 years will look like the business loop,” Muench said.

Unity, or lack thereof, was an overarching theme of the commission’s debate. Some members focused on the stated purpose of the meeting — to consider the Taco Bell and the Break Time — while others were swayed by peripheral realities such as the midday announcement of the mediation agreement and how it related to the piecemeal manner in which the project now is being submitted.

“I’m easily confused,” Commission Chairman Jeff Barrow said at one point. “Really what we’re supposed to vote on tonight is these two lots.”

But much discussion revolved around the mediation and whether it was prudent for the commission to approve two sites before it read the agreement, or before Shepard Hill residents had voted on it.

Commissioner Helen Anthony observed that commissioners typically read documents thoroughly and that this should be no exception.

The fragmentary submission of the project also factored into discussion. Commissioner Glenn Rice thought approving the Taco Bell and Break Time would be a “foot-in-the-door” way of doing things for the developers. Eventually the commission voted 6-3 to table the two lots and consider them on July 10 with the remaining Crosscreek lot proposals.

John States, a partner in Stadium 63, said after the meeting that the commissioners should have voted on the applications in front of them, not on the basis of a forthcoming mediation agreement.

The range of issues discussed at the meeting — trees, building aesthetics, lingering rezoning issues, piecemeal proposals and the last-minute mediation agreement — suggests the need for a more streamlined development process, Barrow said.

“This is a loud siren to the city to come up with some sort of process so we’re not doing it like this anymore,” he said.

Although the Shepard Boulevard association must still vote on the agreement, Muench thinks the overall mediation process was an improvement over previously contentious discussions.

“It’s been a very tough process,” Muench said. “But I hope it can help show developers how to work with neighbors.”


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements