INTRODUCTORY
The City Council of the City
of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday,
February 17, 1997, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The
roll was taken with the following results: Council Members COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, and HINDMAN were present. Member KRUSE
was absent. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various
Department Heads were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular
meeting of February 3, 1997, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a
motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Mr. Harline.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING
CONSENT AGENDA
The agenda, including the
Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by
Ms. Coble and a second by Mr. Harline.
SPECIAL ITEMS
None.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Bob Whitlock -
Soccer Programs for Non-Traditional Youth Groups.
Bob Whitlock, 2007 Robin
Terrace, explained that his group presented their proposal to the Parks and
Recreation Commission and they voted to approve the program. He said
they were trying to set up two very low cost programs to serve two groups
in Columbia that traditionally are under-served as it relates to soccer. The
first group was the developmentally delayed/physically challenged youth. Mr.
Whitlock noted that Parks and Recreation presently has an excellent Special
Olympics program for the older developmentally delayed/physically challenged
youth. He said, however, that there was nothing on an organized basis
for kids younger than 15. Mr. Whitlock and Ms. Montgomery have for
two years, on a volunteer basis, piloted a program for these kids. Mr.
Whitlock reported it had been an absolute success because the kids love the
game and they can play it. They were asking for money to do a two year
pilot program in order to come up with a well-organized, systematic approach
to making soccer available to these kids throughout the City of Columbia. Their
calculations estimated that it would cost approximately $5,550 per year for
each program.
The second group they were
interested in providing programs to was minority youth. Mr. Whitlock
stated they have received business donations or grants from the Soccer Kick,
the National Soccer Association, and a variety of other groups such as the
4th Squad from the Police Department.
Mr. Janku asked Mr. Whitlock
if he contacted the Caring Communities program directly. Mr. Whitlock
said he had and they also felt it was consistent with their goals.
Mayor Hindman assured Mr.
Whitlock that the Council was very interested in their proposal and said
they would give it serious consideration.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B389-96 Approving
the preliminary residential manufactured development plan of Richland
Heights,
Phase 2. Protest petition submitted.
R185-96 Approving
the Preliminary plat of Creek Pointe, Phase 1.
The bill was given third
reading and the resolution given second reading by the Clerk.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing and noted that the bills would be discussed together, but
voted on separately.
David Rogers, an attorney
with offices at 813 E. Walnut, spoke on behalf of Mr. Jack Overton, the developer. Mr.
Rogers thanked everyone involved for allowing him to table the issue during
his recuperation from a recent illness.
Jack Overton, 1908 Fairview
Road, explained that he was the owner of the property in question and added
that he would be the developer and operator of the mobile home park. Mr.
Overton said his objective was to provide affordable home ownership in a
desirable location for working families and retirees. He reported that
he purchased the property in 1987 and noted that there had been 30 pads on
48 acres zoned RMH for a mobile home park. At that time, he had an
approved plat from 1970 for 325 lots.
Between 1987 and 1994, Mr.
Overton expanded the mobile home park to a total of 90 lots in an area that
had been approved for 160 to 180 lots. He said in 1988 he had been
contacted by the Woodridge Home Owners Association in regard to the vacating
of the right-of-way for Berrywood. He and Mr. Rogers met with the group
and the residents requested that he not oppose the vacation because it was
an area zoned commercial industrial, approximately 300 feet north of his
mobile home park. He agreed not to oppose the vacation of Berrywood. At
the same time, the Woodridge home owners were informed that the adjacent
property would be developed as a mobile home park.
Mr. Overton had been contacted
by Terry Skinner in 1993, asking his intentions with regard to the property. Mr.
Overton said he told him it would be developed as a mobile home park. Mr.
Skinner built his home anyway.
In 1995, Mr. Overton explained
that he initiated a meeting with the Woodridge Home Owners Association because
he wanted to offer some changes. He proposed decreasing the number
of lots from 160 to 84, and the elimination of parking under the power lines
next to Woodridge. He also wanted to change the crossing point at the
Creek. He had been advised by the Planning staff that if he was going
to make those changes, he would have to go before the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Mr. Overton pointed out that the six homes which are abutting
the mobile home park were all purchased or built since 1990. In 1996,
he met with the Woodridge Home Owners Association at the requests of Mrs.
Crockett and Mr. Campbell to determine if there could be any attempts for
further compromise. At that meeting, he agreed to build a 12 foot buffer
fence with a row of evergreens to screen the fence. Woodridge homeowners
did not agree to any further compromises as Mr. Overton was continuing plans
for a mobile home park. Home owners asked him about the possibility
of duplexes. This area can accommodate 85 duplexes (170 families). Mr.
Overton pointed out that this is the same area he is proposing 82 single
family mobile homes. The density of residents would be less than half
than what it would be with duplexes.
During discussion with City
staff and engineers from Allstate Consultants regarding crossing Hominy Creek,
Mr. Overton said it could be crossed but there were some reservations. Mr.
Beck encouraged him to look for a piece of ground to the north where he could
have a separate outlet. He found a piece of land and purchased it giving
him an outlet for a street going to I-70 Drive Southeast. The Woodridge
Home Owners Association filed suit against Mr. Overton and the City of Columbia
under the old plan that he had been operating under. Mr. Overton stated
the plan he was considering met most of the 1995 ordinances for a mobile
home park. He decided to bring his plan up-to-date at that time in
order to meet all of the requirements. He said that had been done and
in several areas he exceeded the requirements. There were 30 parking
spaces per pad, a 50 foot buffer zone instead of 25 feet, and five or six
times the amount of acreage required with the density being less than half.
Mr. Overton pointed out that
mobile home sites were very needed in Columbia and they provide one of the
most economical means of home ownership. All mobile homes in his parks
are owner occupied. In addition, insurance companies now allow for
mobile homes to appreciate rather than depreciate. Mr. Overton said
he intended to be in the mobile home business indefinitely assisted by various
family members. Mr. Overton asked for the people in support of his
plan to stand. Approximately two dozen people stood.
Mr. Harline asked if this
property was all one parcel. Mr. Overton said it was. Mr. Harline
asked at what point the City required that Mr. Overton needed to submit a
new plan. Mr. Overton said it was late 1994 or early 1995 when the
City told him to stop working in the area until he obtained a land disturbance
permit. He had gotten one at that time, but by then the strong opposition
from the Woodridge Home Owners Association was apparent.
Mrs. Crockett asked Mr. Overton
if the plan was approved, whether he would still put in the row of trees. Mr.
Overton said he would. Mrs. Crockett remembered discussion about two
rows of trees. Mr. Overton said it would be a staggered row. One row
of trees was originally planned, but when he spoke to the City Arborist he
was told the City would prefer one row closer together and nearer to the
fence because of the power line.
Mr. Janku asked how the trees
would be maintained as they would be in the easement of the power line. Mr.
Overton said the trees would not go above the permitted height and he would
maintain it. He planned to keep the area mowed.
Mr. Harline asked how the
owner occupied status would be enforced. He asked if the City had a
method to enforce this requirement on future property owners, would Mr. Overton
agreed to that condition as acceptance of the plan. Mr. Overton said
he would. Mr. Overton explained that he also owns High Hill Circle
Mobile Home Park and noted that it is single family and always has been.
In terms of landscaping on
the other side of the fence in the mobile home park itself, Mr. Janku asked
if there were any plans. Mr. Overton said there would be some landscaping
on the other side and he encourages tenants to do some of their own landscaping.
Mayor Hindman said it looked
to him like the mobile home park was on a hill. He asked if there would
be quite a bit of land clearing or leveling required. Mr. Overton said
there would be some, but he did not think it would be very much. Mayor
Hindman asked if that could lower some of the homes. Mr. Overton said
if there was a change it would lower them. Mayor Hindman asked if the
proposed green space conservation easement would be available for public
use. Mr. Overton said it had been discussed and thought it would be
a good idea.
Mr. Rogers said one of the questions that
came up significantly at the Planning and Zoning meeting was what affect,
if any, the completion of the mobile home park would have on the surrounding
land values in Woodridge Subdivision. He called on Jack Blaylock, an
MAI Appraiser, to give his opinion.
Jack Blaylock, a real estate
appraiser with offices at 8th and Broadway, gave his opinion of the prospective
valuation of the properties, specifically the homes within the Woodridge
Subdivision. He was well acquainted with the Subdivision having appraised
numerous properties in the subdivision over the years. He said it was
a self-contained Subdivision that had been growing slowly, a portion by design
of the owners. He said a large part of that rate of development has
been due to the influences of the surrounding land. He said everything
to the west was medically oriented, to the north was C-3 zoned land that
abuts the Subdivision, and to the northeast is M-C and A-1 zoned land. There
are rather extensive industrial sites located to the north. The apartments
constructed along Keene Street have also had some affect on the rate of development. Mr.
Blaylock said the Richland RMH zoned tract had been a self-contained mobile
home subdivision all these years, as has Woodridge been a self-contained
subdivision. He did not believe that the Richland Heights Mobile Home
Court, developed as proposed, would have an adverse affect on the value of
the homes in Woodridge Subdivision. As an appraiser, Mr. Blaylock said
he had never penalized a home in Woodridge, nor had any member of his firm,
for being adjacent to land that was zoned for residential mobile homes, nor
did he expect to do so in the future. These were separate neighborhoods
buffered primarily by the easement area of the high voltage electrical transmission
line that parallels the eastern boundary and by the difference in elevations. He
said some of this could not be altered measurably, particularly the area
beneath the easement. Any additional buffering in the form of trees
or fencing would be an enhancement to the greenbelt area.
When performing an appraisal,
Mr. Blaylock explained that one of the first things done is to define the
neighborhood, just as buyers and sellers do. He said future appraisals
of homes in the Woodridge Subdivision would be defined as being in the Woodridge
neighborhood. He said there would be a separate, self-contained neighborhood
in the RMH zoned area to the east. Woodridge Subdivision should not
be depreciated by the abutting neighborhood as developed under the RMH regulations.
Mrs. Crockett asked when
doing an appraisal for a new home or for refinancing and there is RMH zoning
in the area, whether this was indicated on the appraisal. Mr. Blaylock
said he would if it was within the neighborhood and affected it as such. In
this specific instance, RMH zoned land was perceived as being in an adjacent
neighborhood.
Mr. Rogers said this was
a self-contained neighborhood and if there has been a reduction in value
to Woodridge Subdivision, it had already been done. At the northern
edge of the Woodridge Subdivision, there is a street named Sugar Tree which
has multiple buildings that have not been kept in terribly good repair. On
the northeast, there is commercial zoning of various types, and to the west
there was office zoning. Mr. Rogers said Woodridge is a very nice neighborhood
which is not greatly affected by influences that are immediately outside
of it. He thought it was interesting that residents chose to close
off Berrywood as it extends to the east. He said this was done in 1987
or 1988 and City staff had been opposed to it. Mr. Overton stated that
City staff felt for the better development of the City, this particular street
should not be closed off. He believed the only reason the request for
the street vacation went through was because Mr. Overton lent his support
to it. Mr. Rogers reported that Mr. Overton would obviously be affected
by the closure and yet he understood the home owners' concerns about the
land uses to the east, regarding the completion of his mobile home park,
and agreed to it. Mr. Rogers said it would have been a lot cheaper
for Mr. Overton to get access to the land to the north if he had Berrywood. Mr.
Overton, however, did not think this was a proper use, which would involve
going through the middle of this self-contained neighborhood.
Mr. Rogers reported there
were only six lots in Woodridge Subdivision that are adjacent to the mobile
home park. He noted that this particular plan exits to the north and
meets every single requirement of the ordinance. Using a map, he showed
the organized playground equipment, swings, slides, etc. He said this
particular area is about six or seven times what the ordinance requires. He
displayed the open space area and indicated this was not required by the
flood plain nor by the ordinance, but it was to give an area of more open
space for the subdivision. He pointed out the open space on the drawing
that was required by the plan, in addition to what was previously displayed. He
said there was 10 or 15 times as much open space as the ordinance requires. Mr.
Rogers noted that the entrance to the far north was to a break-out gate and
an easement over Mr. Sapp's land so that emergency vehicles could have another
exit out of the area for emergency needs.
Mr. Janku asked about the
easement. Mr. Rogers said the easement was across the Sapp land. He
pointed out the location of the gravel easement, over the Sapp land to I-70
Drive, which would enable any emergency vehicle access to both entrances
into the subdivision. He said it would be legal to have only the one
entrance, but it was decided to have two. Mr. Janku asked if there
were any plans to develop the entrance in the area of the easement. Mr.
Rogers said it was almost inevitable that another road will be built. It
would be built in phases, not one fell swoop. Mr. Janku thought there
might be a better location for a potential entrance. Mr. Rogers said
it was the area that best lies for putting in equipment. If it ever
develops as a natural road, he thought it was logical that it would be fenced. Although,
he said that was a long way off at this point. Mr. Rogers showed an
area that could be mowed for a ballfield as long as there were no trees or
damage to the creek. He pointed out a heavy stand of trees and said
Mr. Overton had done a particularly good job in carving in the existing part
of the subdivision and saving a great number of the trees.
Mrs. Crockett asked if every
tree possible would be saved. Mr. Rogers responded yes. He said
Mr. Overton had a good track record in that regard. He said the Chapel
Hill Subdivision at the end of Fairview cannot be seen coming from the east
on Chapel Hill because Mr. Overton elected to save that stand of trees and
carved in his streets. He said Mr. Overton had put a great number of
trees in to the mobile home park in addition to the ones he saved. Over
100 trees had been planted in the subdivision.
Kevin Weatherspoon, 923 Yale,
is the owner and operator of two mobile home parks and developer of Northland
Acres Subdivision. He said that people need this type of affordable
housing badly. Mr. Weatherspoon stated that his two parks will not
accommodate the newer mobile homes and people needed to have a place to put
them. Mr. Weatherspoon said that Mr. Overton's developments speak for
themselves.
Mayor Hindman asked why some
of the parks could not handle the new mobile homes. Mr. Weatherspoon
said a lot of the newer homes were much larger. He said some of the
older parks have to give up two lots in order to meet setback requirements
for one 16 x 80 home. He pointed out that residents of Northland Acres
have to drive by a mobile home park to get in the subdivision. Mr.
Weatherspoon said he was currently building R-1 spec houses in this location. He
is selling them for $100,000 and up and potential owners have to drive by
a mobile home park to get there. His point was that they were selling
these homes and residents were happy with them. These owners did not
have a problem with having a mobile home park nearby.
Kerry Hawkins, #8 Richland
Heights, said he has had the privilege of living in Richland Heights for
the last 6 1/2 years. Before that, he lived at Broadway Village and
chose it because it was well-managed, efficient, and well-run. He discovered
that Steve Wendling and Jack Overton do a similar job in managing their parks. Mr.
Hawkins said as long as the Wendling's and Overton's were managing the park,
he had every confidence it would be well maintained.
Maxine Cromwell, #219 Richland
Heights, said she has lived there for about four years and before that she
lived in a 5 bedroom home in a subdivision. She said when their children
left home, they decided they had no need for that much room so they sold
it to another family that had children. She said she felt safe where
they were and had no problems with her grandchildren coming to visit her. She
was very comfortable with them playing outside with the other children and
they had not experienced any problems. She said if anything needed
to be done, Mr. Overton or Mr. Wendling would get the job done.
Chuck Boram, #204 Richland
Heights, said that in the 1 1/2 years that he has lived there Mr. Overton
had made quite a few improvements. He had seen him plant many trees
and was confident Mr. Overton would continue with similar improvements to
the new section.
Kerry Ann Cowgill, 2503 Black
Oak Drive, explained that she was a University student and that she did not
live in a mobile home park. She came from an upper class nuclear family
which has substantial significance to Columbia's history. She said
not everyone has the opportunity to live in a $150,000 plus home. At
the rate Columbia is growing, affordable housing was in great need. She
felt the entire issue dealt with the Woodridge Subdivision relating to stereotypes
and what is aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Cowgill thought the real issue
should be the decency to allow the residents of Richland Heights establish
affordable housing.
Denise Cordra, #47 High Hill
Circle, explained that she moved to Missouri in 1989 as a single mother. She
said a mobile home park was her only alternative for affordable housing and
since moving here she has lived in four parks. She said High Hill was
the best maintained park she had lived in. She said more well-managed
and well-maintained mobile home parks were necessary for people that need
affordable housing.
Paul Denton, 5200 High Hill
Circle, said he has lived there for seven years and could vouch for Mr. Overton
and his word. He said he takes very good care of the park and is fair
with everyone. He said it was also true that all trailers are owner
occupied.
Tom Quadry, another resident
of High Hill, explained that he helps manage the park. Regarding the
trees, they were well-maintained and none were taken out unnecessarily.
Skip Walther, an attorney
with offices at 700 Cherry Street, spoke on behalf of the Woodridge Neighborhood
Association. Mr. Walther believed that if this was a traditional rezoning
request to RMH, he assumed the request would be turned down. He did
not believe putting a trailer park next to this type of subdivision represented
good planning. He said this was certainly not because there is a difference
in the quality of people. He said there seemed to be an undercurrent
that somehow this is a "rich man/poor man" dispute, or that somehow the people
of Woodridge are prejudice against people who live in trailer parks. Mr.
Walther thought nothing could be further from the truth. He said there
was absolutely nothing in this case that has anything to do with the difference
in people. He said the problem they have was with property values. Mr.
Walther reported the people in Woodridge respectfully differ with Mr. Blaylock's
opinion. He said they believed their quality of life and aesthetics
will be adversely affected if this proposal is approved.
Mr. Walther said when the
original Rebel Hills plan was approved in 1970, Columbia ordinances
did not allow for RMH zoning without a plan first having been approved. He
said that changed the next year, but in 1970 the plan had to be approved
before zoning was attached to the property. Today's ordinance works
the same way. The law required the 1970 plan to indicate whether the
development was to be done in stages or whether it was to be done all at
once. The Rebel Hills plan said nothing about staging and the law required
development to begin within one year or the plan was void under the ordinance
in effect in 1970. Mr. Walther said the development on the tract in
question, the property north of Hominy Creek, never took place and has not
to this day.
Mr. Walther displayed aerial
photographs of the tract in question taken from 1974 to 1980 showing Woodridge
growing significantly and Rebel Hills not changing at all. He showed
another map from 1986 with Woodridge having added a number of homes and Rebel
Hills showing no change. He said this was the year before Mr. Overton
bought the property. The last photograph was from March of 1992 where
he pointed out that a lot of difference could be seen. There were a
lot more trailers and trailer pads on the property. Except for the
U-shaped area, Mr. Walther said the south tract was not touched from 1974
until Mr. Overton bought the property in 1987. On the overhead, he
displayed a time line from 1961, when the Woodridge Subdivision was first
platted, until present. It showed that in 1973 and 1976 the property
was sold at foreclosure. His point was that the foreclosures were good
indications that development did not proceed on the property as expected. Mr.
Walther believed that the owner at the time broke the law when he had not
developed the tract of ground all at once like the plan indicated. He
said if that voids the plan, as the ordinance in 1970 says it does, what
happens to the zoning.
In 1971, Mr. Walther said
the RMH ordinance was changed. The ordinance required that if development
was not complete in five years, the City had the right to rezone the property. He
said in this case, development is still not complete 27 years after the fact. Mr.
Walther compared this situation with the trailer park plan that was defeated
in 1993 when Mr. Rogers spoke on behalf of the Northland Acres Neighborhood
Association. He reviewed the parallels of the two cases. He said
he was there to tell the Council they had a choice to make and the right
to make a land use decision. He said the Council was not obligated
to pass this application simply because it was presented and the developer
complies with the lines on a piece of paper. He said the Council sits
as a legislative body and has the right to make an informed decision and
to exercise their discretion.
Mr. Walther said if the Council
believes that the use of a trailer park next to Woodridge is inappropriate,
he requested that they not approve this particular application. He
said not only was this a land use issue, but a fairness issue. He said
Mr. Overton has the right to develop his property and the right to expect
to make a profit. Mr. Walther said this was a reasonable position,
but Woodridge residents also have a reasonable position in wanting to protect
the integrity of their neighborhood, aesthetics, and quality of life. They
believed there might be a middle ground. He said homeowners would support
a senior citizens retirement RMH plan with double wide mobile homes, instead
of single wide mobile homes, that might provide for an end-to-end distribution
of mobile homes rather than side-to-side distribution. It would be
a less dense development, but he assumed a larger home would need a larger
lot, which could go for a higher rent price. Mr. Walther said they
had not been able to compromise with Mr. Overton for a variety of reasons. He
said both sides had been interested in pursuing their own agendas.
Mr. Harline asked Mr. Walther
to describe the threat to the neighborhood that would be caused by the expansion
of the mobile home park. Mr. Walther responded by passing around pictures
of houses in Woodridge and pictures of parts of the Richland Heights development. Mr.
Harline said he had taken an extensive tour of the area and he thought he
had looked at it from every angle. Mr. Walther said it was a visual
pollution argument. In the morning, the sun reflects off the metal
roofs and sides of the trailers. He said there was significant glare
that was objectionable to many people in the neighborhood. Mr. Harline
said the objection of the Woodridge Neighborhood to the expansion of the
mobile home park was a matter of architectural aesthetics. Mr. Walther
said that was part of it. He said in a trailer park there were no garages
so all of the cars and trucks were parked outside. He said Richland
Heights did not have any sidewalks and everything is clustered quite closely
together. He said it was not a pleasant appearance and there is a significant
difference in appearance between the Woodridge Subdivision and Richland Heights
Mobile Home Park. Mr. Harline said he did not disagree with that statement.
Mr. Harline asked if the
appearance of the mobile homes, not the value of them, which was the most
objectionable. Mr. Walther said he thought the value of the trailers
would have an adverse affect upon the value of the homes. He said if
a home has a particular value and other homes come in the neighborhood that
are less valuable, that has a tendency to draw down the value of that property. He
thought that was the general feeling. He said if there is a property
value reduction, it would affect not only the six people who live on the
road adjacent to the development, but all of the residents that could see
it because Woodridge rises away from the development. He said as you
get higher on the hill, one could view more of the trailer park.
Mr. Harline asked how, as
a Council, they were to zone and approve plats for a community if they have
to put a higher value house next to every house that is built. He asked
how the Council could plan a city around something like that. Mr. Walther
said it seemed to him, as a layperson, in planning the City would want the
relative qualities to be a step down. He said it would not be desirable
to build a one million dollar house next to a $10,000 house. He said
there should be a gradual rise in the levels, either up or down. What
they believed was occurring here was a radical change in the value of the
properties in the neighborhood. That was the primary objection. Mr.
Walther said that was why a double wide residential retirement community
would be less objectionable because they are more expensive.
Uless Reeder, 3804 Evergreen,
explained that he had lived at that address since 1977, and asked the Council
to deny the request by Mr. Overton for the Richland Heights plan. He
was concerned about property values and the wildlife in the area.
Shirley Delbert, 3704 Evergreen,
said she had probably lived in the neighborhood longer than anyone, since
the early 60's. She said her house would probably price in the $80,000
range. She disagreed with Mr. Blaylock in that she did not believe
the mobile home park would not have an effect on the value of their homes. She
said the issue had nothing to do with one neighborhood being better than
the other, it had to do with the inappropriateness of placing a mobile home
park next to an R-1 neighborhood.
Glenda McGrath, 3815 Evergreen,
said the road that is being proposed would be within 45 feet of her backyard. She
said she has a view of Carl's Garage right now. She said the garage
was supposed to put up trees to provide a privacy fence, but that has never
happened. She found it hard to believe that trees would be put in to
protect her house from this new road. Ms. McGrath explained that she
had been dealing with the power line people for years and said when she was
told that there would be no problem with putting trees under the power line,
she did not believe it. She had signed a contract with the power company
saying that she would maintain the trees she had put under the line. She
said they accidentally cut them down.
Charles Stuth, 506 Arbor
Drive, was in support of the Woodridge neighborhood proposal. He said
the submitted Richland plan may be labeled Phase 2, but his feeling was that
it was a new plan not an existing plan. He said any ordinances would
be difficult to enforce because part of the mobile home park would have been
built in 1970 and part in 1995. He said it would be helpful if the
new plan were considered as meeting all of the 1995 requirements, but said
it did not do that quite yet. He said in reading the present RMH ordinance,
it appeared that there was not enough playground for the north side in Phase
2, nor was there enough storage and additional parking.
Don Schoengarth, 3612 Arbor
Court, noted that he was a member of the School Board. He explained
that there are 18 grade schools in Columbia, with half of them being Title
I schools. He said those are schools that have a low socioeconomic
status, with a high number of free or reduced price lunches. He said
that seven out of the nine schools were north of Broadway. His point
was that the City did not need more low income housing north of Broadway. He
said they were trying to balance the schools and that was hard to do when
the City keeps approving these types of developments north of Broadway.
Mrs. Crockett asked where
the children in this neighborhood would go to school. Dr. Schoengarth
replied that right now they would attend Shepard, Oakland, Lang, and Hickman. Mr.
Harline said the children would be attending school south of Broadway. Dr.
Schoengarth said that was true right now, but it was a general rule that
there is nothing south of Broadway.
Jane Addison, 2407 Shepard,
a board member of the Green Belt Coalition, explained that her comments would
be made from a greenbelt protection point of view. On the south and
east side of the development, there would be approximately 100 feet between
the trailer pads and Hominy Branch Creek itself. She indicated this
was a good thing. She said they were happy that the 100 year flood
way is designated on the map as a green space conservation easement
and will not be built over. She said, however, that they questioned
the wisdom of building 24 trailer pads on the south and east side in what
is actually a 100 year flood plain. She said they were also pleased
that the creek's good condition would be maintained during the building period
and thereafter, as there would be no bridge built over the creek and construction
materials will be brought in through the two roads on the north side. Because
landscaping and stormwater management plans are not required at the preliminary
development plan stage, Ms. Addison said they hoped any landscaping would
not destroy undergrowth trees and general vegetation that support the banks
and adjoining edges of Hominy Branch Creek. She commended Mr. Overton
for recognizing the value of green open space. The dedicated conservation
easement, playgrounds, walking trail, and the intact creek should provide
an environmentally healthy area. She wondered if landfill that would
be trucked in to support construction of the trailer pads that lie in the
flood plain, whether it would be possible to prevent the fill from washing
down into the creek. Another concern was about the stormwater that
presently soaks into vegetation to filter before draining into the creek. She
said after development it would run off from concrete roads and trailer pads. She
wondered how that drainage would be taken care of.
Mr. Harline asked if the
Greenbelt Coalition objected to any type of bridge on the property, like
a foot bridge. Ms. Addison said they were just noting there was no
bridge and presumably the children would run across on rocks when they wanted
to cross the creek. She said there was to be no construction of a bridge,
which would help the integrity of the creek.
Kenny Hafner, 1121 Scott
Station Road, Jefferson City, explained that he and his wife own 29 acres
of land adjacent to the present mobile home park. Regarding the allowance
of the trees under the power line, he pointed out that the substation belongs
to Central Electric in Jefferson City and that the power lines belong to
Boone Electric. He said the City had nothing to do with it. Mr.
Hafner said the right-of-way crews are not to let any trees grow under the
power lines. He said they only allow plantings to the edge of the right-of-way. Mr.
Hafner said he was ready to develop his A-1 property into a residential housing
area, but if this plan was approved he did not think he could get that done.
Bill March, 3814 Evergreen,
said the new road being proposed for the Creek Pointe Subdivision would be
in his backyard also. In order to build the road, all of the trees
would have to be removed and he would be looking at two wrecker services
with wrecked and abandoned cars on these properties. He said it would
be an eyesore and would decrease his property value.
Mayor Hindman understood
Mr. March was concerned about the street going through and opening up the
view to the east. He said he thought it seemed inevitable that the
property would develop somehow, either in connection with the street or some
other way in the future. He did not see how this would be more devastating
than any other development that might occur behind his property, assuming
the natural progression of development. Mr. March said his point was
that some kind of screen needed to be put up so he would not be looking at
a salvage yard.
William Rosen, 3813 Evergreen,
said the Council would not be able to please everyone. He said whatever
the Council decided, he would still be on their side. Terry Skinner,
3716 Lansing, President of Woodridge Neighborhood Association, said he had
not called Mr. Overton in 1993 prior to building his home. He had never
talked to him on the phone and 1995 was the first time he had ever met him,
which was in a meeting in David Rogers office. Mr. Skinner built his
home without contacting Mr. Overton, but after his home was built he saw
them moving dirt. At that point, he asked what was being done and was
told they were going to expand the trailer park. He said 12 of the
neighbors remembered Mr. Overton saying, in a meeting in 1988, that he had
no plans to cross the Hominy Creek because a bridge would be too expensive. Based
on that information, he said people started building their houses feeling
that the property would not be developed RMH. Residents thought they
had a verbal assurance there would be no development of RMH.
Mr. Skinner did not agree
with Mr. Blaylock's opinion about their property not being affected by a
trailer park. Regarding Mr. Blaylock's comment about a neighborhood
that is self-contained not being affected by anything that is built around
or outside of it, Mr. Skinner said he had passed around a study to the Council
from the University of Georgia and LSU. He said two professors conducted
a study that indicated within a quarter mile of a trailer park, property
values probably decrease about 15%. He said it was very possible that
it could occur in this case. Mr. Skinner explained how property devaluation
works. He commented that people said as long as Jack Overton owns Richland
Heights, it will be well-kept and owner owned. Mr. Skinner trusted
that was the way it would be, but he said Mr. Overton may very well sell
the trailer park next year to someone who may not take care of it and the
mobile homes may not be exclusively owner occupied. Mr. Skinner asked
if Mr. Overton had compromised whatever right he may have had to develop
the north tract as on two occasions he disregarded the law in developing
the south tract without any formal prior approval.
Mr. Skinner wondered if the
passage of 27 years and the change of conditions around this undeveloped
tract gave the Council a fair opportunity to question this plan in today's
context. He said Woodridge residents thought it did. Mr. Skinner
said they had no problem with the current trailer park and the people who
live there. He said it was unobtrusive and on the other side of the
Hominy greenbelt. He said what they had problems with was this new
proposal to put 84 metal trailers 61 feet from their backyards. He
said the issue was not about neighbors, but about a developer who is putting
his business next door to their neighborhood. He said Woodridge home
owners tried to compromise in that they offered to purchase property and
discussed zoning alternatives, but the developer had insisted upon a trailer
park.
In early December, Mr. Skinner
wrote to the City Attorney asking if this was a rezoning issue. He
said they received a verbal response last Friday that the Council could discuss
land use issues, but not zoning and rezoning. They believed the response
gave the Council latitude to work with the neighborhood and the developer
on a solution as which occurred in 1993 in the Northland neighborhood. He
said they did not have the opportunity to negotiate an RMH compromise. He
said Woodridge residents realize there were new RMH guidelines in place,
but that this was the wrong place for 84 metal trailers. They requested
that the Council deny the request or table the plan to give the two groups
an opportunity to reach an RMH compromise, if the Council believed that was
the proper zoning for this tract of land.
Mrs. Crockett noted under
the RMH ordinance there was a requirement for an eight to ten foot fence. She
thought it was the neighbors that wanted the fence so she recommended a 12
foot fence. She said if residents did not want the fence, she was certain
that Mr. Overton would be happy not to go to that expense. Mr. Skinner
said they did want the 12 foot fence. It was his opinion, however,
that if a fence had to be put up between neighborhoods, this was an implication
that the zoning might not be appropriate.
Mr. Harline asked if they
had been able to discuss any of the compromises. Mr. Skinner said their
attorney contacted Mr. Rogers Saturday and the response had been something
like "too little, too late". Mr. Harline understood that the neighborhood's
stance, to this point, had been no mobile homes period. Mr. Skinner
said that was correct because residents felt there was a more appropriate
zoning for this property. He said they were trying to make that legal
point with the Council, but did not get a response until very recently.
Mrs. Crockett asked Mr. Boeckmann
when he had responded to the group's letter. Mr. Boeckmann said he
did not recall the exact dates, but he talked to their attorney, Mr. Walther,
shortly after receiving the letter. He said Mr. Walther had called
him and asked if he had the chance to look at the letter and review the cases
they had given him. Mr. Boeckmann said he told Mr. Walther that he
had not, but before the hearing he would certainly have the chance to do
that. He spoke to Mr. Walther a few times since then. Mr. Boeckmann
said his initial indication was that he was not convinced that the Council
had as much complete discretion as Mr. Walther thought they had. Subsequent
conversations had been along those same lines. Mr. Skinner said that
was how Mr. Walther had related it to him.
Mr. Janku asked how the neighborhood's
RMH proposal was different from what was before them. Mr. Skinner said
their first preference was for the Council to vote this plan down and conduct
a feasibility study for a more appropriate zoning for the area. If
the Council decides either they do not have the legal right to do so or the
votes are just not there, then Woodridge home owners would like to talk about
an RMH compromise that would include double wide trailers and a retirement
community. He said the Manager at Crestwood Mobile Home Park had told
him that they have a waiting list for retired people who want to put a mobile
home on a pad. He said a retirement community would not have nearly
as much impact on property values or the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
Ms. Coble asked what would
not have the impact, double wide mobile homes, or the age of the people involved. Mr.
Skinner said both would not have an affect, but mostly the double wides. He
said double wides were now around $50,000 to $60,000, where a single wide
is approximately $30,000. Mr. Skinner stated he was not referring to
people that live in the trailer park.
Mr. Rogers noted that three
speakers in opposition to the plan live on Evergreen Lane. He said
those were the lots farthest to the north of the subdivision. These
homes were well over 1,000 feet from the area in question. He said
the homes that are close to the commercial zoning (zoning which existed when
these homes were built) would not be affected at all by the mobile home court. Regarding
the Northland issue, Mr. Rogers pointed out significant differences between
the two issues. Regarding the road coming in from I-70 southwest, Mr.
Rogers said it would provide a full City street entrance to the area. To
ensure there was little objection by the people that own these lots, they
agreed that only the trees in the streets and the utility easements would
be removed. Mr. Rogers pointed out an unbuildable strip to the west
of the road that is zoned C-3. He said they have initiated a request
to rezone it back to A-1 so there would be no suggestion that it remains
as a billboard or sign site. He said the only lots created in the subdivision
were just where the streets themselves have created lots.
Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Rogers
to address the issue regarding the trees under the power line. Mr.
Rogers said they contacted the power line people and the City's Arborist. He
said the Arborist provided them with a list of 11 different types of trees
that will grow to a height less than 15 feet. He said the power line
company indicated that as long as Mr. Busteed, the Arborist, will warrant
that these are the type of trees that grow to that height, they would not
take them down. Mr. Campbell asked, with the destruction of trees in
the right-of-way and a greater exposure of those houses to the auto yard
to the east, if the developer would be willing to put additional screening
or fencing along this area to protect the home owners. Mr. Rogers said
he would not. He said the development was a lot depth away from their
backyards, and most of the trees were in the edge of the power line easement. He
thought that would be a very unnecessary request. Mr. Rogers stated
this would designate land, purchased for the purpose of putting in a road,
must be preserved in some sort of a condition to separate Woodridge residents
from someone else's commercial zoning that was there when these houses were
built. Mr. Rogers imagined the lots would be for sale and they would
own them.
Mayor Hindman understood
the developer was agreeing to public use of the green space conservation
easement. Mr. Rogers said that was correct and added that this mobile
home park would have many times the required open and playground space. Regarding
Creek Pointe, Phase 1, Mayor Hindman understood the plan called for sidewalks. Mr.
Rogers said that was correct.
Mr. Campbell understood it
would take considerable time to complete the mobile home park in its entirety. He
said the playground was planned at the far end, but that would probably be
the last area to be developed. Mr. Rogers agreed with this assertion. Mr.
Campbell asked when the playground would be developed. Mr. Rogers said
the playground would probably be at several different temporary locations
before they reach the northeast corner of the plan. Mr. Campbell asked
if they would be willing to stipulate that there would be a playground in
place with the first development, even though it may be moved at a later
time. Mr. Rogers replied they would.
Mrs. Crockett asked at which
end they anticipated starting the trailers. Mr. Rogers said he imagined
they would be up in the northwest corner where the road comes in.
Regarding the owner occupied
lots, Mr. Campbell asked if they would be willing to make a deed restriction
that, if sold, this development would remain an owner occupied mobile
home park. Mr. Rogers said they would be more than willing to do so,
but he did not think it would be worth the paper it would be printed on. He
said Mr. Overton currently has the second generation of his family working
in the operation, and the third generation will begin mowing lawns this summer. Mr.
Rogers did not anticipate that Richland Heights would be sold, and did not
think they could limit it to owner occupied lots. He said there were
not all owner occupied lots in Woodridge Subdivision.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing on both bills.
Mr. Campbell asked about
the legal status of the area in terms of rezoning and the approval or disapproval
of the plan. Mr. Boeckmann's opinion was that RMH zoning was in place
on the property and the only question was how much discretion the Council
has in rejecting or approving the plan. He gave examples of things
that the Council considers where they have no discretion as it relates to
the Charter. He said there were other things the Council does that
they can either do or not do, such as the Charter amendment placed on the
ballot for this April's election. He said that was totally at the Council's
discretion. Most things fall in between those extremes. In the
area of land use planning, Mr. Boeckmann said the two most common things
the Council does would be rezoning property and approving subdivision plats. He
said the courts, in recent years, have held that cities do not have much
discretion when it comes to reviewing subdivision plats. He said the
Council exercises its discretion in passing the subdivision ordinance and
in setting up the rules. When it relates to an individual plat and someone
comes in and meets those rules, the Council does not have much discretion
in approving it. In the area of zoning, he explained that the Council
has more discretion. In Missouri, unlike in some other states, rezoning
is considered a legislative act. He said that was not the final answer
on rezonings, but the Council does have more discretion when it comes to
zoning property than when it comes to approving subdivision plats. He
said the City has in its zoning ordinance a number of planned developments,
one was the RMH. He said the ordinance was clear that when someone
has, for example, land zoned A-1 and wants to get RMH zoning on it, they
must present a preliminary development plan to the Council. Mr. Boeckmann
said the approval of that plan places the RMH zoning on the property. When
the Council considers an original plan, it is tied in and is an integral
part of the zoning. He said then the question comes back as to what
kind of discretion the Council has when someone comes in with a different
plan. Since it is tied into the zoning, Mr. Boeckmann said he thought
they had more discretion than they would have with, for example, a subdivision
plat.
Mr. Boeckmann said the problem
with the situation before the Council was that they have a plan that does
not begin to meet the modern requirements adopted a couple of years ago. In
replacing that, the developer is presenting them with a plan that does meet
the requirements. Regarding zoning and how much discretion the Council
has, Mr. Boeckmann said they have legislative discretion, but would be faced
with particular facts and may have more discretion in some cases than in
others. He said if someone has property that is zoned R-1 which is
surrounded by commercial property and the traffic is heavy such that it is
not reasonable to develop it as R-1, the Council really did not have as much
discretion in denying more intensive zoning. He said the basic criteria
the Council has for zoning is reasonableness, how reasonable is the plan
or the proposed rezoning. He said if they have a situation where there
is not much development, the Council has more discretion, although it is
limited to the facts in front of them. Mr. Boeckmann thought when the
Council looks at this case, they have to decide whether it is reasonable
to deny a plan on property that is already zoned RMH, and the proposed plan
is an improvement and meets current standards recently adopted by the Council. If
they choose to deny it, he guessed the next logical question would be what
to do next. It would be a question of the Council examining the surrounding
area to see if there was some other zoning that would be more appropriate.
Mr. Harline asked if they
found this development to be inappropriate for the area and rezoned the property,
whether the entire property would have to be rezoned. He wondered if
the existing mobile homes were zoned R-1 or R-2, would they become legal
non-conforming uses. Mr. Boeckmann said he supposed it would be possible
to rezone only a portion of the property, but he did not want the Council
to think they would not have a problem if they tried to rezone it. Mr.
Boeckmann said it would be undesirable to split the zoning, but it would
be legally possible.
Mr. Campbell asked if the
plan before them met all of the current requirements for RMH. Mr. Hancock
replied it did.
Mr. Harline asked about the
built out density as proposed. Mr. Hancock said it would be 2.6 dwelling
units per acre. Mr. Harline asked if that included the already developed
portion or just the new portion. Mr. Hancock said that would be on
the new portion containing 31.8 acres.
Mr. Janku said there was
a suggestion that the plan would not be subject to the 1995 RMH requirements
even though it meets the 1995 requirements. Mr. Hancock said they would
be subject to the 1995 requirements and Mr. Overton was aware of that.
Regarding the Northland RMH
proposal, Mr. Campbell said Northland Drive was then, and still is, an unimproved
residential street. It is narrow without any sidewalks or shoulders
on the road, and there is a school bus route with several driveways opening
onto the street. He said it was barely wide enough for two cars to
meet and the proposed rezoning would have considerably increased the traffic
on Northland. He said the issue to him at that time had been for public
safety. Mr. Campbell thought that by adding considerably more traffic,
it would endanger children waiting on school buses or walking along the roadway. In
such cases, it was his opinion that public safety should take precedence
over the right to develop property for uses that might create additional
dangers for the people. He said the proposed RMH would not open into
the Woodridge neighborhood, or any other neighborhood. He said the
proposed development would create additional traffic on a street which is
basically commercial and serves as a collector street. No one has raised
an issue of public safety from increased traffic for this proposal. Mr.
Campbell thought it seemed inappropriate to try to compare the two developments.
Regarding the report from
Louisiana which suggested that a mobile home park will reduce the values
of neighboring homes by 15%, Mr. Campbell said the people in Woodridge were,
in many ways, the victims who have been caused undue concern by bad research. He
said the report was a single case study of real estate sales in one location
at one time, specifically East Baton Rouge, Louisiana during the early 1990's. He
said there was absolutely no evidence that similar studies in other locations,
at other times, will find the same results. He said they may or may
not. He said it was inappropriate and dangerous to attempt to generalize
it to Columbia, Missouri. He said the report was inadequate and incomplete
because it does not provide any background from the East Baton Rouge community. He
said we do not know the zoning controls, or any other controls, on mobile
home parks there. Mr. Campbell stated the size or age of such parks,
or the type of nearby housing, was not known. An even greater problem
was the inappropriate use of logic and statistics in the study. He
said the statistical techniques used in the study measure only association
amongst variables. He said such techniques do not indicate cause and
effect. He said the writers of this report have assumed that mobile
home parks cause lower housing prices without giving evidence to support
that assumption. Mr. Campbell could make a logical argument which has
the cause and effect going the other way. He said mobile home parks
take considerable land area, 20 to possibly 80 R-1 lots, and if a mobile
home park was to be built, it would not go in an area where houses are selling
well. It would go in an area where they are selling cheaper. He
said there were other technical, but important, problems that invalidate
the results of the study. He said the findings of this flawed study
have been misunderstood or misused in Columbia. His conclusion was
that the City really does not know what, if any, the impacts of a development
of a mobile home park will be on an adjacent neighborhood. On both
sides of this issue, Mr. Campbell said there would be single family, owner
occupied homes in each development. He said there seems to be the belief
that people who live in mobile homes are less desirable or their homes do
not look as appealing. Regarding Council discretion, Mr. Campbell
felt the Council had relatively few degrees of freedom and that it was going
to be RMH zoning regardless of the decision made this evening. He said
the only option he thought the Council had was whether they would vote for
this plan as is, or try to find some other plan. Mr. Campbell did not
like his choices, but felt all people, regardless of their income level,
should have access to good housing. He said there was a very distinct
shortage of affordable housing, especially mobile home housing, in the City. Mr.
Campbell said he would vote in favor of the plan.
Mr. Harline agreed with the
Woodridge Neighborhood Association in that their issue was sincerely not
about rich versus poor. He believed it was about protecting an aesthetic
quality of their neighborhood. He said preserving historic property
was a very high priority in his neighborhood; however, in the need to preserve
architectural and community values within the Woodridge Neighborhood Association,
the Council had to be careful when it is taken to the extreme as to deny
other people entrance into the home ownership market. He said affordable
home ownership was a very difficult issue for this Council. Regarding
the study, he said the property values in Woodridge should not be affected
because this is a mobile home park that is simply expanding. Mr. Harline
said this was distinctly different from Northland Acres, this is RMH zoning
which is already built upon. In addition, the area does not have a
large number of this particular type of housing. His view was that
mixing zoning to avoid concentrating one type of use in one area of town
made good transportation sense, good community sense, and good planning sense. He
did not accept the argument that this was a bad place for RMH zoning. He
said he was sorry he could not support the Woodridge Neighborhood Association.
Mrs. Crockett said she was
sure that some of the neighbors knew, before they built their homes, that
this area was zoned RMH. She said for those individuals who purchased
their homes and were not told about the RMH zoning, her heart went out to
them. She received a lot of letters and understood their concerns. Mrs.
Crockett said she asked Mr. Boeckmann his opinion after listening to Mr.
Rogers and Mr. Walther. She was told the property was zoned RMH. She
then asked the Planning Director if the plan met all regulations. She
was told it did. Mrs. Crockett said her decision was based on the oath
she took when becoming a Council member in which she promised to "support
the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Missouri,
and the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Columbia, and that I will faithfully
discharge the duties of my office, so help me God". From what she could
determine, this was RMH zoning, the plan met all City requirements, and,
as much as she hated going against the neighbors who purchased their homes
not knowing about the RMH zoning, would have to vote for the development.
Mr. Janku said there had
been a lot of discussion previously about the mobile home development in
Columbia and whether or not it should be allowed. This was the first
opportunity for development under the new ordinance. He said if it
was done correctly, there may be opportunities for future developments in
appropriate locations. The community would be watching closely as this
moves forward and if there is any development that is not of the quality
promised, there would be a grave doubts about any future RMH development. Regarding
the Northland issue, Mr. Janku thought the key difference was a land use
decision. In this case, the area is bordered on one side by industrial
zoning and has RMH to the south. In the Northland case, the entire
area surrounding the tract was single family or A-1 County zoning developed
as single family. Clearly, there is quite a bit of difference between
the two situations. Mr. Janku said the industrial zoning adjacent to
the property and the existing RMH development really does restrict the Council's
discretion as to what is possible to propose for this particular property.
Ms. Coble said if the legal
term they were supposed to consider in making their decision was what is
reasonable, then she found it was very reasonable indeed to allow an RMH
development on a tract of land that is zoned RMH.
Mayor Hindman said he was
confident that if this was a new zoning request, the area would not be zoned
RMH in a similar situation. He said, however, it probably would be
zoned in some other higher density. He felt the Council had little
choice and they were obligated to support the zoning ordinance and
request.
B389-96 was read with the
vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT:
KRUSE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
The vote on R185-96 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE,
HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:
B39-97 Rezoning
from A-1 to R-2 property at 2968 Northland Drive.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
was a 1.1 acre tract of land recommended for approval by the Planning staff,
and the Planning and Zoning Commission on a 5-2 vote.
Mayor Hindman asked about
the acquisition of greenbelt space. Mr. Beck thought it was moving
forward and this rezoning should not have any effect on the acquisition of
the property from the value standpoint.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Ed Calvert, 1809 Katy Lane,
spoke on behalf of himself and the property owners. He said this property
had been used as rental property for a long time and he thought the R-2 zoning
would be appropriate and reasonable. He noted that the plat showed
a tier lot and he said that was what had been worked out with Parks and Recreation
as green space.
Mayor Hindman asked if this
was a duplex. Mr. Calvert replied that it was a single family home. He
said it had trailers on it, but they have been removed.
Mr. Campbell asked how many
duplexes would be built on the lot. Mr. Calvert said he would be building
two duplexes, a total of four units. Mr. Campbell asked if the duplexes
could be built outside of the flood way. Mr. Calvert said they could. Mr.
Campbell asked if they could be built outside of the 100 year flood plain. Mr.
Calvert said that could not be done. Mr. Campbell commented that some
filling would have to be done. Mr. Calvert said that was correct.
Kevin Weatherspoon, 923 Yale,
explained that he was the owner of the property directly across the street
from the proposed development. He said he had no objections and knew
of none from anyone else.
Harold Anderson, 2900 Northland
Drive, said he had lived in the area for about 25 years and was not opposed
to the R-2 zoning as such, but was concerned about safety because of the
street and the flood plain. During construction, he asked that the
cement truck drivers not be allowed to dump any excess on the property by
the creek.
Paul Albert, 2703 Parker,
said the street is very narrow in that area and that there was no place for
a sidewalk.
Annette Weaver, 2738 Northland
Drive, noted that this piece of land is on a blind curve with almost no visibility. She
said whatever is allowed would have to be built very carefully because there
would be an entrance and an exit on a portion of the street where there is
literally no visibility. She said currently there are tracks in the
ditch across the street made by a vehicle that did not make it around
the curve. Ms. Weaver also spoke with the homeowner on the piece of
property adjacent to the site. She said their small house was less
than six feet from the property line and this home is already lower than
this particular tract of land. Because this property already floods
a lot, she said they would have to import dirt which would make the land
in question still higher than the piece next to it. She said the property
owner told her that at present they did not have any problems with the water
coming up to their house, but it does come up in their yard. The neighbor
was concerned that runoff would affect their house because it is a small
house built on a slab. Ms. Weaver noted that because of the nature
of the street, there would not be an area for a school bus to stop. She
said the children would have to wait in the street. She stated residents
were not opposed to the zoning, but were concerned that whatever is built
needs to be done very carefully as to not wreak havoc with the neighboring
pieces of land.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Campbell asked about
the fill affecting the flood water on the adjacent property. Mr. Patterson
explained that filling in the flood plain fringe area is permitted by City
ordinances. There would be no filling in the flood way which is basically
used for passage of the flood. In this particular case, the property
owner will not be required to have a land disturbance permit or stormwater
management plan since it is less than two acres in size. Mr. Patterson
reported they would, however, have to have a flood plain development permit. When
this permit is obtained, the engineer for the developer will have to present
information indicating that construction will not be a violation of any federal
regulations regarding the increase in the 100 year flood. Mr. Campbell
asked Mr. Patterson if he thought there was any probability that it will
increase the possibility of water damage on others. Based on its location
and the size of stream and the quantities of water that come through there,
Mr. Patterson said he doubted very seriously that the two lots would even
be able to distinguish a difference. He pointed out that during development,
the lots would be subject to the requirements for erosion control and stabilization
of topsoil.
Mr. Harline said this tract
of land was obviously in an awkward place for access onto Northland and is
right next to Bear Creek. He thought there were a number of issues,
even though the tract was small, that would lend itself to be a planned district. He
asked if that had been suggested at any point. Mr. Hancock said it
was not too small, but on the Land Use Plan, staff designated where they
would like to see planned districts and this area was designated for medium
density residential development. He said they had not seen a lot of
issues relative to off-site improvements that were not already being addressed. Mr.
Harline said the issue he was talking about was trying to come up with the
best place to put an entrance on to the road and the protection of the greenbelt. He
supposed, if the Council approved the plat, the third tiered lot would provide
some of that protection. Mr. Hancock said that was correct. There
would be a lot that Mr. Patterson's land acquisition people would be working
on with the developer.
Mr. Janku thanked the owner
for working with the City on the tiered lot and green space. He reported,
unfortunately, that he could not support the request for open R-2 zoning. He
said the south side of Northland Drive, extending to the east of this lot,
has been developed as single family. The three homes in the corner
had been upgraded recently and he felt to put in two duplex units, with the
potential of 12 bedrooms with 12 automobiles trying to back out onto that
corner, would adversely impact the three homes. He had a lot of concerns
about the street because of the curve and the flood plain. He said
the other big issue to be addressed was the extension of the water line this
spring. There is a large quantity of open space that will come up for
development or rezoning and the Council should not made a decision regarding
this tract until a determination is made concerning the entire area. Mr.
Janku thought a precedent would be set without thinking through what would
be done with the area to the east. He stated the potential was too
dense and that there would not be any controls on the access points.
Mayor Hindman understood
the open space to the east was zoned RMH. According to the map, Mr.
Campbell saw this spot being sandwiched in between two RMH zones. Mr.
Harline said one of the RMH areas was across the creek. Mr. Janku pointed
out the area marked A-1 was above the subject tract. He said if they
allowed this R-2 development, the Council would clearly be setting a precedent
that it could be dense development. Mr. Janku was not comfortable with
open R-2 zoning given what area home owners have done to improve their properties.
Mrs. Crockett pointed out
that there would be some off-street parking. Mr. Calvert said it was
required.
Mr. Campbell asked about
the A-1 zoning near the subject tract. Mr. Hancock said the plan called
for medium density. Mr. Janku thought that was something that probably
needed to be revisited.
Mrs. Crockett asked if the
people living in the A-1 area were notified about the potential of this rezoning. Mr.
Hancock said everyone within 185 feet of the boundaries were notified. Mrs.
Crockett asked if any of those people were present in opposition. They
were not.
Mr. Campbell said he was
concerned about condensing areas into flood plains, as would be done here,
on a dangerous curve. He asked if they were pushing things too far
by trying to put that many units into what is basically an undesirable site.
Mrs. Crockett asked how many
off-street parking spaces there would be. Mr. Calvert said there would
probably be four to six spaces. He pointed out that this piece of land
was not one tract, but two. Mr. Calvert reported it was zoned A-1 and
believed, as of now, he could get building permits for single family dwellings
on it with a flood plain improvement.
Mr. Janku asked how driveway
access and other similar issues would be handled. Mr. Patterson said
there was no regulatory requirements on R-1 or R-2 zoning for residential
entrances. He said there were regulations that would govern commercial
entrances and public street intersections, but in this instance it would
be up to the building permit plot plan to indicate the location of the proposed
driveway. He said there was nothing to keep them from accessing the
street.
Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Calvert
if he owned the property immediately north of the subject site. Mr.
Calvert said he did not. He said the tract they were requesting zoning
on extends up Northland Drive. He said there was a considerable amount
of frontage on Northland. Mr. Calvert thought the problem with that
particular curve and the access as not being driveway access, but the configuration
of the downward slope and people sliding off the roadway.
Mrs. Crockett said she saw
a few problems with the idea, but two residential homes with three bedrooms
could also be put in this location. Those homes tend to have several
children whereas the duplexes could have students. She said they would
have to weigh the number of cars versus the number of children. She
said Parks and Recreation would have the back end of the property. She
stated there was access to this back area. Mrs. Crockett said as none
of the neighbors were protesting this request, she felt that two new homes
would be an enhancement even if they were R-2.
Mr. Harline reported if the
developer builds two duplexes with three bedrooms in each duplex, there would
have to be 12 off-street parking spaces. He said it may not be possible
to squeeze all of this parking in, but once an open zone is passed that would
be a potential. He was reluctant to vote against someone who has worked
out a very amicable agreement regarding the greenbelt, but he would have
to agree with Mr. Janku about it being a lot of potential building in this
particular corner.
B39-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: JANKU, HARLINE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B42-97 Accepting
engineer's final report and tax billing for work performed on Brighton
Street from
Ripley
Street to William Street.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Mr. Patterson explained that
this street maintenance tax bill work had been authorized by the Council
in 1995. He said the work had been delayed until 1996 because of ongoing
apartment construction. He said it had been deferred at the request
of the property owners so the maintenance work would not be torn up. He
explained that the project consisted of wedging pavement and resurfacing
and resealing. He said staff also did some work to improve the open
ditching. The total cost of the project was $3,435.96 with approximately
$1,800 of the assessment being tax billed at $2.00 per abutting foot. Mr.
Patterson said the work would provide smoother roadways which minimizes damage
to vehicles that travel on them, and would also provide for better access
to the properties that are adjacent where driveways currently exist.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
B42-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B45-97 Accepting
RCC Consultant's report on telecommunications and adopting a plan to
implement
some of the recommendations.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that an amendment
had been prepared to the ordinance and the implementation plan for Council
consideration. Since the last Council meeting, Mr. Beck and a few members
of his staff met on at least two occasions with GTE to discuss problems they
have perceived regarding this issue before the Council. Previously,
the Council had a public presentation by the telecommunications consultant. Mr.
Beck said the consultant had been hired some time ago as a result of the
rapid changes occurring in telecommunications, not only in Columbia, but
throughout the country. The consultant felt the City needed some type
of blueprint in place to address these kinds of issues as they arise. The
problems GTE had with the original ordinance dealt with the number of fiber
optic strands that were to be in the cable in the first phase of the overall
implementation plan. This would extend the cable from the Power Plant
to the Bolstad Substation. He said the City was building a new substation
along the way and staff felt it needed to be connected as soon as possible
as construction will be completed this spring. The anticipated expenditure
for the first phase is approximately $249,000. Mr. Beck said this was
not the $2.5 million plan before the Council. After meeting with the
representatives of GTE, Mr. Beck said they suggested reducing the number
of strands from 96 to 24 in the first phase of implementation. That
is consistent with what has been installed. Under the implementation
plan, GTE had concerns with some of the wording. One was the statement
regarding cost and it would depend upon whether any drops were required,
or whether or not band width was required. The plan also stated that
others could be served at this point to a limited degree. Mr. Beck
said the suggestion from GTE was to remove these two sentences under Step
C, and these issues could be addressed at a future point in time when the
City is ready to look at the implementation of that portion of the overall
plan. The other sentence GTE had concerns with was in regards to Step
D, the northeast loop, in which City services could include county services
and industry. Since at this point in time the City is not proposing
to serve anyone in that area and this would require a separate agreement
between the City and any users of our facility, it was felt that this should
be examined at the time an agreement is considered. Quite frankly,
Mr. Beck did not feel that the City should agree to any kind of language
which says we would not be supplying those kinds of services at any point
in time in the future. He pointed out that when the consultant was
hired, staff asked that they look at all aspects of how service might be
provided in Columbia which included serving City facilities and actually
getting into the retail business like other cities are doing throughout the
country. Mr. Beck said some were looking at doing it in the State of
Missouri also. GTE's recommendation was that the City not get into
handling services in the individual homes and commercial/industrial establishments,
such as telephone service and that type of thing. The plan did not
include any of these issues, but it was looked at. Mr. Beck thought
that was probably part of the confusion that had been circulating around
the community. There had been some questions asked of some of the users
in town as to whether or not the City was getting into the retail business
with those types of services. Mr. Beck said the answer to that was
the City did not.
In order to move this project
forward in the northeast part of the City, Mr. Beck recommended that the
Council approve the amended ordinance. The Water and Light Department
could then proceed with the implementation of Step A, which includes installing
a 24 strand fiber cable, instead of 96, from the Power Plant to the Bolstad
Substation. The sentences mentioned earlier would also be removed from
the implementation plan. Mr. Beck said there had been a request from
the School Board for the City to work with them in planning some telecommunications
services. Passage of the ordinance would provide for that. The
Library also had an interest in stepping up the COIN system and staff is
currently working with them on it. In addition, the ordinance
would accept the consultant's report and authorize payment.
Mayor Hindman asked how this
would be used in connection with Water and Light, what would be going back
and forth from the Power Plant and the Bolstad Station. Mr. Malon said
the loop would connect both to the Bolstad Substation and the new Blue Ridge
Substation. The transmission protection scheme operates the transmission
system and all of the protective devices. He said these things speak
to each other, end to end, continuously. Mr. Malon reported there is
a supervisory control in the data acquisition system where staff can monitor
all of the functions in the station, open and close circuit breakers, raise
and lower voltage, and even determine if someone is breaking into the substation. He
said they will also have telephone communications back and forth that will
operate over this same system. This particular system is kept separate
from other communications of any kind that would ever be on that system.
Regarding the number of strands,
Mayor Hindman said he understood the reason a 96 strand cable was proposed
was to ensure that Columbia stays out front and on the leading edge of potential
when it comes to communications. Mayor Hindman said the City has many
institutions that are on the leading edge in their fields, and he understood
that we wanted the 96 strand cable so it could be assured that this investment
would be made. He asked if the City did not put in the 96 strand cable,
what assurance would there be that the investment is in fact made for the
City of Columbia. Mr. Beck said he asked GTE that very question. Mr.
Beck reported GTE stated that they have made major investments in our community
and that all of their plans indicate they would continue to do so. GTE
felt Columbia was on the cutting edge because of what they have already installed
in Columbia and what they continue to install. Mr. Beck said he was
not sure how the City would obtain some real assurances. Mayor Hindman
felt that was a very legitimate concern for the City. He said the City
was not trying to move into the field of private enterprise, but on the other
hand, he thought they had the responsibility to assure that we are where
we should be. He said maybe this was a point of leverage and, at this
point, the City could get some assurances that the necessary investments
would be made. Mayor Hindman asked how much more it would cost to put
in the 96 strand cable than to put in the 24 strand, and whether it was primarily
the matter of the cost of the cable or labor. Mr. Malon said
they had estimated, for this part of the loop at 24 strands, the cost would
be approximately $150,000 as opposed to the original $249,000. Mayor
Hindman asked if the 24 strand cable was installed and then the City decided
additional needs were not being met by some other company and had to add
another cable, he supposed that would be relatively expensive. Mr.
Malon said it would mean that they would have to string a second cable. It
would be somewhat more expensive than putting in a larger one now, although
the City would also be delaying the investment for some period of time so
there would be some offset. Mr. Malon said the City would still have
the flexibility to do it. Mr. Beck said since the meeting last Friday
with GTE, they did share information with the staff as to where some of their
current cable is located. He said it was not down the same alignment
as the City is proposing, but it might be the type of situation that would
not be too difficult to work together on. In fairness to GTE, Mr. Beck
said they had done some substantial work in the area, but out of our alignment.
Mr. Campbell asked whether
it would be fair to estimate that if a 96 strand cable was installed at a
later date, it would cost an additional $50,000 or more. Mr. Malon
thought it would be somewhere in that neighborhood.
Mrs. Crockett asked if the
City had only the two choices of either the 24 or 96 strand cable. Mr.
Malon said a 48 strand cable would be another option. Originally, they
chose the 24 strand cable because it was an industry standard cable that
could be acquired and it would still give some excess capacity.
Mrs. Crockett asked what
this report had cost the City. Mr. Malon said he thought the total
cost, which included a lot of research on the franchise for DTI, had been
about $50,000.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Dennis Kastens, General Manager
for TCI Cablevision, 901 N. College, said that TCI would strongly recommend
that anything done along these lines be tabled over to the Cable TV Committee
so that they can discuss them and get them worked out. He did not think
the first phase would concern them, but said as the telecommunications business
expands, he was sure they would get involved.
Mr. Janku asked if TCI had
any plans to lay any fiber optics in Columbia. Mr. Kastens said currently
they do not. He said they just finished a complete rebuild in the Jefferson
City area where they do have fiber optics laid in the system. Mr. Janku
asked why Jefferson City had been selected over Columbia. Mr. Kastens
said it had to do with the age of their system. He said Columbia went
through a rebuild in 1990 whereas Jefferson City had not been rebuilt since
the late 70's.
Mr. Kastens said there had
been discussion about tying the access channel into Capital/Falcon. He
reminded the Council that TCI has been here all of the time and they have
maintained a line from the City to the TCI building at their own expense.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
In today's world, Mr. Campbell
said he had watched GTE expand from being a local company, to a Missouri
company, to a Texas company, to a global company. He said he was not
suggesting that they have neglected us, but said we had become a smaller "blip" on
their horizon. He said that was true of all companies. He said
that makes it more incumbent upon us, at the local level, to make sure that
we have adequate facilities available to us. He thought the City should
proceed and then watch our options. He said it may cost a little money,
but he was supportive of the proposed changes with the recognition that it
may be necessary to come back and make some additional expenditures in the
future.
Mr. Harline said he thought
the comments received from GTE made some good points. He said if the
City was at some point going to consider pursuing the full blown plan, which
might approach something like the figure GTE quoted, we needed to make some
careful calculations. He said private industry has worked at the level
of the US Congress to make sure that we are all thrown in there together. Mr.
Harline said we needed to guard our interests and keep in mind that the City
has an excellent municipal power supply and distribution system here. He
said one of the reasons the City was thinking about this was to provide a
unique niche and to help Water and Light utilities stay competitive in a
very fast changing market. He hesitated about the 24 strand cable because
he did not want to see the City cut out any options.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that B45-97 be amended per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Janku and approved by voice vote.
B45-97, as amended, was given
third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE,
JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
OLD BUSINESS
B38-97 Approving
the Final Plat of E. A.'s Acre.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck pointed out that
this was unanimously recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
B38-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows; VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B40-97 Appropriating
funds for priority medical dispatch software.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this
was a joint effort between the hospitals, city/county fire departments, Boone
County and the City of Columbia to place new software in the JCIC operation. He
thought the total cost was $40,000, with $5,000 being the City's contribution.
Mr. Sanford reported approximately
20 years ago a decision had been made to improve response time to medical
emergencies. He said this amounted to sending a fire truck and an ambulance
on each medical emergency call. The reason for doing so is because
there are more fire trucks and fire stations than there are ambulances and
ambulance bases. He said a fire engine can get to an average location
more quickly than an ambulance can. Over time, this has saved a lot
of lives and has become a very popular service. Mr. Sanford said the
fire department runs more medical emergencies than fires. Many times,
more help is sent than what is actually needed because there was not a way
of sorting out the minor incidents from the more serious problems.
The priority medical dispatch
software, with appropriate training included, would allow the dispatchers
to ask structured questions. As a result, the answers to those questions
will then precipitate other questions, which will allow the operators to
give pre-arrival instructions to victims and will also assign priority to
calls. At system maturity, which is thought to be in about three years,
it was felt the system would advise dispatchers on whether to send both a
fire truck and an ambulance, whether responding vehicles should be sent in
emergency mode, etc. The software will save a lot of time in the long-run.
Mr. Campbell asked about
the error rate. Mr. Sanford said he did not have that information,
but he was certain that it did not function flawlessly. He said the
systems they have been looking at have been well-tested and were in place
in many communities. He said those communities that utilize the software
continue to do so. Mr. Campbell said he had a concern about the software
because he could imagine an emergency call being received in which the dispatcher
may not really knowing what is going on, or a problem could potentially be
misdiagnosed. As a result, victims may not get the type of help that
is needed. Mr. Sanford was confident that if there was any uncertainty
involved, the dispatcher would always err on the side of sending too much
help rather than too little.
Mr. Janku asked what was
meant by system maturity. Mr. Sanford said that was when all the training
would be complete and they had sufficient confidence in the system to let
it do the work it is supposed to do. He said it would not do a complete
job the first time it is activated because training will need to occur, as
well as the inexperience with the software. Mr. Janku asked when it
would take effect. Mr. Sanford said the system would be used immediately,
but the "nitty-gritty" decisions about what type of equipment is to be sent,
emergency, non-emergency, or both, would come later down the road. He
said it would probably be initially utilized for pre-arrival instructions.
B40-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B41-97 Accepting
a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice to hire two additional
police officers,
and
appropriating funds.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that he
and the Police Chief discussed this grant prior to finalizing the budget
for this year. The plan was to hire two police officers if the grant
is received. He said they planned on hiring one officer if the City
did not receive the grant. Mr. Beck said the City did not have to worry
about federal money being eliminated and, as a result, having more officers
than needed. This will not occur because of ongoing police retirements
and the fact that Columbia is a growing City.
Mr. Harline said the East
Campus neighborhood policing program had been funded originally through a
grant. He asked if this program was going to continue. Chief
Barbee said there was still some time left on that grant. He said the
officer assigned to the program had been moved because his time was up, but
the functions of that position would be continued by the community policing
squads. Mr. Harline asked if grant money was eliminated, would the
program continue. Chief Barbee said it was not a requirement that the
City do that, but at this point he said it would continue because they want
to remain involved in community policing. Mr. Harline said it was a
very popular program in the East Campus area.
B41-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
CONSENT AGENDA
The following bills were
given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.
B43-97 Authorizing
a right-of-use permit allowing the University to install utilities
underground
through
the Hitt Street and University Street right of way.
B44-97 Accepting
water utility conveyances.
R16-97 Setting
a public hearing regarding construction of a 6-inch water main along Oakbrook
Drive
in Morris Subdivision.
R17-97 Setting
a public hearing on the amendment to the Consolidated Plan.
R18-97 Authorizing
an agreement with the Department of Health for regional AIDS services.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
NEW BUSINESS
R19-97 Authorizing
the demolition of a dilapidated structure at 1501-1503 West Worley and tax
billing.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the
administrative procedure had been held in order to move forward with the
removal of the structure. He said it would be preferable for the owner
to remove the structure; however, since that had not occurred, a call for
bids was initiated. The removal cost will be $3,000 and, if the Council
authorizes acceptance, the work will be done and tax billed to the property
owner.
Mr. Janku said the City removed
property before and he thought it had been a great success until weeds started
growing up on the abandoned property. He hoped there was some attempt
made, in the contract, to seed the property and initially keep it looking
somewhat attractive.
Mr. Campbell asked at what
point the City steps in and takes a property when the tax bills on it keep
increasing and becomes more than the value of the property. Mr. Boeckmann
said the City does not take it over as such. He said they basically
go through the same kind of procedure one would go through on a foreclosure,
it is offered for sale at a public auction. Mr. Campbell was concerned
with whether or not the lot was worth the amount of the tax bill.
Mayor Hindman felt that the
City should be able to recover all of the monies expended, including administrative
costs and staff time. Mr. Patterson thought the City typically assessed
the contract cost for demolition when they have arrived to this point. He
was not sure there were provisions in the ordinance as to how they would
account for it. Mayor Hindman thought it needed to be looked into and
that this kind of thing should be discouraged.
Along with the Mayor's suggestion,
Mr. Campbell said he thought they also needed to address the fact that the
City was going to get abandoned property. He said they would need some
way of systematically dealing with it.
The vote on R19-97
was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:
R20-97 Authorizing
an agreement with Horner & Shifrin to evaluate and develop a plan for
the
Police/Fire
and Armory buildings.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
would enable the City to hire an architect to begin work on a plan. A
decision is needed soon as to how the Council wants to proceed with the Armory.
Mayor Hindman said he would
like to get some public input regarding the issue. He did not see anything
mentioned about public input in the instructions to Horner & Shifrin. Mr.
Beck said they discussed having a committee or a public hearing. He
said if the Council wanted to establish a committee, it probably needed to
be done so when the architects come to Columbia they can work on both buildings
at the same time. Mayor Hindman said either would be fine, just so
it receives decent public input.
Mr. Janku asked if the landscaping
for the parking area would be done by City forces. Mr. Beck said comments
had been received from staff that were working on the landscape plan. He
said the City needed some sort of master plan for the block, or at least
for the immediate area around the building. Mr. Beck stated alternatives
are being worked on.
Mrs. Crockett asked if they
had given up on using the back parking lot for a skateboard park. Mr.
Beck said they were temporarily using it for additional parking.
The vote on R20-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE,
HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:
R21-97 Approving
the preliminary plat of Thesalia Subdivision.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
was a 120 lot subdivision on 61 acres. He said it had been recommended
for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as by the staff.
Mr. Campbell asked if the
City would be providing the water. Mr. Beck said they were presently
working on alternatives.
Mr. Janku was pleased that
the developer was going to convey and fee the greenbelt area to the City. He
said it was not clear to him what the access from the subdivision would be. He
suggested that if the City was going to get the property, it might be an
appropriate area for a neighborhood park. He said the distance was
significant from the Indian Hills Park and the McKee area park. Mr.
Beck said staff could compare it to what the Master Plan for Neighborhood
Parks calls for.
The vote on R21-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE,
HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:
R22-97 Annexing
City-owned property south of the MKT parkway and east of Scott Boulevard.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Comments were called for
with none received.
The vote on R22-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE,
HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:
R23-97 Authorizing
an amendment to the agreement with Andy Davis and James Calvin for
the
courthouse
square art project.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said this would
only change the payment plan, not the amount that had been agreed upon.
Mayor Hindman commented
that the studio in which they were working on "Jamboree" had burned down.
The vote on R23-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE,
HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:
R24-97 Authorizing
an agreement for City sponsorship of the Community Resource/Volunteer
Fair.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this
would be the City's first Community Resource/Volunteer Fair. He explained
that it would be held on April 19th. This bill would provide for the
City to be a sponsor. The City would pay $1,000 toward the event.
The vote on R24-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE,
HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:
The following bills were introduced by the Mayor, unless otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:
B36-97 Voluntary
annexation of National Benevolent Association of the Christian Church
property
(Tract
D) and establishing O-1 zoning.
B37-97 Voluntary
annexation of National Benevolent Association of the Christian Church property
(Tracts
A & B) and establishing C-1 and O-1 zoning.
B46-97 Approving
Change Order No. 1 and the engineer's report for the airport fencing and
automatic
gates project.
B47-97 Approving
Change Order No. 1 and the engineer's report for the Little Bonne Femme force
main
project.
B48-97 Accepting
sanitary sewer and drainage utility conveyances.
B49-97 Accepting
streets that were privately constructed in 1996 for public use and maintenance.
B50-97 Accepting
water utility conveyances.
B51-97 Authorizing
payment for a 6-inch water main in Morris Subdivision, and appropriating
funds.
B52-97 Rezoning
from C-3 to A-1 property on the south side of I-70 Drive Southeast, east
of
Woodridge
Drive.
B53-97 Approving
the final plat of EDI Subdivision, Plat 1.
B54-97 Amending
Chapter 25 of the City Code regarding administrative plats and minimum widths
for
non-residential lots.
B55-97 Appropriating
funds to purchase playground equipment for Cosmo Park.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Intra-Departmental
Transfer of Funds.
Report accepted.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Upon receiving the majority
of the Council, the following individuals were appointed to the following
boards and commissions:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Clark, Kerry, 401 N. Ninth, Ward 1 - term to
expire 11/1/99
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
Jones, Graham D., 2017 Martinshire, Ward 4 -
term to expire 6/1/97
FIREFIGHTER RETIREMENT BOARD
Fieklin, Nathan C., 3501 Clark Lane, Ward 3
- term to expire 12/31/98
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Campbell-Carter, Dee Anne, 114 Pinewood, Ward
2 - term to expire 3/1/99
Glaze, Marie A., 710 King, Ward 1 - term to
expire 3/1/00
Naylor, Monica R., 3805 Frontenac, Ward 4 -
term to expire 3/1/00
LIBRARY BOARD
Galenes, Alex A., 2718 Cimarron Drive, Ward
5 - term to expire 6/30/97
BOONE COUNTY MU EXTENSION COUNCIL
Baker, Andrew J., 2216 Maricopa, Ward 6 - term
to expire 3/1/99
TREE PLAN TASK FORCE
Rother, Rick, 411 E. Broadway, Ward 1 - term
to expire 5/31/97
Scherubel, Devin M., 304 Sanford Avenue, Ward
1 - term to expire 5/31/97
COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC
Regarding the Creek Pointe
Subdivision, Mrs. Crockett said that when the street is constructed going
into the subdivision, it would be a 32 foot wide street in a residential
area. She said it would be next to Mr. McMeans commercial property. Her
concern was with a 32 foot wide street coming off of commercial property. She
said Mr. Patterson told her that it was City policy if a piece of land is
under one ownership, the zoning of the majority of the land dictates the
width of the street. Mr. Patterson added that this is a Planning Department
policy that had been established in 1985. Mrs. Crockett understood
that it would not be an issue in the case of Creek Pointe, but thought staff
needed to examine this particular policy for possible revision. It
was decided that the staff would report back on the issue.
Mrs. Crockett reminded everyone
that they needed to give some thought to a skateboard park.
Regarding Rollins Street
near Brady Commons, Mr. Campbell said the area was very congested with lots
of pedestrian traffic going back and forth. Recently, drivers have
gotten into the habit of parking in this area and leaving their hazard lights
on. He asked about the City policy for establishing a zone for no parking
or waiting. Mr. Patterson said that would require an ordinance to remove
parking on a City street or to limit the time of parking. He said this
would provide the Police Department with clear enforcement powers. Mr.
Patterson asked about provisions for waiting or standing. Mr. Patterson
said there were provisions for temporary loading and unloading zones. Mr.
Campbell said there were "No Parking" signs posted that were being universally
ignored. Mr. Patterson said that would be an enforcement issue. Chief
Barbee agreed. Mr. Campbell thought perhaps the University Police could
do something about it.
Mr. Harline reminded everyone
about the Neighborhood Convention on Friday, February 21st at Dulaney Hall
beginning at 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Janku said Mr. Whitlock made a very
nice proposal this evening about a sports program for a lot of people who
do not otherwise get an opportunity to participate.
Mr. Janku made the motion
that staff be directed to follow-up on Mr. Whitlock's suggestions in two
different areas, not limited exclusively to soccer. He wanted staff
to contact Caring Communities and explore what could be worked out with them
cooperatively. Mr. Janku also wanted the staff to consider, as part
of the City's budget process, looking at this option. The motion was
seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku said he had read
an article about O'Fallon, Missouri, a rapidly growing community. He
said this City undertook, through a special process, having a new census
completed. He said the City had to pay for it, but it significantly
increased their revenues. He had also seen where Sioux City, Iowa recently
did the same thing. Mr. Janku would like staff to explore these options
and see what would have to be done. He said there would be a cost involved,
but if we could speed up the census process the City might be able to increase
revenues to deal with some growth issues.
Mr. Campbell cautioned the
Council that this was a relatively expensive process. He wanted to
make sure the benefits would be worth it. Mr. Janku said he just wanted
to find out what options would be, and what the payback could be.
Paul Albert, 2703 Parker,
talked about an iron manhole that he wanted checked out on north side of
Bear Creek at the bridge.
Henry Lane 1816 E. Broadway,
again asked that all affected utility users be given the opportunity to have
a refund of their overcharge. He said the overcharging would continue
beyond October 1st, when the computer system goes in, because the new computer
would be initially programmed to charge the full minimum monthly charge on
every utility bill, just like it is presently being done on the old system. He
realized that right now it would not be practical to prorate charges by computer,
but said it would be possible to do it manually. Mr. Lane again offered
to volunteer his services to take applications. He submitted an application
to volunteer to the Office of Volunteer Services.
Mayor Hindman replied the
City was trying to do that which is most cost effective in the long-run. He
believed the best thing to do was encourage the staff to concentrate on getting
the system up-to-date and mechanized. He thought the City would probably
need to examine the policy regarding refunds. It was his opinion that
the City was probably subsidizing the cost of terminating and opening these
accounts. He said it may be that there needs to be a surcharge at the
beginning or end of services that does not currently exist. With Columbia's
transient nature, the City incurs significant extra expense in opening and
closing accounts.
Mr. Campbell emphasized that
the Council had already made the decision and all they were discussing was
the time of implementation, not whether or not it will be done.
The meeting adjourned at
11:40 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Penny
St. Romaine
City
Clerk
© 2024 City of Columbia