The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, March 3, 1997, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, and COBLE were present. 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 17, 1997, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Ms. Coble.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING
Mr. Campbell made the motion that the Council adjourn into a closed meeting following the regular meeting to discuss litigation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harline with the vote recorded as follows; VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Motion passed.
Mayor Hindman noted that B74-97 would be added to Introduction and First Reading.
Mr. Janku stated that the Council received information regarding Amtrak service and bicycles. He asked that the issue be added under Reports and Petitions.
Upon their request, Mr. Campbell made the motion that Mr. Kruse and Mayor Hindman be allowed to abstain from voting on B24-97. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voce vote on a motion made by Mr. Harline and a second by Ms. Coble.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Dan Ruether - Proposed Mountain Bike Park.
Dan Ruether, 811 Sycamore Lane, said that he and Nick Peckham, an architect, were prepared to answer any questions regarding Rhett's Run. Mr. Ruether stated a committee was formed to develop a memorial to Rhett Walters, a friend who had been killed in a motorcycle accident. He explained that this group wanted to create a mountain bike park or trails within Cosmo Park's north end. The park is currently being utilized for trails to an extent, but they wanted to enhance that ability. The area is referred to as the Bear Creek Nature Area and has been used for the Show-Me State Games mountain bike racing in the past. This group has been working with City staff and appeared before the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Commission had given them the initial go ahead to proceed with the planning and also suggested that they obtain Council approval.
Mr. Campbell said he would be interested in seeing an environmental impact statement that would address wildlife and erosion control for the area. Mr. Ruether said this group intended to keep working with City staff in order to address all of the issues.
Mr. Janku asked about the size of the area. Mr. Ruether explained that it is approximately 134 acres and is located behind Antimi Field.
Mayor Hindman noted that there was a report regarding this issue to be discussed at the end of the meeting.
2. Aasim Inshirah
- Planned Community Awareness for Public Pride Program.
Aasim Inshirah, 407 Hickman, submitted to the Council written comments, an incident report filed by his son, a response to the report, and a newspaper article. Mr. Inshirah reported his home was in a neighborhood included in the recently expanded boundaries of the Community Awareness for Public Pride Program (CAPP). He relayed an incident that was observed by his son and said he was concerned about what appeared to be the lack of good judgment on the part of a Columbia Police Officer. He thought it also showed the officer's lack of sensitivity toward African Americans.
Mayor Hindman said the Council would look over the materials submitted and consider Mr. Inshirah's comments.
B24-97 Amending Chapter 23 regarding Billboards.
The bill was read by the Clerk.
Mayor pro-tem Janku noted that the public hearing had been continued from the February 3, 1997, meeting.
Mr. Beck reported that an additional memo had been prepared. The amendment to the ordinance would restrict the size and number of billboards that could be placed in the City.
William Mays, 3001 Shoreside Drive, explained that he is the developer and president of the company that owns the property located at 105 Keene Street, which fronts Highway 63 on the west side and Keene Street on the east side. This building houses the Missouri Cancer Associates. There are two proposed billboard sites on the property directly to the south of this building, between the Interchange of Broadway and Highway 63, and another immediately to the north at the base of the dam. Mr. Mays understood that there had been a lot of litigation concerning this issue. He thought there might be one aspect of the State statutes that had been overlooked. He reported that the State statute specifically declares the Highway Department may issue permits in areas that are zoned commercial, industrial, or the like. He said this property was zoned office, not like industrial and not like commercial. He said zoning in this area would not allow a convenience store, a multi-plex theater, or a grocery store. Mr. Mays passed around an artist's rendering of the next building to be constructed on this particular stretch of ground. The land directly to the south of this property is owned by a group of heart doctors and they plan to build a medical office/treatment center.
Mr. Mays said the permit issued by the State had either been supplied as a result of a misunderstanding of the zoning, or perhaps was misrepresented. He said someone could have indicated the property was commercial on the application. Mr. Mays thought the City had the right to impose and expect that its standards be followed with regard to the appropriate use of land. He felt it was inappropriate to have giant billboards on this property, as it would be to have them on residential property. As a legal issue, Mr. Mays felt he would have just cause to challenge the City's issuance of a permit because it does not comply with the State Statute.
Mr. Janku said that Mr. Mays obviously felt this would have a detrimental impact on his property. Mr. Mays said there is an old billboard at this location that will be removed. He reported it was nowhere near the size of the two in question. He said the billboards would not only be a detriment, but a horrible eyesore that could greatly detract from the development of the property along this stretch of road.
Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Mays if he had examined the applications. Mr. Mays said he had just read about this situation in the paper and did not know the status of the matter.
Mr. Harline said the present building at this location was an asset and he would be unhappy if the billboards had to be allowed. He asked Mr. Mays if he purchased the property with the permits in place. Mr. Mays said there were easements, but he did not own the land where one of the signs was scheduled to be constructed on the northwest corner of the property. There is a surface easement in the corner by the dam and it was in place when he bought the land. Mr. Mays said the other sign would be to the south. Mr. Harline asked if it would also be on such an easement. Mr. Mays said that was apparently correct. He said the sign company does not own the land, they are just leasing it. Additionally, they have no access to it over his property.
Mrs. Crockett said that Mr. Kruse checked with the State and their wording, the like, also includes office zoning. Mr. Mays said that would be similar to saying convenience stores would be allowed in residentially zoned areas because it is almost like residential. He asked how office zoning, a separate category which does not permit commercial uses, could be interpreted to be commercial or industrial. He said most zoning ordinances are restrictive and then open up as they go down. Mr. Campbell thought the City needed additional information concerning its zoning in relationship to the State's law, and how it is likely to be interpreted.
Jane Addison, 2407 Shepard, a member of the Greenbelt Coalition and the Shepard Boulevard Neighborhood Association, said this would be a terrible step backward for everyone in Columbia and Missouri. She said every billboard that goes up affects the view and detracts from some of the horizon.
Mr. Campbell asked if the City had copies of the billboard applications. Mr. Boeckmann said the City probably did and that they had been issued over two years ago. He said as part of the litigation, which is being handled by outside Counsel, he thought there were copies of the applications filed with the state. Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Boeckmann how he felt about the question of office zoning being defined as the like. Mr. Boeckmann said his initial reaction was that cities have been losing better arguments than this in the area of billboards. He thought the State had determined that office zoning is commercial or the like. Mr. Boeckmann said the courts usually give deference to the interpretation of the statute given by the agency in charge of enforcing it.
By passing this ordinance, Mr. Janku understood that the Council would be setting the standards for what could be done under Columbia's ordinance. He said it would not have anything to do with the State's law being valid or not. Mr. Janku stated whatever decision the Council makes tonight, it would not be validating the state's law. He would like to see staff make the argument to the state that they are misinterpreting the statute. He thought possibly the City's legal counsel should review the statute again. He suggested that Mr. Mays argue the interpretation with the state also.
Mayor pro-tem Janku closed the public hearing.
Mr. Harline said it was obvious in Columbia that office zoning and commercial zoning were different. He thought pursuing a legal statement from the Highway Department, before acting on the issue, would be risky. Mr. Harline asked if there was staff recommendation for approval of this ordinance as opposed to the suggested Council action for approving the permits. Mr. Boeckmann said there was not. He said if the Lake St. Louis case holds up, it really did not matter if the Council passed the ordinance or not. He said the Legislature may get somewhat involved in this area. There were indications the State was reviewing the roads that were added to the National Highway System, restoring the City's ability to control signs.
Mr. Janku said his point was that the Council could pass the ordinance tonight and then raise, if necessary, the issue of the zoning question. Regardless of what the Council does, there would still be a question of validity of the state statute and how it is being applied by the Highway Department.
Mr. Campbell did not think the Council had much choice in this matter. He thought the Council had to go ahead and act in the best interest of the City in view of the severe restriction placed on them by the state statutes.
B24-97 was read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE. VOTING NO: COBLE. ABSTAINING: KRUSE, HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
Regarding the separate issue of whether or not to authorize the issuance of the sign permits, Mr. Janku said that addressed the question as to whether or not it was permissible under state law. He said the Council would be making an assumption in issuing them.
Mr. Harline said there was certainly a question as to whether or not the applicants listed commercial as the zoning on the applications. He said the applicant may have accidentally mislead the State Department of Transportation as to the zoning.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that the Council authorize the issuance of sign permits to Robinson Displays, Inc. and Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved by voice vote.
annexation of National Benevolent Association of the Christian Church
(Tract D) and establishing O-1 zoning.
annexation of National Benevolent Association of the Christian Church
(Tracts A and B) and establishing C-1 and O-1 zoning.
Both bills were given second reading by the Clerk.
The Mayor reported that the bills would be discussed together, but voted on separately.
Mr. Beck explained that there was an amendment sheet for each bill that would change the month of extension from February to March. He explained that Tract D was an 18.5 acre tract of land that the applicant has requested O-1 zoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval on a 7-0 vote. Mr. Beck explained that C-1 zoning was requested for Tract A. This tract is approximately 9.5 acres. Tract B is approximately 60 acres with a request for O-1 zoning. On tracts A and B, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval on a split vote of 4-3.
Ms. Coble made the motion that B36-97 and B37-97 both be amended per the amendment sheets. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing on both bills as amended.
Bruce Beckett, an attorney with offices at 901 E. Broadway, spoke on behalf of the applicant. The purpose for splitting the tracts was twofold. There had been a change in the philosophy of caring for the clients served by Woodhaven, which has operated as a residential care facility on this property for the past 30 years. The philosophy was to move the people Woodhaven cares for out into the community rather than to centralize their care at a campus facility such as Woodhaven. In connection with that change in philosophy, Mr. Beckett said there had been agreements reached in conjunction with a law suit that was instituted by family members of some of the residents. He explained that the agreement involves Woodhaven constructing a new facility on Tract D, the O-1 zoning request. The new facility would serve about 10 clients and would be a residential care facility. The only zoning district that allows this type of facility is O-1.
The purpose for the request for Tracts A and B is to annex the land, rezone it, and liquidate the property. He noted that Woodhaven also owns the A-1 tract to the north of Tracts A and D, which is already within the corporate City limits. He said the purpose was to maximize the return from the investment on this property so it could be used to continue Woodhaven's activities in caring for people with physical and developmental disabilities. Mr. Beckett felt the rezoning request for Tracts A and B was in line with what historically has been done on this property. Specifically, the main campus has been located for many years on Tract B. Mr. Beckett reiterated that the only open zoning district that allows residential care facilities was O-1, thus the request for O-1 zoning districts. He said the applicant was hopeful that the person or entity that might acquire Tract B would make use of the rather valuable improvements that are now located on the tract. Mr. Beckett did not believe, even if it is assumed all of the existing buildings would be torn down and apartments would be put up, that would necessarily be an inappropriate use for the tract. Mr. Beckett said that was not anticipated to happen. The applicant wanted to sell the property as a whole and hoped that a purchaser could make use of the improvements that are already in place.
Mr. Beckett reported that the main entrance to this property was off of Nifong Boulevard, not off Bearfield. He anticipated that Bearfield would become a more important street in the future, but added that there were two ways out of the property.
With respect to Tract A, the C-1 zoning request, Mr. Beckett said there had been a golf driving range in this area, which is a commercial use. This type of business would normally fall within a C-3 zoning district. He said the driving range was not operating right now and felt there was plenty of C-3 in the area up toward the intersection of Old Highway 63 and new Highway 63. Mr. Beckett stated there was not a need for the general commercial district where the tract in question is located since the need is already taken care of in the area. Also located on Tract A, in the southwest corner, is a waterworks facility, a well house and pumping facilities which have been used to service the improvements owned by Woodhaven in this area. He said an agreement had been reached with the Consolidated Water Supply District as to their acquisition of that piece of ground. He noted that public utility service facilities was an allowed use in a C-1 zoning district.
Mr. Beckett reported there is a small island of land at the southeast corner of Tract A which is owned by Central Missouri Sheltered Enterprises. Mr. Beckett said this organization has worked closely over the years with Woodhaven in carrying out their particular mission. Woodhaven has entered into a contract to sell one and one-quarter acre to Central Missouri Sheltered Enterprises for their use to further corporate objectives in helping disabled people. Mr. Beckett explained that the building is about 2100 square feet and Central Missouri Sheltered Enterprises intends to operate a commercial envelope stuffing activity. He said commercial zoning is needed for this one and one-quarter acre.
Mr. Beckett displayed a color-coded copy of a portion of Columbia's zoning district map. Mr. Beckett reported that this request for zoning is similar to a pattern of zoning that surrounds the new and old Highway 63 area of southeast Columbia. Also affecting the rezoning request was the fact that Grindstone is now the preferred route for the AC realignment.
Among the considerations that are being looked at in connection with the Grindstone improvement to Route AC, there are three recommendations in the area that Mr. Beckett felt would affect this property. There had been discussion about cul-de-sacking Nifong between Ponderosa and the intersection of new and old Highway 63. Mr. Beckett said this would eliminate traffic that goes up to the highway. There were discussions about the possibility of rerouting old Highway 63 to line up with Bearfield Road to make a better north/south thoroughfare in the area. Also discussed, with favor, was extending Ponderosa to become part of Bluff Creek Drive. Mr. Beckett reported a traffic engineer had been employed to study these options and the impact would take a substantial amount of traffic off of Nifong in front of Woodhaven, it would divert more traffic north and south on Bearfield and Ponderosa with a greater amount of traffic along Grindstone. Mr. Beckett said the traffic engineer had advised that traffic along Nifong would diminish substantially and ultimately increase substantially along Bearfield.
As part of the law suit settlement, Mr. Beckett said Woodhaven would have to impose a restriction on all of the property sold to ensure that there would not be pornography operations of any kind, or bars, saloons, and liquor stores. Restaurants would be permitted whose gross sales are more than 50% of alcohol sales. Mr. Beckett also pointed out that if this property is annexed into the City, potential owners would be subject to the stormwater management ordinance, tree preservation ordinance, and land disturbance requirements.
Although there is not a rezoning proposal for the A-1 tract to the north, Mr. Janku asked if the Council could assume at some point that most of it would be rezoned for commercial development. Mr. Beckett did not know if that would be a safe assumption. There was a heavily wooded area on the east end of the A-1 tract and this area would be subject to tree preservation requirements. Mr. Beckett thought it would depend upon what develops in the area as far as traffic is concerned. If traffic is reduced, the demographics of the situation may dictate that it will not all be commercial property. Mr. Beckett could foresee that the corner would be commercial, but was not sure about the whole 16 acres. Mr. Janku asked about the southwest corner of Tract B. Mr. Beckett said he believed there were some maintenance sheds in that area. This property is adjacent to the large mobile home park that wraps around Blue Acres Grocery.
Mr. Harline asked whether there was a contingency plan if the rezoning request was not granted for Tracts A and B. Mr. Beckett said the applicant did not feel the property could be annexed without zoning.
Betty McMillen, Executive Director of Woodhaven, 2317 Shepard Boulevard, explained that she had been the Director for the last six years. Ms. McMillen explained that the National Benevolent Association was their parent organization with headquarters in St. Louis. This organization actually own the property, but any funds realized from the sale of this property would accrue to Woodhaven. It is intended to use those funds to form an endowment that would guarantee income to serve the future needs of the residents. Currently, Woodhaven is serving about 110 in residence and another 25 in a supported employment program. Ms. McMillen said it was very important to realize as much as possible from the sale of the property, and hoped that any restrictions that might be placed, in terms of zoning, would not reduce the amount of return.
Mr. Harline asked if Woodhaven discussed their plans with the neighborhood association or any of the home owners in the area. Ms. McMillen said there had been one meeting recently requested by some of the neighbors. Mr. Harline inquired about the outcome. Ms. McMillen said no particular conclusion had been reached after listening to concerns from both sides.
Mr. Janku asked how many residences would be on Tract D and how long-term that might be. Ms. McMillen explained that the settlement agreement stipulates that so long as any one of the plaintiff's in the suit live, Woodhaven is obligated to care for them at that location. There would be an exception if the plaintiff's choose to move somewhere else, or if they become disabled in such a way that Woodhaven can no longer care for them. Ms. McMillen said it was anticipated this would be a great many years as some of the people were in their 30's. This involves about eight to ten people and Woodhaven plans to build a one story building with apartments for each of the individuals. She reported that was currently in the planning stages. Mr. Janku asked if that would take up the entire tract. Ms. McMillen said it would not, but Woodhaven is obligated to maintain the tract for that purpose.
Jim Craigmile, 810 Forest Hill Court, noted that he had been serving as President of the Board of Directors for Central Missouri Sheltered Enterprises for the past two years. He said this organization is the nearest neighbors to the property under consideration for rezoning. Central Missouri Sheltered Enterprises serves 90 developmentally handicapped adults, providing them with employment in light industrial situations appropriate to developmental levels. These employees are residents of Columbia and Boone County. Mr. Craigmile said they found the facility to be very adequate and added that they have approximately 13,000 square feet in the building located at the southeast corner of Tract A. He spoke in support of the C-1 zoning for Tract A and believed it would represent no negative affect of any kind on the operation and service that is provided for clients in this location. He said this organization intended to stay and, assuming the annexation goes through, would probably file for annexation as well. He said they were currently zoned in the County as light manufacturing and, upon annexation, they would apply for light industrial with the City.
David Rogers, an attorney with offices at 813 E. Walnut, spoke on behalf of a group of residents that live down Bearfield Road to the south, which is not one of the organized neighborhood associations. This is not the group that met with the Woodhaven folks.
Mr. Rogers said the request for rezoning had been put together cleverly. Tract D, which was almost certain to be approved, does not do very much for the City. An 18 acre piece of ground would be annexed that does not pay any taxes while still provided with City benefits. However, to further the City's objective of being able to annex ground to the south by voluntary annexation, the City would be forced to buy off the applicant by granting both a commercial zoning and an O-1 zoning. He did not think either to be very appropriate for the area. Mr. Rogers said O-2 zoning would permit office uses, but does not include the lesser uses of apartments. From the point of view of his clients, Mr. Rogers stated the apartment usage would be much more detrimental to the area as it would cause greater amounts of traffic and noise. The summer theater would also be impacted by heavy apartment usage in the area because it borders the Nifong Park area. Mr. Rogers suggested that the appropriate zoning for Tract A would be O-1 because it is next to an area that is O-1. If there was going to be any commercial development, it should be on Nifong where it would have to stand on its own merits and would not be zoned through an annexation scheme. Tract B should be R-1 residential zoning because it would be appropriate for the neighborhood, and certainly appropriate for the infrastructure that is in place. Mr. Rogers said it might not allow as great a return, however, zoning should not be extorted by the desire to have land annexed into the City.
Fred VanSol, 4679 S. Bearfield, noted that all of the people living along Bearfield contributed to Mr. Rogers making his presentation this evening. He said residents were concerned about a spot zone in the middle of their community. The road situation was in a state of flux and it was not known what the traffic patterns were going to be in the area. As hundreds of acres will be developed south of the property in the future, C-1 zoning at this location could serve as a precedent for the type of zoning that would be requested at a later date. He said home owners are living in the area because of its residential nature, and they did not want to see it become a commercial area.
Jan Pritchard, 3505 Rock Quarry, said she had not talked with the people from the Rock Quarry/Grindstone Neighborhood Association, with the exception of a few. Ms. Pritchard was speaking on her own behalf tonight as a resident of the area. One issue Mr. Beckett would have everyone believe was that Sheltered Enterprises would not be able to function if this area was not granted C-1 zoning. She said this is not correct because if the organization continues their operation, they would probably be grandfathered in. Ms. Pritchard said the property was not near an intersection. She noted the point made by Mr. Beckett about any future buyers having to conform to certain uses. It had always been her understanding that once someone sells their land, they could not control what the buyer does with it. Mrs. Pritchard believed that any development in this area should be planned. She felt commercial was too intensive of a use for the proposed location. Ms. Pritchard stated there was already enough commercial property within a mile of the property and more was not necessary.
Jeff Barrow, 1007 Coats, President of the Greenbelt Coalition, explained that their mission was to protect the streams and riparian areas in Mid-Missouri. This group was particularly concerned about Clear Creek, which runs through this property. He said they wanted to make sure the creek and forest were protected at the highest standards possible. Mr. Barrow suggested planned zoning so the City could have some input.
Alyce Turner, 2194 E. Bearfield, said the residents in her neighborhood were probably the largest pocket of people along Bearfield Road. Home owners had recently gone through the Neighborhood Improvement Act process and received support from the County to pave area roads. This had made a lot of difference to the neighborhood and people were investing in their homes. Ms. Turner said the neighbors she spoke to felt strongly about maintaining the residential integrity of the neighborhood and did not support commercial zoning. Ms. Turner said Bearfield Road was not in good shape and a commercial development on it would not be desirable. She asked the Council to consider the interests of her neighborhood.
In rebuttal, Attorney Beckett said the applicant considered O-2 zoning at Mr. Rogers request. If tract B was zoned O-2, a purchaser could not use the existing buildings for a residential care facility of any kind. It would not be possible to establish a medical lab, dental lab, clinic, or counseling center. There are a number of uses these improvements might be suited to which are allowed in an O-1 zoning district that are not allowed in an O-2 zoning district. Mr. Beckett had gone through every page of the zoning district map and, in the City of Columbia, found that there was less than two acres of land approved for O-2 zoning. He said it was not an appropriate zoning district for this property. Regarding planned district zoning, he said there was not one area shown on the map he displayed earlier with this type of zoning. If the tract was placed in a planned district, it would not be possible to compete in the sale of the property with all of the other open districts in the same area.
Regarding Tract A, Mr. Campbell understood that it would be put on the market as commercial. He asked if part of the A-1 property would also be sold as commercial. Mr. Beckett said the entire property was presently on the market as A-1. Mr. Campbell asked if a commercial rezoning request would be submitted. Mr. Beckett said there were no plans to do that presently. Mr. Campbell stated then all of the commercial property would be south of the A-1 zoning. Mr. Beckett believed the appropriate time to get zoning was at the time of annexation. Regarding the 16 acres of A-1 already on the market, he said they were anticipating that a purchaser would ultimately come to the Council and ask for the zoning they desire on the tract. He said the applicant was not planning to come back to the Council with a commercial zoning request following annexation of the other land. Mr. Campbell stated he understood then that this property would be sold as agricultural land. Mr. Beckett said they were offering it for sale anticipating that a purchaser would sign a contract with them contingent upon getting the zoning desired from the City. As a council person, Mr. Campbell said he would like to see the plan for the area, not for just segments of the area. He said it was very important to see how the various pieces fit together.
Mr. Harline pointed out that down Nifong, to the west, there was a planned commercial district about a mile away. Mr. Beckett agreed there was a spattering of planned commercial in the area. Mr. Harline asked Mr. Beckett if it was his feeling that this land could not be sold as residential. Mr. Beckett said he did not think residential was appropriate for any part of the property. Mr. Harline asked if that included R-3. Mr. Beckett said he thought R-3 would be fine, but did not think the property was suitable for single family residential as it was between two mobile home parks. Mr. Harline asked if he was saying that high intensity residential was a better neighbor for a residential care facility than R-1. Mr. Beckett said he did not have an opinion on that. Mr. Harline asked if the applicant needed O-1 zoning for a residential care facility on Tract B. Mr. Beckett said it was not required and every building on Tract B was designed for a residential care facility.
Mr. Kruse asked why the tract that was presently in the City was not being considered for rezoning. Mr. Beckett said the applicant was not confronted with a situation where they felt they had to.
Mr. Campbell said the A-1 land is on the plan for planned office. He asked if the applicant would be willing to consider planned office or office zoning on the present Tract A. Mr. Beckett said he was not in a position to make that decision as he did not have that authority.
Mr. Harline said it was obvious that all of the differences had not been worked out with the neighboring groups. He asked if tabling was an acceptable option. Mr. Beckett said they met with the people who requested a meeting and thought it had gone well. The next thing they heard was that Mr. Rogers was going to be appearing on behalf of the residents in opposition. Mr. Beckett said this was not a good sign and he did not think tabling would help.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Regarding Tract D, Mr. Harline said granting the applicant the O-1 zoning was fair because of the law suit. In reviewing Tracts A and B, Mr. Harline said he could see the logic in requesting the O-1 zoning. There was no guarantee that there would not be R-3 and he was not sure it would be appropriate zoning for the residential care facility. Mr. Harline said he could not accept the argument that the applicant could not sell planned commercial or planned office land in the area. He said there was planned commercial just down the street. Mr. Harline stated it did not make any sense to annex for the reason of getting better control over planning if, in the act of annexing, the City gives away any planning ability by granting zoning which may not be appropriate. There is a good chance that there may be some commercial zoning on the Phillips property and that would open up a new corridor which would be a high traffic route. It seemed to him that this part of the puzzle was making less and less sense for high intensity use. He said the Council also needed to keep in mind the lack of infrastructure in the area. Mr. Harline thought the various arguments made by the opponents necessitated declining the O-1 and C-1 zoning on Tracts A and B.
Mr. Campbell said his concern was with the lack of an overall plan in the area. He said if the Council approved this zoning request, a strong commitment would be made for some of the area to the north. Since it could not be determined that this would be the most optimum use, Mr. Campbell could not support the request.
Mr. Kruse said the City wants this property to be annexed for many reasons, but many good points had been made and he was not comfortable with the zoning. He hoped this was not a lost opportunity and that the applicants would rethink it and come back with a different proposal.
Mrs. Crockett said if this area gets developed it needs to be annexed in the City, and this may be the only way for it to ever get there. Regarding the infrastructure of the roads, she said the Council has seen many times that improvements do not come until the traffic dictates them. She agreed that to market the property under a C-P plan it would be hard to sell when it is not known what would be built.
Mr. Janku said he thought the intersection was appropriate for some commercial development. There was a lot of residential development in the area and there would need to be some convenient commercial development. Mr. Janku could not see the zoning on Tract B and, if he wanted to scare people, Mr. Hancock could be questioned on the possible density of an R-2 or R-3 development with a tract this size. The property labeled A-1, at the intersection of Bearfield and Nifong, would have all of the demands transferred to it for off-site improvements. Mr. Janku thought that would make it almost unmarketable because the City would expect the prospective buyer to handle the cost of the intersection improvements which would be necessary because of the other property.
Mayor Hindman agreed that the property should be annexed into the City, but because of the reasons expressed, he did not think the Council should approve this particular application. Mr. Campbell agreed.
Ms. Coble said her opposition was out of concern for those that still cling to the hope that the Phillips property could be preserved in its present state. She was hopeful the Council could welcome the tracts into the City at a later date with different zoning. She said if that was not possible, it would truly be a great loss for the City.
B36-97, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B37-97, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: NO ONE. VOTING NO: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. Bill defeated.
Mr. Beckett requested that the annexation for Tracts A and B be withdrawn. He said they would regroup and see what they could come back with. He thanked the Council for their consideration.
payment for a 6-inch water main in Morris Subdivision, and appropriating
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this was in accordance with City policy and staff was recommending approval.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B51-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
from C-3 to A-1 property on the south side of I-70 Drive Southeast,
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck commented that the zoning was recommended on a 6-0 vote by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said no one had spoken in opposition.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
David Rogers, an attorney with offices at 813 E. Walnut Street, explained this plat was approved by the Council on the preliminary Richland Heights Plan. He said it would provide the road to the new section of the trailer park. He said the strip of land was unbuildable and was left zoned C-3. Mr. Rogers thought it was in the public interest to have all of the land zoned the same to avoid the possibility of it being used for other purposes that would not be desirable.
Mr. Janku asked if he remembered correctly that when the street was constructed, a sidewalk would go in also. Mr. Rogers said this was correct.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B52-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
Chapter 25 of the City Code regarding administrative plats and minimum
for non-residential lots.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this had been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on a 5-1 vote. He said the intent was to provide more control over tier lots in a non-residential setting. The City has approved lots where there was a long stem, which created a narrow public frontage to accommodate; for example, a billboard on Route PP.
Mr. Janku understood that the sign ordinance had not been amended to impose a restriction on width requirements for billboards. He thought it would be cleaner to address the problem in this manner. Mr. Janku did not know that the Council would have any discretion to deny a replat if it were to be requested. Mr. Kruse said the problem that came up on PP was for a sign, not a billboard.
Mr. Beck thought there were other issues that had also been discussed. Mr. Hancock said when the minutes had been reviewed, it seemed the Council was definitely interested in doing something about lots with odd configurations, but were also concerned about the signs. He said when this assignment had been received, the Chamber organized a group that was working on sign ordinance changes. Mr. Hancock stated staff was not inclined to take the issue on as long as the Chamber was involved. He said if the Council wanted him to do something different, he would be happy to. Mr. Hancock explained the lot issue was one that was worth trying to fix because the configuration was not desirable, regardless of whether or not there was a sign on it. Mr. Janku said if the Chamber was still coming forward with recommendations, it was appropriate to wait.
Mr. Harline said if these lots could no longer be approved as an administrative plat and had to be replatted, could the Council deny the plat because of an odd shape. Mr. Boeckmann said it was a question of what the standards are in the ordinance. He saw it as a problem if the code were to have a provision saying one could not have any odd shapes. He said that was definite enough to figure out what that means. He said it was difficult trying to draft a solution to the problem. Mr. Boeckmann stated the proposed language was definite enough and staff would not have a problem dealing with it.
Mr. Kruse asked whether the thought was that if a lot had to be more than 30 feet in width, it would not be economically feasible to have a protrusion, stem, or extension. Mr. Hancock said staff was still trying to allow flexibility in the commercial lots and were attempting to determine the width that would be required for a driveway. He said staff went with the protrusion, extension, and stem language so, for example, a pie shaped lot would be permitted.
Mr. Janku said the City was trying to encourage access to property by pedestrian ways. He asked if this would be imposing a burden that would make it almost impossible for a pedestrian path to be put in as part of a plat. He said the sign was a problem, but thought it should be dealt with separately.
Mr. Campbell said he had pushed for the amendment because he has concerns about oddly configured lots; however, he felt a 30 foot strip would allow for a driveway and possibly the need for a sign if it is a drive-thru or something of that sort. He thought by requiring a 30 foot minimum on a protrusion, stem, or extension, there was some logic to the amendment. Mr. Campbell thought the Council should pass this bill and address the sign question at a later time.
By requiring the 30 foot minimum, Mr. Janku said his concern was that it would serve as a detriment in providing pedestrian access to commercial property. Mr. Hancock said typically what happens in commercial areas is people have cross easements along commercial lots to provide access in a private manner. He said if it was a requirement to have a sidewalk or pedestrian access easement on a lot, he supposed it could be a deterrent, but it depended upon whether or not the City wanted rational looking lot arrangements.
Mr. Campbell said staff should consider looking at the whole package and attempt to get people to work together rather than having little strips running here and there.
Mr. Kruse pointed out that the City was in the process of working on a pedestrian circulation plan, in addition to the sidewalk plan. These concerns could be addressed when revising the sign ordinance. He hoped those plans would be forwarded to the Council within a month or two.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B54-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
an amendment to the Consolidated Plan.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
In order for the City to obtain funding for HOME funds and HUD/CDBG money, Mr. Beck explained that a public hearing was required to discuss the Consolidated Plan and an amendment needed to be made. He said the City was proposing to get an additional $420,000 in HOME money and an additional $311,000 in CDBG money. He said that would make the total CDBG funds over $1 million.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
The vote on R32-97 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
City-owned property south of the MKT Parkway and east of Scott Boulevard.
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this was a 101.5 acre tract of land the City purchased several years ago from the L. D. Baurichter family. He said annexation of this property would extend the City limits to Scott Boulevard and clarify the area of responsibility for the Trail. He said the City's responsibility would end at Scott Boulevard.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B55-97 Appropriating funds to purchase playground equipment for Cosmo Park.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the Columbia Cosmopolitan Luncheon Club had been a great supporter of Cosmo Park. He said they have provided an additional $9,734 for playground equipment at the recreation area being constructed.
Mayor Hindman thanked the group for their generous contribution.
B55-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.
Change Order No. 1 and the engineer's report for the airport fencing
automatic gates project.
B47-97 Approving Change Order No. 1 and the engineer's report for the Little Bonne Femme force
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.
B53-97 Approving the final plat of EDI Subdivision, Plat 1.
R25-97 Setting a public hearing on construction of sanitary sewers in Sewer District No. 136 (Olive
R26-97 Setting a public hearing on repair and restoration of University Avenue from William Street
to College Avenue.
R27-97 Authorizing an agreement with the Department of Health for issuance of birth and death
R28-97 Authorizing application for a Missouri Arts Council grant.
R29-97 Amending the Sikeston Power Sales Contract appointing a new alternate designated
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
R30-97 Authorizing an agreement with Time Savers, Inc., for baggage delivery at the airport.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said this agreement would authorize this particular firm to enter airport property to handle luggage at the request of the City's air carrier. He said the City would receive 1% of the gross revenues, which is anticipated to be less than $1,000 per year.
The vote on R30-97 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
funding agreements with HUD for FY '97 HOME and CDBG funds.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this agreement would authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary papers to obtain funding from HUD for CDBG money.
The vote on R31-97 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
The following bills were introduced by the Mayor, unless otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:
Change Order No. 1 to the contract for the Downtown Fire Station Project.
B57-97 Calling for bids for storm drainage and sanitary sewer construction on William Street and
B58-97 Authorizing a contract with the Federal Transit Administration for FY '95-96 transit
B59-97 Authorizing City staff to repair and restore University Avenue from William Street to College
Avenue. Introduced by Harline.
B60-97 Accepting water utility conveyances.
B61-97 Authorizing a utility maintenance agreement with the Department of Transportation for the
Route B water main relocation.
B62-97 Authorizing an amendment to the territorial agreement with the Boone County Fire
B63-97 Granting a variance allowing First Christian Church to build a canopy in a public alley
right-of-way, and authorizing a right-of-use permit.
B64-97 Appropriating funds for the Cosmo Park Playground and Shelter Project.
B65-97 Approving the final plat of Country Club Fairways, Plat 1-B, a replat of Lot 1, Country Club
Fairways, Plat 1.
B66-97 Approving the final plat of Dwight Bingham Subdivision, a replat of Lot 56 of Mikel
B67-97 Approving the final plat of the Meadowlands, Plat 13.
B68-97 Approving the final plat of the Meadowlands, Plat 14.
B69-97 Amending Chapter 29 of the City Code to establish regulations pertaining to scenic
roadways. Introduced by Harline.
B70-97 Vacating a sanitary sewer easement in the Meadowlands.
B71-97 Amending the Major Thoroughfare Plan by adding the Ballenger Lane extension.
B72-97 Annexing City-owned property south of the MKT Parkway and east of Scott Boulevard.
B73-97 Rezoning from O-1 to C-2 property on the southwest corner of Elm Street and Watson
B74-97 Rezoning from R-1 PUD and C-1 to C-P (Tract A) and R-1 PUD and C-1 to O-P (Tract B) on
property located at the southwest corner of Forum Blvd. and Chapel Hill Road and
approving an O-P/C-P development plan to be known as Forum Chapel Plaza. Introduced
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Status of the Land Use Plan Update.
According to a policy resolution, Mr. Beck reported that this year the Land Use Plan had to be updated. There was a report as to the status of the Planning and Zoning Commission after four work sessions on the subject. Mr. Hancock added that the Commission would begin holding public hearings in the Council Chamber highlighting some proposed changes to the Plan. Citizens are invited to provide input either in writing or in person. Mr. Hancock stated the Commission would take those comments into consideration and report back to the Council during the summer.
Mr. Janku noted that the Commission would be considering issues related to duplexes. He had concerns regarding the potential problems resulting from absentee ownership. He said it was not similar to rental property in R-1 zoning districts where there are usually neighboring home owners that lend some degree of stability. He said there could be a number of individual properties owned by people in a variety of areas and, if one or two properties start deteriorating, he thought some of the developments could become run-down and would be difficult to deal with. He suggested looking at developments of a certain size being required to stay under common ownership. He said that might facilitate some type of parking development, similar to the one at Ash and West Boulevard, where there is considerable off-street parking between the properties. Mr. Janku said these developments would, in effect, become more like an apartment complex where there is common ownership and investments are much more significant on the part of an individual, thus the owner is more committed to maintaining the property. Mr. Janku asked that his concerns be included in the study by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Campbell requested the study also include ownership or management of such property. Mr. Janku agreed to some degree of commonality. He would like to see any options for tying together ownership and management.
Mr. Harline thought it was an interesting concept, but wondered if another option might be to revise R-2 zoning to meet the more stringent requirements that R-3 zoning, etc., have to comply with after having a certain number of units. Mr. Janku agreed with the idea that as the duplex development becomes larger, it tends to become more like an apartment development. If the zoning was strengthened, it would resolve the issue of off-street parking requirements. He said Mr. Harline was suggesting that the Commission look at how there might be some degree of open space. Mr. Janku agreed with this suggestion because the City does not have much functional open space when the developments are so dense.
When going through this next Land Use update, Mr. Harline asked if the Council wanted the Commission to look at some of the more innovative or radical types of zoning, such as the information that had been sent by the Planning Department on performance zoning. He asked if the Commission should examine an area based zoning concept, rather than a parcel by parcel zoning concept. During the hearing process, Mr. Harline would like the general theory of zoning explored. Mr. Kruse agreed and said neighborhood oriented zoning needed to be discussed. Mr. Harline suggested that there be specific discussion about the issue, as opposed to running down a list of 16 or 17 limited items.
Mr. Janku said these towers would probably become more prevalent in the community, and was not trying to discourage them because improved communications would be a benefit to the community. He reported around the country there had been a lot of controversy regarding these towers, and he hoped that by addressing issues in advance the City might be able to eliminate potential problems. Mr. Janku stated staff mentioned that the zoning ordinance does not specifically address telecommunications towers, but other language is used. He suggested making the ordinance more explicit in order to dispose of some concerns about issues in the future. Mr. Janku said he would like to move to some of the suggestions that were made about the sharing of towers. He said many communities were requiring, if possible, that towers are shared so numbers are minimized. He said there were some issues about landscaping that could be addressed also. He was concerned about the fact that M-1 zoning has no height limit and thought there should be a procedure in place that would automatically regulate a tower's height, possibly 100 feet in M-C zoning. Any height above that would require some type of permission. Related to the issue, Mr. Janku said as a community the City may well need to address to what extent public facilities could be used for private use. He thought that would be a potential to generate some revenue for the City if facilities were rented for this type of antenna. Mr. Janku stated it would also minimize the development of other antenna sites throughout the community.
Mr. Kruse agreed that the City needed to have some type of regulation and added that he attended the workshop that was referenced in the memo. He said there were all kinds of options available and a couple of suggestions were made. He said Chesterfield and Wildwood were certainly doing some pretty progressive things.
Mayor Hindman felt it was the Council's consensus that there was interest in some form of regulation. He asked if the Council would be asking the staff to draw up a tower control ordinance. Mr. Janku said the staff report outlined a lot of the issues. Mr. Kruse said the staff was suggesting two options; amend the zoning ordinance or create a new ordinance, either way using the Chesterfield or Wildwood ordinances as a model. It was agreed that these ordinances will be sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission with a request for their recommendation.
Mr. Janku said he had enumerated some of the issues he would like to see addressed in the ordinance, although he was not certain if the use of public facilities should be in the ordinance, or something the Council needed to address by resolution.
Mr. Janku made the motion that the issue be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for development of an ordinance reflecting some of the issues just mentioned. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(C) Street Closure
Ms. Coble made the motion that the requests be approved as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(D) City Internet Presence.
During budget discussions, Mr. Beck said staff discussed with the Council previous work that had been done on an Internet program. He said this report had been prepared as a follow-up.
Mayor Hindman asked if this was similar to a home page. Mr. Pope said the City would have a home page on their Internet site. Mayor Hindman understood it would be used by the City staff. Mr. Pope said that was correct. Mayor Hindman asked if this was something that would be made available to the public as well. Mr. Pope explained that information would be put on the City's home page and web site, which will be accessible by the public. He said ordinances, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and a variety of different items will be available. Mayor Hindman asked who would be designing the home page. Mr. Pope said that had not been resolved yet and staff was currently working internally on it with assistance from a graphic artist in the Water and Light Department. Mayor Hindman asked if there was any citizen input in the design of the home page. Mr. Pope said there was not. Mayor Hindman said several people expressed to him an interest in the development. Mr. Pope was agreeable to the suggestion.
Mr. Janku said part of the recommendation was to refer the report to the Computer Advisory Committee. Mayor Hindman said he would talk to the City Manager about the people that had approached him and how they could be involved. He acknowledged there are very creative people on the City staff, but thought it would be appropriate to have citizen involvement.
Mr. Janku asked if the system would provide access in terms of citizens being able to file documents or obtain forms off the system. He said earlier they had discussed registration for Parks and Recreation activities. Mr. Pope said that would be down the road. He said the first priority was to get the home page and the information available, and then proceed to on-line requests for information or registration. He said the City had to be cautious about it because it involves credit card transactions. Mr. Janku asked about permits. Mr. Pope said that would be possible, although the HTE system has an ability to do so by telephone.
Mayor Hindman asked how long it might be before the City has a home page. Mr. Pope said it would depend somewhat on how long it takes to get it out of the committee, but probably 60 days from approval.
Mr. Campbell said he did not think the issue needed to go to the Computer Advisory Committee because this was a group of technicians, not artists. He thought it would be better to just have the creative people involved now so they could move ahead with the project. Mayor Hindman did not agree.
Ms. Coble asked if the County had been involved. She said they had people that were looking at some of the same issues, services, and postings. Mr. Pope said they had not talked to the County about cooperating on a home page, although they could. Mr. Campbell said it would be a very simple thing to put linkage between the two entities.
Mr. Campbell said a complete E-mail directory of all major City employees should be installed for access to citizens. He said this is something that is routinely done in most cities.
(E) Parks & Recreation
Items: Mountain Bike Facility, Youth Scholarships, Business Loop
Mayor Hindman made the motion that directed staff to work with the volunteer committee and study the potential for the mountain bike facility. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku wanted to see the question addressed about the possible environmental impact to this sensitive area. He reported about one-quarter of the park would be dedicated to the bike trail, although he was not certain the entire area would be utilized. Mr. Janku cautioned that not too much space should be allocated to one activity.
Mr. Campbell agreed with Mr. Janku and asked that the staff be directed to think about alternative uses as part of the process.
Mr. Harline said he hoped this would not pre-empt the skate park project. Mayor Hindman asked where the City stood on the skate park. Mr. Green said he owed the Council a report. He said there was no budget for the skate park and it was not in the CIP. He said staff talked to a lot of people, and received as many ideas as people they have talked to. He said the skaters want the park downtown, but there was no property downtown. Staff looked at property by Columbia College, but it was pricey. In addition, they had been told to be very careful with what is built because in three months it would not be used. Mr. Green said he would get a report to the Council within the next month.
Mayor Hindman said he thought the youth scholarship was very important and that a committee needed to be appointed. He said publicity is needed that these scholarships are available.
Mr. Beck said if the Council agreed with the concept, he would get them a report. Mr. Janku thought it might be appropriate if it was done by an outside group, external to City structure, perhaps a group similar to the Cosmo's.
Regarding the Business Loop 70 realignment, Mayor Hindman said opposition was expressed and he did not think the Council could act on it based on what occurred earlier. Mr. Beck suggested the Council adopt a motion directing staff to review the roadway needs in the area, regardless of any requests about the use of the ground. The City's future infrastructure needs should be determined while working in conjunction with the Highway Department. It needs to be established that the City has enough right-of-way in place and what the ultimate design should be. Mr. Beck thought that needed to be decided before finishing the construction of the new park facility. Mr. Campbell agreed with the exception that the last paragraph "opposition to any kind of realignment that would cause disruption.." was kept squarely in front of whomever was doing the planning. Mr. Beck thought the City needed to attempt to work from a standpoint of staying in the right-of-way and, if that did not work, then determine what is additionally needed to make the intersection safer than what it is right now.
Mayor Hindman thought the report should include what could be done within the right-of-way. Mr. Beck agreed. Mayor Hindman did not want to see a conclusion indicating it would be better to realign the road in such a way that would remove it from the right-of-way.
Mr. Campbell made a motion that staff be directed to proceed with a report. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(F) Bicycles being carried on Amtrak.
Mr. Janku explained that a memo had been received from the City Clerk with an attached proclamation that was adopted by the Bicycle Commission. The purpose of the proclamation is to encourage Amtrak to permit unboxed bicycles to travel on its routes in Missouri, in essence, accommodating people accessing the Katy Trail. He was supportive of the proclamation, but thought it would be appropriate to do so through the Council as opposed to the Commission taking that kind of action.
Mayor Hindman asked at what point the Council should take positions on issues such as this. He said the issue did not have any direct impact on Columbia as such. He thought it was a good suggestion and he was in favor of the unboxed bicycles being carried on trains, but Amtrak does not come to Columbia. He asked if there was a policy in place for a situation such as this.
Mr. Janku thought it would have an impact on the City because we would conceivably benefit from the tourism and, to an extent, it would encourage people to use the Katy Trail.
Mayor Hindman understood Mr. Janku's point, but said widening 63 up to Iowa, would also impact tourism here. He said he had not been on the Council long enough to know what the policies are. Mr. Campbell said there was no formal policy on this to his knowledge. He thought this was relatively innocuous, but whether or not the Council wanted to start advocating that light rail go through Jefferson City because it might benefit tourism in Columbia, might be stretching their prerogative a bit.
Mr. Beck suggested that the Council receive an impact report associated to situations such as this, but did not know if it was necessary for this particular item. He said there were usually two sides to an issue and without having all the facts, it could conceivably weaken whatever cause they were hoping to strengthen.
Mr. Harline did not see a problem with it, but also thought it should be done by resolution. Mr. Kruse suggested that a resolution be drafted along with a report so the Council could consider it.
It was decided that staff would prepare a resolution for Council consideration at the next meeting.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC
Mr. Campbell reported on the continuous parking problems around certain parts of the University. He talked to Mr. Boeckmann about whether or not the fine structure was working and whether there needed to be "no standing" language included in the ordinance. Mr. Campbell said many students have come to the conclusion that the risk of a $5 parking fine might be cheap on a rainy day. The students park in these areas, put on their flashers and go off to class. He said it was creating major traffic problems around some parts of the University. He reported the University Police were issuing tickets heavily. Mr. Campbell asked for a staff report concerning fines and the possibility of adding the language "no standing" to City ordinances.
Mr. Harline noted that the day was fast approaching when all dogs must be leashed. He asked about the free run areas and said he understood that would be addressed. Mr. Harline said there had recently been a building permit approved on William and Wilson in the East Campus area. He asked for a staff report on some options to deal with existing problems in that there is not adequate parking and additional developments are being allowed. Mr. Harline stated the East Campus area was not the only location where this was an issue, but was probably worse than in other parts of town.
Mr. Kruse said one of his constituents had been carrying on a lengthy written communication with himself and the Public Works Department regarding the fact that his yard is washing away. The man feels that the City has an obligation to help with the expense of designing some kind of stormwater system. Mr. Kruse received a report from staff and asked that the issue be put on their list of things to discuss at work sessions.
Mr. Janku hoped when the Council discussed Phase II of the stormwater plan, the issue of management of the water would also be addressed. After the rains last week, Mr. Janku said one of his constituents had a similar problem as to what had been previously described by Mr. Kruse. He said a lot of the problems are caused by the way the City designs stormwater systems to run into certain creeks and, to some extent, the City had to be responsible for this. The other issue is related to the greenbelt policy because this particular individual was told that if a tree fell in the creek, it was the responsibility of the landowner to take care of it. The problem he saw was that people might remove trees to relieve themselves of the risk.
Mr. Campbell said he too looked at several properties after the rains. He thought it was fair to anticipate that the City would have groups of citizens coming to the Council because there is a stormwater plan which they are paying taxes on. He said many of those people feel they have the right to have situations taken care of now, and should not have to wait until the third or fourth phases. He thought the City would need to take a look at how to prioritize problems citizens are experiencing, not just in numbers, but perhaps in terms of the extent of damage to the property.
Mr. Janku commented that standards were being put in place at 763 and Blue Ridge. He expressed thanks to the staff for all of the work they had done as well as everyone else involved.
Regarding the EDI Subdivision Plat approved under the Consent Agenda this evening, Mr. Janku noted that the owner had dedicated a trail easement on this property. He expressed his appreciation for it. He asked that staff, whenever a trail easement or conservation easement is given, formally thank the donors by a letter from the Mayor or City Manager.
Paul Albert, 2703 Parker, talked about the southeast corner of Broadway and Providence.
Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway, had a concern about the manner in which Council Bills are signed by the Mayor with a signature stamp. Mr. Boeckmann assured the Council that the validity of the ordinances was not a concern.
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Penny St. Romaine
© 2016 City of Columbia