JANUARY 20, 1998

 The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Tuesday, January 20, 1998, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri.  The roll was taken with the following results:  Council Members COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, and KRUSE were present.  The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department Heads were also present.

 The minutes of the regular meeting of January 5, 1998, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Mrs. Crockett.

 The agenda, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Ms. Coble and a second by Mr. Campbell.

1. Tree Line USA Award - Water & Light Department.
 Mayor Hindman,  Mr. Beck, and Mr. Malon were joined at the podium by Lisa Allen, the Urban Forestry Program Coordinator with the Missouri Department of Conservation.  Ms. Allen explained that she would be presenting the Tree Line USA award, which is sponsored in conjunction with the Missouri Department of Conservation, the National Association of State Foresters, and the National Arbor Day Foundation.  She pointed out that the award recognizes communities who have provided outstanding tree care, which includes an ongoing tree planting and replacement program, workers who are trained on how to care for trees, and the availability of educational programs for the community.  The City was presented with a flag and a prism in recognition of national leadership in caring for trees while meeting service objectives.  Ms. Allen noted that Columbia is the second community in the state to be recognized for this award.
 Mayor Hindman said it is nice to know that the Water and Light Department is following good practices in connection with tree trimming.  He congratulated the Department on a job well done.
 Mayor Hindman introduced two groups that were present for the council meeting; a fifth grade class from Grant Elementary School, and a journalism class from the University.

1. Urban Wussler - Columbia's Can Deposit Ordinance.
 Urban Wussler, 2226 Bluff Boulevard, Chairman of the Committee to Repeal Columbia's Deposit Ordinance, said this group wants to replace the current ordinance with a mandatory recycling law.  Mr. Wussler explained how the deposit ordinance began.  He said there are only nine states with deposit laws, and it had been over ten years since any of those had been enacted.  He asked the Council to consider repealing the ordinance at the work session scheduled next Monday, and replace it with a sensible mandatory recycling law.

B342-97 Voluntary annexation of property located east of Rock Quarry and south of Nifong Boulevard; establishing permanent PUD-8 zoning, rezoning property located on east side of Rock Quarry, approval of PUD Development Plan for Cambridge Place.

 The bill was read by the Clerk.
 Mr. Beck explained that this bill had been tabled from the December 15 meeting.  It was his understanding that the private streets and the gates had been removed from the proposal.  He said there was also some concern expressed at the Planning and Zoning Commission level that the density was higher than what is felt to be desirable.  A layout of the plan for the area was displayed on the overhead.
 Mr. Janku asked about the turnaround point the Fire Department was concerned about.  Mr. Hancock said that issue related to the parking lots, and had been resolved prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation.  He said the Fire Department did not have a strong objection to the turnaround.
 Mr. Campbell asked if the submitted plan met all City standards regarding development and storm water management.  In so far as submittal requirements at the PUD level when platted, Mr. Hancock said this plan would suffice as a preliminary plat.  Mr. Hancock indicated that at the time of the final plat, more detailed storm water management data and street construction plans will have to be provided.
 Mayor Hindman asked about the inadequacy of the streets connecting to the south and east.  Mr. Hancock responded staff would like to see the streets extend to nearby property.  He displayed an overhead of vacant county ground to the east and to the south.  Mr. Hancock noted that the trash compactor shown was somewhat of an issue, but he said the developer may no longer choose to include it since the streets are no longer private.
 Mr. Campbell asked if the turnaround at the end of the long street met all City standards for such designs.  Mr. Hancock said it did.  He said when the streets are designed, they are done so to meet public street standards.
 Mr. Janku asked about the amount of frontage on Rock Quarry Road.  Mr. Hancock said it was approximately 735 feet.
 Mayor Hindman said one of the concerns of the residents pertained to the amount of traffic that would be created on Rock Quarry.  He thought it would generate two kinds of traffic -- automobile and pedestrian.  He asked if there was a provision for pedestrian traffic on Rock Quarry from the Phase I road.  Mr. Hancock said off-site improvements had been indicated in one of the earlier reports, and Rock Quarry Road should be accommodated in any plan that is approved.  Given the conversation regarding the density and the private streets, Mr. Hancock did not know if that ever really got addressed at the Commission level.  If the development is approved, there should be a condition that off-site improvements be included on the final plat -- that there be sidewalks and some responsibility to provide improvements to Rock Quarry Road at an appropriate time.  Mr. Hancock did not see a sidewalk designated on the plan map, but the subdividers may be able to do that.  There are sidewalks on the interior streets shown, but not on Rock Quarry.
 Mayor Hindman asked if the Council should amend the bill to incorporate that condition.  Mr. Boeckmann said that would be appropriate.
 Mr. Janku asked Mr. Hancock if he was suggesting at some point, similar with other planned developments, the Council could require a certain contribution to the infrastructure.  Mr. Hancock said that was correct.
 In terms of road planning in the area for connections between Rock Quarry and Bearfield, Mr. Janku asked if the CATSO group had given any thought about future connections.  Mr. Hancock said several amendments had been considered in the vicinity.  He did not think a collector street to Bearfield was shown on this property.  Mr. Janku asked if Mr. Hancock was saying it would be further south.  Mr. Hancock said the current plan simply shows Gans Road.  Mr. Janku commented that Gans Road is about a mile to Nifong, so there really needs to be one or two connections.  Mr. Hancock said some connection is necessary, although it may not need to be a full width collector street -- just a connection between the two.
 Mayor Hindman noted that there was a prepared amendment sheet which is a technicality changing the date of the plan from November 13, 1997, to December 10, 1997.
 Mr Janku made the motion that B342-97 be amended per the amendment sheet.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
 Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
 Richard Royer, 1515 Woodrail Avenue, explained a senior citizens residential community to be classified as PUD-8 is proposed in southern Columbia.  He said the purpose of the development is to offer older adults a unique living opportunity -- one that is not available elsewhere in mid-Missouri.  He said it is intended that this development will be approved under the auspices of the Federal Fair Housing Authority as an age qualified community.  To do so, Mr. Royer said specific federal regulations for senior citizens must be adhered to.  In essence, not just another R-1 or R-2 development is being proposed -- this is a special type of development.
 Mr. Royer reported the development is located on a 31 acre tract on Rock Quarry Road, about 1,000 feet south of Nifong.  He further explained that it is bordered by the Juniper Ridge development to the north and undeveloped land to the south and east.  The new Hunt Manor development is northwest across Rock Quarry.
 Mr. Royer explained the intention is to build 222 units in a combination of patio homes and condominiums, some built with walkouts.  These units would range from 1,000 to 1,500 square feet, and would be priced in the $100,000 to $150,000 range.  All units will be for sale, none will be rental.  Mr. Royer said an important feature will be an amenity package that is part of the development, a true selling feature to the retirement market.  In addition, a centralized complex is planned that will contain recreation and meeting rooms, a community center, a gymnasium, as well as an outdoor swimming pool, tennis courts, and a one mile walking trail throughout the development.  Mr. Royer explained how the 200 plus units will be phased in over a ten year period of time.
 Regarding the traffic and density concerns, Mr. Royer said traffic is an important issue in the area because of rampant development during the last ten years.  He said this project will not be a significant traffic generator because figures supplied by the City's Planning Department indicate 3.5 trips per unit could be expected daily, compared to 10 trips per day in an average R-1 development.  He said this project will create the least amount of traffic of any conceivable development of either a residential or commercial variety.  Mr. Royer pointed out that the project is expected to be phased in over a ten year period, which would give ample time for improvements to Rock Quarry and the relocation of Route AC.  Mr. Royer reported on the development's population patterns for the next 10 years, which ranged from 90 people three years from now, to 306 people in 2006.  This computes to less than 50 additional cars on the road in three years.  Even fully developed, these vehicles will not create large amounts of traffic.  Mr. Royer said the project would add significantly to the tax base to allow for necessary road improvements.  Regarding density, Mr. Royer said the plan calls for 7.9 units per acre, less than all adjacent neighbors.  At that density, he contended that the project will provide a logical transition from the more dense R-2 and R-3 to the north, to the less dense R-1 to the south.  Mr. Royer reported the density of the project is only 1.7 units per acre greater than an R-1 development.
 Mr. Royer pointed out that this project had been developed in concert with the 2000 project sponsored by the City and the Chamber of Commerce.  He said they tend to actively market within a 120 mile radius of Columbia.  It is anticipated that more than half of the residents of this development will be people who do not currently reside in Boone County.
 Mr. Janku asked how the number of trips per day in an R-1 zoning district had been computed using the 173 figure.  Mr. Royer said he had used 6.2 for the R-1.  Mr. Janku asked how control of rental units would be achieved.  Mr. Royer said all of the units would be for sale and would be on an individual ownership basis.  He said individuals who own a unit will have the opportunity to resell that back to the development, which will control marketing after the fact.  However, seasonal residents will own their property, just as occurs in condos or homes in other parts of town.  Mr. Janku said the owner could in fact rent the unit to someone else.  Mr. Royer said this could occur, provided that the development is a party to it to ensure the continued qualification under the federal fair housing designation.  He said it is very important that this project be earmarked for senior citizens.  Residents over 55 would not be able to rent their unit to people under the age of 55.  Mr. Royer said any part-time rentals would have to be handled through their company to enable screening of potential occupants.
 Mr. Janku asked Mr. Royer how he felt about the question regarding a contribution to infrastructure.  Mr. Royer said financial participation in any mandated improvements to Rock Quarry Road required by the Council had been agreed to openly at the Commission meeting.  He said it had also been indicated that they are willing to construct a sidewalk along Rock Quarry Road if the Council so desired.
 Theoretically, Mr. Kruse said there could be a lot of rentals in this development.  Mr. Royer said theoretically, this could be allowed.  It is not a federal requirement that the units be owner occupied, but it is the intent to sell each unit.
 Mr. Coffman said he had heard several objections to the project, but none associated with it being a retirement community.  He asked if the plan is approved, what guarantees are there that the development would remain a senior citizen community.  Mr. Royer said he gathered to the extent the law would allow the City to put that language in an ordinance.  He said he would look to the Council for placement of requirements.  Once Mr. Royer begins the federal designation, it would not be his intent to stop it.  Mr. Royer said if someone were to assume the project for some reason, he could not speak to what their intentions might be.
 Mr. Coffman asked about the walking trail and whether it would be private or donated to the public.  Mr. Royer said it would be private to the community, but since the streets would be public, he assumed anyone could walk into the development and onto the trail.  Mr. Coffman asked if other designs had been examined that would allow for more green space.  Mr. Royer said the reason this plan had been chosen was to maximize the use of available green space.  He pointed out that at least 4 1/2 acres of green space is required in the development, but they have actually established nine acres.  The requirement had been doubled by using the clustering affect.  Mr. Royer reported 60% of the property would remain natural or landscaped.
 Mr. Coffman noted that the Council had received a letter from Mr. Bendbeutel mentioning several things Mr. Royer had agreed to do.  He asked if these were issues Mr. Royer would still be committed to doing.  Mr. Royer asked if Mr. Coffman was referring to storm water management and that sort of thing.  Mr. Coffman said it was largely storm water.  Mr. Royer said a commitment had been made to a group of neighbors to the south that certain things will be done to protect the integrity of the water that flows through this property, which is mostly drainage.  He said it is not a running creek.  Mr. Royer reported they would certainly commit to those items already agreed to, although there is no signed contract.
 Mr. Campbell asked about the trash compactor.  Mr. Royer said it should have been taken off the plat.  He said it served no purpose as there would be regular methods of trash collection.
 Dave Bennett, project engineer for the project, offices at 1113 Fay Street, offered to address infrastructure concerns.  He reported if one were to take the actual amount of water coming off of the development and compare it to what is currently discharging at the south end, it is approximately 16 times the amount of water the project has created.  This project will create a 6% increase in the water that will be coming to that point, and Mr. Royer has agreed that whatever is needed will be addressed at the final plat stage.  If the City deems it necessary to detain the peak of the storm water before it is passed to the southern end of the development, that will be done.  Mr. Royer has agreed to comply with any conditions required by the Public Works Department regarding storm water management.  Mr. Bennett asked the Council to consider this proposal favorably.
 Mr. Campbell asked how the 6% increase in storm water would be handled.  Mr. Bennett said if there is a requirement to detain the storm water, a wet weather impoundment would be used to allow the water to be collected and released slowly so that ultimately the peak discharge would be no more than what it is currently on the property.  Mr. Campbell asked who would make the decision as to whether or not the water needed to be detained.  Mr. Patterson said staff would review what the consultant brought in for it, but the ultimate approval on whether or not detention would be required or permitted would come under the Land Disturbance Act and the review of the Public Works Department.  Mr. Campbell asked if storm water management is likely to be a requirement.  Mr. Patterson said at this point, he did not know that anything had been submitted as far as the hydraulics on the development.  He said when that report is reviewed, staff would then make a determination.  He said this concerns not just run-off, but also how the site will be developed.  Mr. Patterson reported there are a lot of things that could be done in developing a site that will mitigate or reduce the peak run-off in a series of containments.  Mr. Campbell said he had raised the question because of calls he received regarding this issue.
 Mr. Janku asked Mr. Bennett to briefly describe the phasing.  Mr. Bennett said there were six phases on the plan, and development would begin along Rock Quarry Road.  He said the first phases would be low density.  Mr. Bennett noted that compliance has been achieved with the latest revision on the scenic road overlay district -- the 50 foot vegetative buffer and a 100 foot buffer with building height restrictions.  He said there would be a large area in the front of the development that would simply be green space along Rock Quarry Road.  Mr. Bennett said they would get the roadway structure in connecting Juniper and Rock Quarry, and basically begin construction from the west to the east.  He said the common buildings would be built at a later date.
 Craig VanMatre, an attorney with offices at 1103 E. Broadway, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  He explained that the development would be governed by a covenant, and the idea that this property would be developed initially as a retirement community and then renege on that promise would generate as many lawsuits as units sold.  The units will be marketed to those people who rely upon this being a retirement community, and to renege would be foolish on their part.  Mr. VanMatre said he had not specifically discussed with Mr. Royer the possibility of rental investors, but just the economics of it would make it absurd.  The covenants would require that the development consist of retired inhabitants.
 Regarding the traffic, Mr. VanMatre described the law of unattended consequences.  If one did not approve any type of development until the road is improved and the turkey and deer are gone, nobody anywhere around the boundaries of this town are going to want the roads improved for fear it will lead to development.   Roads would then remain unimproved and dangerous.  Mr. VanMatre did not think that was the intention of the responsible members of this community.  He said if the focus of the development changed, it would have to be approved by the Council, in addition to notifying all of the people that had purchased a unit in the meantime.  Mr. VanMatre thought this is more than enough protection for any imaginary horribles that might conceivably occur, but which in all likelihood and reasonableness will not.  He said they are anxious for the Council to build anything into the ordinance that is felt to be reasonable, and has been discussed tonight.
 Mr. Campbell said it seemed to him that even though there may be a larger number of units, the end result might be a lower density of people in this area than in a regular A-1 development.  He asked if anyone had computed that.  Mr. VanMatre said they felt the typical household would be two people -- a retired husband and wife.  He said the important thing about the traffic is that those people are not going to be out at peak traffic times.  Mr. VanMatre explained in a typical rental unit, there are four or five inhabitants.  In addition, Mr. VanMatre reported the proposal for a gated community had been withdrawn to ensure this development is compatible with what the Council perceived to be the message of the City of Columbia.
 Mr. VanMatre stated the message the Council would send by denying this request is that no matter how well-designed and well-thought out a subdivision of this type can be, and no matter how much someone is willing to compromise, a stage has been reached in this town where perhaps growth will not be permitted.  He did not think that was the message the City wants to send to the outside world, or anyone inside Columbia.
 Mr. Campbell said he believed the average size of a household for people 65 years and older was something like 1.5 or 1.7.
 Regarding the interconnection between the property and there being approximately a mile between Gans Road and Nifong, Mr. Janku said there would have to be a connection between Bearfield and Rock Quarry as the area develops.  He asked how this connection would be obtained if the developer is not willing to at least pay part of the cost.  He was not just referring to dollars, but right-of-way dedication.  Mr. VanMatre said he did not have an answer for that, but having connecting streets would end the deal for them.  The development could not be marketed if through streets were required, in addition to those that already have been identified.  Mr. Janku said perhaps the answer is not in putting the streets through, but he wanted to point out that it is a legitimate concern.
 Carolyn Matthews, 4200 Rock Quarry, said she had sent a letter to the Council stating her opposition to the development.  She said she was probably the single most impacted neighbor adjoining the proposed retirement development as her property is bordered both on the north and east by this tract.  She spoke about the present traffic and the potential risk to the watershed and the protected streams nearby.  She was appreciative of the developer's efforts to save some of the trees and green space areas, but she did not think it went far enough for an area as special as this one.  Ms. Matthews asked that a scenic road be planned before making a decision on this issue.
 Mr. Campbell said the Council could not prohibit R-1 development at this site, which would roughly translate to four units per acre, with a total of 167 units on that tract.  He asked if she thought it would be better to have a retirement community with a higher density or units, or to have an R-1 development with many more people and much more traffic generated.  Ms. Matthews was not sure she accepted all of the figures that had been submitted by Mr. Royer, and she felt they were based on a lot of assumptions.   She was concerned about the change in density and said she would not assume that a developer coming forward with an R-1 plan would not also get a lot of input about retaining green space.  Ms. Matthews applauded Mr. Royer's efforts on the green space, but felt it did not go far enough.
 John Blakemore, 4807 Bearfield, said he would also like to address Public Hearing C at the same time he addresses this issue.  He passed out copies of a petition signed by 72 neighbors and friends in the Rock Quarry, Bearfield, Gans corridor and the Rock Bridge State Park opposing the Cambridge Development.  Mr. Blakemore noted that he was speaking on behalf of the Clear Creek, Gans Creek, Little Bonne Femme Association -- not the Rock Quarry Association.  He said that some of the neighbors had not opposed Mr. Royer's original plan contingent upon certain conditions being met.  Mr. Blakemore reported that Mr. Royer had made a good faith pledge to meet the requests, and that they seemed to be making some progress until something came up that no one expected.  This had been the decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission that a gated community was not wanted in Columbia.  Residents felt the private roads would help assure the development would be what it was intended to be.  He said the gate decision posed a big problem because now a development would be created that loses one of its main selling points -- perceived safety.  Mr. Blakemore spoke about the density issue along Nifong, Rock Quarry, and Bearfield.  He said the characteristics of the developments in this area are very high density, have no green spaces or neighborhood pocket parks, have no regard for environmental sensitivity, and have created major traffic problems.  Mr. Blakemore distributed a recent report detailing what the Bonne Femme water sheds provide for Columbia and Boone County, and what the residents in the water shed have committed to in terms of maintaining it.  He said everyone agreed that the area needs to be treated differently for the sake of all Columbians and Boone Countians.
 Mr. Blakemore said residents would like the City and County to create a task force with neighborhood input to begin discussions in jointly creating an overlay plan of the area, bounded by Nifong on the north, Laurie Farm on the west, the park on the south, and Highway 63 on the east.  He wanted the Council to look into retaining a land planning organization, similar to the firm used to develop Benton-Stephens urban conservation overlay district, and to create a comprehensive Columbia/Boone County master plan for the area.  Mr. Blakemore said residents also want the City and County to create some zoning that does not subsidize and encourage urban grid development, and to encourage development of larger acreages.
 Mr. Janku asked about the early discussions with the developer regarding water quality.  Mr. Blakemore said the Association presented some items to the developer, and had also sent a letter to the County asking that Frank Arnold from the USDA work with their engineers in the development of a storm water run-off plan.  He said a letter had been received stating this could be done and, in a phone conversation with Mr. VanMatre, he had been told the developer/owner would sign a contract with the neighborhood association to bind them to the seven points.  Mr. Blakemore said it was understood it was a civil suit issue.  Mr. Janku asked if that was still possible.  Mr. Blakemore said it was.  Residents are looking for a guarantee that this would be a senior citizen retirement area.
 Mr. Boeckmann said in PUD's, the uses are specified in the ordinance granting the zoning.  He said this is included in an attachment pertaining to this ordinance, Exhibit A, and it is specified a unit must be occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older.  This is a requirement true of the entire development.  Mr. Boeckmann noted this is not included as a contractual agreement, but part of the zoning ordinance itself.
 Mr. Blakemore said they had tried to answer one of Mr. Campbell's questions -- is this development preferable to an R-1 development.  He said the residents are asking for a zoning designation that would allow larger lot development and country style living on larger lots.
 Fred VonSol, 4679 S. Bearfield, said the high density would not be associated with high traffic if this is a retirement community.  He said during Mr. Royer's presentation at the Planning and Zoning meeting, it had been emphasized that the gates and the private roads were one of the major marketing tools with regard to establishing this development as a retirement community.  Mr. VonSol said now that  this has been withdrawn, this is not the plan that had been presented to residents or to Planning and Zoning.  He said if this project does not become or stay a retirement community, with regard to the question as to whether this plan is better than R-1, there is the potential of almost twice the density and traffic compared to what had been initially predicted.  He knew of no way that someone could say that this development would remain a retirement community.  Mr. VonSol felt the Council was making an assumption that Planning and Zoning would vote positively on this proposal if it went back without the gates and the private roads.  He was not convinced that was true.  He urged the Council to send the issue back to the Commission so they could go through the density and infrastructure issues.  In the context of doing that, Mr. VonSol explained then the wider issue of the use of all of the properties could be examined.
 Mr. Campbell agreed that anything was possible, but said the proposal would have to come back to the Council if the plan did not work out.
 Mr. Janku said this application was one of the first requests the Council has received since adopting the new PUD ordinance.  He said some of the procedures are relatively new to everyone.  He asked whether the applicant would have to amend their plan of intent (to delete the age restriction) if Mr. Boeckmann said a rezoning would have to occur at that point.  Mr. Boeckmann explained that most of the different zoning districts will list permitted uses and list conditional uses.  In the planned districts now when land is placed in a particular zoning district, the Council designates what uses are allowed at that time.  Mr. Boeckmann reported the use that would be designated in this ordinance was basically for retirement.  Mr. Janku said to change that then, the applicant would have to conceivably lower the density.  Mayor Hindman said that is not possible if the buildings were already there.  Mr. Campbell said constructing this development in phases would be a protection because if the first one or two phases went forward, it would pretty well set the pattern for the area.  Mr. Campbell asked if the applicant would have to come back between phases.  Mr. Hancock thought the phases would be outlined on the plan as shown, and platting and building would proceed according to that.  Mrs. Crockett asked if all the phases would be PUD-8 at this time.  Mr. Hancock said that was correct.  Mr. Beck said it would remain that way unless otherwise submitted to the Council.
 Mr. VonSol said if the development were to proceed substantially then fail as a retirement community, he could not imagine the Council would not agree to let it be modified to a duplex or eight-plex development for financial reasons, rather than have the economic consequences of total failure.  He said that is the concern of residents -- if the major marketing tool (private streets and gating) has been lost, would the development likely end up as a retirement community.
 Laura Walter, 208 Anderson, explained that her family had purchased a 20 acre plot of woodlands and grasslands located at 4600 Rock Quarry Road.  She said the land was in the valley just north of Clear Creek.  She and her family were in agreement with the Little Bonne Femme Neighborhood Association in opposing the request.  Ms. Walter said their property was one which was protected and designed to remain a green area -- a low density area with the restriction of one dwelling per 10 acre area.  She said they had three concerns, with the first being that this planned development far exceeds the ideal capacity for the rural wooded area involved, and is a dramatically higher density than the 200 acres around it.  The second concern is that they felt the development would endanger one of the most beautiful green areas in the community, that includes the Clear Creek valley and the water shed area.  Ms. Walter explained the last concern is the outstanding opportunity as a community to preserve and protect this scenic walkway, bikeway, and roadway linking downtown Columbia to Rock Bridge State Park.  She said it also links the University campus to the park.  Ms. Walter noted that the proposed development property has a large drainage ditch along the entire front of the property on Rock Quarry that carries storm water run-off.  She said that run-off is at capacity in the spring, and she did not think it could take an additional 6% in this area.
 Tony Davis, 4655 Rock Quarry, said he thought the project was a good one and also thought it could work in Columbia.  He saw the question as being what would happen if it did not work out.  Mr. Davis wanted the City to seriously look at the area that goes directly to the park.  There is an opportunity to construct new bike paths/trails at the park's entrance on Old 63, at the end of Bearfield Road.  He said this issue is very important in terms of the transition that is going to take place.  Mr. Davis explained that the R-1 tract south of the proposed development belongs to the Gregory brothers, and they are interested in pursuing different types of zoning in this particular area.
 Alyce Turner, 2194 E. Bearfield Subdivision, explained that her property is just south and west of the proposed development.  She said there are 27 homes on this block that are adjacent to Rock Bridge State Park, and this is the most dense development in the area -- unless this request is approved.  Ms. Turner pointed out that the area being proposed for development was currently designated for low density residential development in the City's own comprehensive plan.
 Joe Bendbeutel, 1701 E. Gans Road, said his property is approximately one-half mile south and west of the proposed development.  He said the core of the objections to the group that Mr. Blakemore represents pertains to the density of the project, and the resulting stress it puts on infrastructure and the environment.  Mr. Bendbeutel said he had come before the Council several months ago to talk about the proposal for the property immediately east of this one, in the southwest corner of the Nifong/Rock Quarry corner.  The applicant did not prevail in that case because the Council had decided there is so much dense development in the area, and it was inappropriate to allow more.  Mr. Bendbeutel said he is hearing the same arguments from the current developers.  Mr. Blakemore's numbers had been extremely persuasive representing the burden this area has borne in terms of duplexes and very dense housing.  He said Mr. VanMatre indicated that certain legal covenants can be established on this property that would keep the developer from being able to change the character of the development. Mr. Bendbeutel said land use by litigation is not the goal, and that would not deter someone from coming in and changing the designation.  He said area residents would never have the resources to fight any sort of litigation over a change in land use.  He said the park was an underutilized asset, and the students to the north need a way to get to it.  He felt that the suggested task force would be an appropriate way to plan some green space and to get trails.  He said a trail could be developed from the University, through the new park on the south side of Grindstone, and almost through this property to the trail head at Rock Bridge.  He suggested looking at those kinds of planning items before "willy nilly" allowing this sort of spot zoning.  Regarding the units being rental, Mr. Bendbeutel thought they would make perfect rental units.
 Regarding Mr. Bendbeutel's letter to Mr. Royer, dated November 20, 1997, setting forth seven proposals, Mayor Hindman asked if Mr. Bendbeutel had heard the developer agree to them.  Mr. Bendbeutel said he had heard that representation, although he has had no communication from them since then.  He took them at their word that some type of agreement would be entered into on the proposals.  Assuming the developer would meet the seven concerns, Mayor Hindman asked if that would pretty well take care of the problems that is foreseen for the water shed.  Mr. Bendbeutel said it would not.
 Mr. Coffman asked how close this area was to the Rock Bridge State Park.  Mr Bendbeutel said he was not sure about the planned expansion of the Park, of which he knew there were several, but he thought it was approximately one mile.  He said the vast majority of the property between this tract, all except for one ten-acre piece and the park, is encumbered with restrictions.  He said the transition is a clear issue.
 Mr. Kruse said there is another national forest on the east side of 163, which is even closer than the one mile. Hydrologically, with the sink holes and the way the storm water moves through the area, Mr. Bendbeutel said there is a surface connection with the water that runs off of the south end of Nifong immediately into the park.  He said some ditching had been done at the time the County improved the road, and it was at full capacity right now.  He said there needed to be a task force appointed to look at these things in a broader perspective.
 Mr. Campbell said his concern regarding the 200 protected acres (for either five-acre or R-1 development) was that in harsh topography, five-acre tracts are very difficult to sewer which would lead to either a septic tank or some type of  on-site tank.  He said there may be as much or more damage being done to the park due to the low density, but widely spaced development.  He asked if their group had considered that.  Mr. Bendbeutel said they had, and he thought the state law had tremendously raised the standards on on-site septics.  He said the soil geology had also been changed that increased the performance standards of those units.  He said the point raised was a very good one, but quite honestly, the City's main sewer extends almost to Clear Creek.  Mr. Bendbeutel said when he built his home, he made the connection to the City sewers -- which is located probably 700 or 800 feet from his property.  He thought many of the neighbors were of that same disposition.  There is also an expansion project from the Bearfield Subdivision, and that sewer line would run through quite a bit of that property.
 Jim Gatz, 3009 Lynnwood, explained that he works at Rock Bridge Memorial State Park.  He said the area Mr. Kruse referenced earlier is also part of the park, and is called the Gans Creek wild area.  He said many people think the 750 acre area is a separate entity, but it is not.  He said it was about a mile to the upper northern boundary of the park from where the tract in question is located.
 Greg Pfeiffer, 2274 Bearfield, said he had a different perspective from some of the neighbors.  He said the area is unique and quite different from all of Columbia.  He said all things need to be considered, and there is no reason to rush into anything.
 Donna Kestle, 715 Lyon Street, said she appreciated having a place like the area in question to go to when she felt like getting out of town.  She said it is nice not to have to drive 20 miles to the river.
 Mary Lamar Jolly, 5251 S. Bearfield, is concerned about the safety of the people who will move into this facility.  She thought it sounded like a wonderful development and would like it if her mother would consider moving into something similar.  Ms. Jolly said the thought of those elderly people coming out of one access onto Rock Quarry Road, then trying to get out onto Nifong is scary.  She thought the roads needed to be made safe before anything else went in, and the time and place is wrong for this type of development.
 Mr. Royer said if it would help his neighbors to feel better about his project, he would be happy to reinstall the gates and private streets.  He said there seems to be some confusion about long-term guarantees and the ability of the project to remain a retirement community.  Mr. Royer reported were they to fall out of the federal qualification and allow people younger than the federally designated age to start relocating there in any sizable numbers, that would be a violation of the ordinance.  More importantly, from the day this development is marketed as a federally age qualified community, there would be enormous liabilities that would accrue if it does not occur.  Mr. Royer stated that is the most powerful guarantee he could give anyone as to the intent and security in maintaining the project as such.
 Mr. Janku asked how Mr. Royer and his organization would contribute to the cost of the improvements on Rock Quarry Road.  He said at some point they would have to come up with some numbers.  Mr. Janku said another question is how the Council could be certain, as the project moves forward from phase to phase, it would remain as had been originally approved.  Mr. Royer said in order to modify the project in any substantive way, he would have to come back to the Council and ask for permission to do so.  He said the phasing was designed deliberately on a "pay as you go" basis.  He said as one section is sold out, that debt could be paid off and the next phase would be constructed.  Mr. Royer did not know how to answer the first question.  Mr. Janku said that is part of the problem because he did not know what the numbers are for improvements on Rock Quarry.  He did not want to throw out just any number and ask for a contribution of that amount.  Mr. Janku thought those figures need to be obtained from the staff, and it is reasonable to expect people to contribute to the infrastructure.  Mr. Royer said this had been agreed to at the Planning and Zoning meeting.  Because there are other developments in the vicinity, Mr. Royer said they would certainly agree to whatever formula the City came up with that would be fair to all those using Rock Quarry Road.
 Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
 Mr. Kruse noted that the staff recommendation at the Planning level had been denial for a number of reasons.  He said the Commission's recommendation was also for denial.  Once again, Mr. Kruse noted the Council is faced with a proposal that, by the time it gets to this level, it is substantively different than what was recommended.  He asked the staff's feeling about the project given the fact that it was no longer a gated community proposal.  Mr. Hancock said the development did not meet the Land Use Plan recommendations for low density in the area.  He said staff had no guidance for land use because the property is located in the County.  Mr. Hancock said his department also based their recommendation on more technical issues such as street connections, off-site improvements, etc.  Mr. Kruse asked if staff's recommendation is still for denial.  Mr. Hancock said yes, staff would stand by the recommendation in the report.
 In the past, Mr. Janku said the Council has seen situations (like Southampton) where people have dedicated right-of-way on the boundary of their development.  Addressing his concern about how the applicant could obtain the connection between Bearfield and Rock Quarry, Mr. Janku said getting some of the right-of-way in place is the key.  He said as construction moves south, much of the land becomes dedicated for other purposes, and he doubted the City would be getting the type of development for which people could dedicate right-of-way.
 Mr. Campbell said the City has always used the formula of one-half mile for a collector between arterial or urban highways.  He said the proposed development is not a half-mile south of Rock Quarry Road.  Mr. Beck is not sure that is the reason.  He said if that is the question as to the need for a collector street in the area, he would ask if that had been addressed with the developers.
 Mr. Hancock said there is no collector street shown on the plan, so staff is trying to address where a connection would occur between Bearfield and Rock Quarry -- a suggestion still proposed for this development.  Mr. Hancock said it is difficult for Planning to request that a private street be stubbed into the development, but it is felt a connection would be desirable in the vicinity.  Mr. Beck said he was addressing the cul-de-sac extending southward, and understood Mr. Janku was addressing the east/west collector.  Mr. Janku said that was correct.  He said he is not necessarily quarreling with the cul-de-sac.  Mr. Janku said there could still be a cul-de-sac, with a collector located to the south of it.  However, the next property owner down the road would bear the complete burden of the traffic in the area if it is not expected that this development would contribute to part of the cost of a collector street.  Mr. Janku said there is a precedent for it considering the Southampton issue.  Mr. Janku said his understanding of PUD's is that there is a possibility of increased density, but as a trade-off, there would be more open space with potential contributions to other improvements.  He thought that was what had been done with other planned developments -- the Council requested contributions to the infrastructure and many times, street improvements.  Mr. Janku felt the issue needed to be addressed in this situation, but did not know what the process would be because there is not a dollar amount that could be used to determine the cost for the Rock Quarry Road improvements -- at least up to the entryway or along the property line of the proposed development.  He thought the Council needed to come up with some sort of figure and discuss what would be a reasonable contribution.
 Assuming this becomes the point to worry about, Mayor Hindman asked if it would be appropriate to spell out the improvements the City would expect to be paid for.  He said there have already been discussions about a sidewalk or walkway, whichever would be appropriate for the area.  Mayor Hindman understood Mr. Royer to say that he agreed to pay that cost.  He said when it comes to the street improvements, perhaps the ordinance could stipulate this would be a substantial portion of the cost of the street, roughly equal to the cost of a residential street.  The Council could make it clear that if they were to adopt this ordinance, that they would expect this to be part of the final plan.
 Mr. Janku said this issue needs to be addressed, and if the applicant is going to be allowed increased density, they would be expected to contribute to the infrastructure needed in the area.
 Mr. Coffman thought it is a good idea to establish a task force to look at the Rock Quarry/Grindstone/Rock Bridge State Park area.  He said there is talk about a joint City/County meeting soon, and he hoped to bring this issue up regardless of what happens tonight.  Mr. Coffman doubted any recommendations would be made to make this area more dense than it already is.  The Land Use Plan as it stands now exceeds the current density recommendations and, on that level, he planned to oppose this request.  Mr. Coffman realized the Planning and Zoning Commission had opposed the development on a 7-3 vote, and said he was not willing to assume denial was based solely on gates.  He stated there are other concerns, including density and storm water, that were uppermost in some of their minds.  If this proposal is not rejected, he would recommend that it go back to Planning and Zoning.  Mr. Coffman said the idea that this is somewhat less dense than the duplex to the north is not too compelling to him.  He said now that it is expected that AC will be moved further north to Grindstone, perhaps the level of growth that would be allowed in this area is more than what is really desired in the future.  Overall, as this is such a sensitive area because of the project's proximity to Rock Bridge State Park and the storm water concerns, Mr. Coffman is not ready to approve the request until a broader vision for the area has been outlined.
 Mr. Campbell spoke in support of having a much more detailed and an extensive overall plan for the area.  He said this is needed in the entire City because there are other sensitive areas that may not be currently on the front burner.  Mr. Campbell explained that the City's zones are set for houses, but plans should be set for people.  He said those are two very different things, and current density assumes that a family consists of a husband and a wife, and one boy and one girl.  Mr. Campbell said the typical household does not apply in this instance because this request is for a retirement community.  He said from what he is hearing, the Council is receiving about the tightest guarantee they could get.  He said current plans do not really consider what or where a retirement community should be located, and they are struggling to find this out.  Mr. Campbell noted the difference in behavior between someone looking for a retirement community and someone with a family containing teenagers.  He said that would make a very different impact on the traffic flow and anything else that occurs in the area.  In addition, there is no question that the City needs more retirement areas.  He pointed out that the established retirement areas have been successful, and now the Council is looking at the possibility of another one.  The question is where it should be located.  He noted traffic problems on Route B and Route PP, and added that there is no area in Columbia where traffic problems do not exist.  Mr. Campbell firmly believed this development would not have the same impact as an R-1 development.
 Mr. Kruse said he could not support this request, although he felt it was a very interesting development.  He liked the idea of high density as Columbia continues to grow, but is uncomfortable with the high density in this particular location.  He thought that spoke to the fact that the City does not have a good comprehensive plan for the metropolitan area.  Mr. Kruse reported the Council will be meeting with the County again soon, and the topic of discussion would be planning issues in the greater metropolitan area.  He said this would be a great example to put before the group to figure out how to better handle these types of situations.  Mr. Kruse said he was not comfortable voting on this issue unless it were to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further review given the fact the development has changed substantially since it was last voted on.  He supported the idea of taking a little more time to develop a master plan for the area, and thought the Council should give it some consideration.  Assuming this development is something that should be executed at some point, Mr. Kruse said at a minimum there ought to be a connection to the east.  He said if the area is going to develop, there should be good street connections established in the area.  Mr. Kruse's vision for all of Columbia is to have a very dense urban core and establish countryside beyond that.  This particular part of the city, in his view, is where the dense urban core stops and the countryside begins.  He said if this were the last development to ever occur in this part of Columbia, he would probably feel differently about it.  Given what was before him tonight, Mr. Kruse said he could not support the request.
 Mrs. Crockett said she was in support of the plan and thought it was a good one.  She felt this would create less traffic than any other kind of zoning.  Regarding the storm water management, she had all the confidence in the ability of the Public Works Department to handle it appropriately.  Mrs. Crockett explained that Leisurely Way, off of Oakland Road, is a retirement community.  She drives by the area many times a week and, in a week's time, she may see one car coming in or out of that development.  She does see the residents walking often.  Mrs. Crockett thought the proposed project would be quiet.  She agreed that sidewalks and off-site improvements are needed, but other than that, she thought it was a great plan and intended to support it.
 Mr. Janku reported there are positive things about the plan.  He said in wondering about transition and the future of the area, he thought the fact that it is a planned development should be a precedent for any future development in the area.   The proposed development has some protection of green space, where regular R-1 is exempt from the City's tree preservation ordinance.  He felt there were protections built into the plan for green space and protection of the environment that do not exist under R-1 development.  Although this density is greater than R-1, Mr. Janku said he agreed with Mr. Campbell's statement about traffic patterns.  However, he had some concerns and thought they should be resolved before voting.  He did not think the Council could rely on the general statements made this evening.  He thought the Council needed to get some commitments in terms of dollar amounts or ranges of dollar amounts for street improvements along Rock Quarry.  Mr. Janku also thought the developer could expect from the City that improvements will occur  in a more timely manner than might ordinarily be the case if the applicant commits to paying part of the cost.  He said this is a reasonable quid pro quo.  Mr. Janku said the street connection is another important concern, and if this does not happen at this location, he was not sure there would be a good cross connection between the roads -- Bearfield and Rock Quarry.  He also thought the Council needed a commitment on the sidewalk issue and, if possible, he would like to see further agreements on the water shed issue.  Mr. Janku said he would like to see the issue tabled to the next meeting to see what could be worked out.
 Ms. Coble said more and more the Council is sending a message to the community that they are looking for planned development, the preservation of open space, and plans similar to this one.  She felt this is much more likely now than in the past.  Just because the Council is appreciative to see the trend continuing, she did not think development should be approved in areas where it is inappropriate.  She pointed out that clearly the Land Use Plan indicates this is an inappropriate development for this location.  Ms. Coble said the Council has discussed the lack of infrastructure in the area, everyone knows there is a very sensitive water shed in Rock Bridge State Park that is a source of pride in the community and is one of the gems of the County, there is no clear transition from the point of this development to the Park, there are no clear agreements in place, nor can the track records of other phased developments be used as a comparison for this project.  Ms. Coble said there are numerous developments in the community that are completely different than had ever been approved when originally submitted to the Council.  She pointed out that there is some motley architecture throughout the City to testify that good intentions can somehow change.  Ms. Coble did not accept the premise that a retirement community has people who do not drive at 8:00 a.m. or 5:00 p.m.  She was disturbed by the fact that the project could end up being a rental community.  Considering all factors, she said it did not seem like a very wise decision.  Ms. Coble did not believe this to be an appropriate location for the project, and thought there are significant negative impacts that will occur should the Council approve this plan in such a very sensitive area.
 Mayor Hindman thought this is one of the best plans he has seen since being on the Council, and the kind of plan that has been sought.  He thought the trade-off of more green space for a little more density was acceptable.  Mayor Hindman said there are many actual incentives for the project to be what Mr. Royer represents it to be.  Mayor Hindman agreed the Council should pin down what infrastructure contributions should be before finally approving the plan.  He thought the infrastructure would be taken care of if a significant commitment is obtained from the developer.  Mayor Hindman reported if the Council wanted to table this issue to negotiate these things, that would be agreeable to him.  Mayor Hindman supported that more comprehensive planning is necessary.
 Mr. Campbell pointed out that the entire Council had been urging planned developments.  He thought this is such a development where there is some degree of sensitivity.  He said the Council would not find developers willing to go to the difficulty in areas suitable for routine R-1.  Regarding the connection to other areas, Mr. Campbell thought the developer had a point that in a retirement community, there is a desire for some degree of shelter or closure.  He said if the Council requires a connection, he thought it would be difficult for it to be a retirement community.
 Mr. Janku said that was not what he was suggesting.  Mayor Hindman said he was making the suggestion that there should be an east/west connector street.
 Regarding the program being a federal one for retired individuals, Ms. Coble understood that there is a federal allowance that one could restrict those who can live in a certain area if these persons are retired.  She said there are two restrictions; one for the disabled and one for the elderly, but it is not in any way a guaranteed program.
 Mr. VanMatre explained that there is a federal statute that allows these requirements without being discriminatory.  He said if they did not meet that test, the federal Civil Rights laws would be violated.  Mr. VanMatre said no federal funds are being received, but they do intend to comply with the law to restrict the development in that fashion.
 Ms. Coble said her point is that the project continued to be discussed as some type of federal program and it is not.
 Mr. Kruse said he is not comfortable voting on the issue without further Planning and Zoning Commission review.  He asked if the Council sent the proposal back to the Commission, whether that would require another public hearing.  Mr. Boeckmann said the City had already met all of the public hearing requirements as long as the application is substantially in the same form.  Mr. Kruse said he would like to have the Commission's recommendation for the plan as it is now.
 Mr. Kruse made the motion that B342-97, as amended, be sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and defeated by voice vote.
 Mr. Janku said he would like to see the issue tabled to the next meeting in order for the agreements to be worked out regarding infrastructure concerns, including the east/west connector element.  He said the primary issues would be the cost of the Rock Quarry Road improvements and the matters related to the sidewalk and storm water.
 Mr. Beck asked if Mr. Janku was referring to east/west along the south boundary.  Mr. Janku said that was correct.  He did not know that it would even be practical, but wanted to see it addressed.
 Mr. Janku made the motion that B342-97, as amended, be tabled to the February 2, 1998, meeting.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved by voice vote.

B4-98 Authorizing payment of differential costs between the construction of a 12-inch and an 8-inch main serving Richland Heights, Phase 1 & 2.

 The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
 Mr. Beck explained that this is a fairly routine request in accordance with City policy.
 Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
 There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
 B4-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B5-98 Authorizing payment of differential costs between the construction of an 8-inch and a 6-inch main serving Richland Heights, Phase 1 & 2.

 The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
 Mr. Beck said this item is similar to the previous bill and it amounts to a $991.00 cost differential out of the Water and Light fund.
 Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
 There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
 B5-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows;  VOTING YES:  COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B9-98 Amending Chapter 29 of the Code of ordinances relating to the S-R District. (Scenic Roadway Area Overlay)

 The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
 Mr. Beck noted that there had been at least two public hearings and two work sessions by the Planning and Zoning Commission on this issue.  The Council had also had a work session.  This ordinance was drafted as a result of the Council's work session, and had been sent back to the Commission for their review.  The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation differed slightly from the Council's as it relates to Section (d) (5) -- contiguous roadway sections containing readily identifiable termini such as creeks, bridges, arterial streets or other prominent physical landmarks.  Mr. Beck explained an amendment sheet had been prepared that would retain this requirement in the ordinance.
 Mr. Kruse made the motion to amend B9-98 per the amendment sheet.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku.
 Mr. Campbell asked what was meant by "readily identifiable".  He asked if that meant a creek or a roadway.  Mayor Hindman recalled it being a creek or a street, some type of land mark.
 The motion to amend B9-98, made by Mr. Kruse and seconded by Mr. Janku, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
 Jan Pritchard, 3505 Rock Quarry Road, Chairman of the Scenic Road Committee for the Grindstone/Rock Quarry Neighborhood Association, thanked the Planning and Zoning staff for keeping the Association apprised of the ongoing issues.  She said it has been about six years since the process was started.  Ms. Pritchard said residents are very much in favor of the ordinance, and saw no reason for having the building height requirement as long as there is the 50-foot buffer.  The Association also believed there should be a contiguous roadway of some length with identifiable termini.  She said a corridor should be preserved with not too much worry associated with what is past the 50-foot buffer.  If the Council approves the ordinance tonight, Ms. Pritchard requested that the Council direct the Planning and Zoning Department to submit the Rock Quarry Road application for designation as a scenic road.  She said if the Sinclair Station is excluded from the designation, that is fine, but if the property on Rock Quarry Road is annexed, the station should be included because it will become the southern terminus on the east side of the road.  Ms. Pritchard thanked everyone for their efforts.
 Matt Harline, 301 McNab, said there are some areas in the City where a scenic road ordinance could help define those neighborhoods.  He said the Rock Quarry/Grindstone neighborhood is one of those.  He said residents have worked six years to convince the Council that this is how they want to define their neighborhood.
 Mariel Stephenson 2111 Rock Quarry Road, recalled one of her first topics before the Council was to explain the definition of a scenic road.  She said the scenic road ordinance is already serving as a selling point in real estate.  Ms. Stephenson thanked everyone for their hard work and urged passage of the ordinance.   Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
 Mr. Kruse thanked the neighborhood residents and other citizens across the City and County that have worked on the scenic roadway concept.
 B9-98, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B10-98 Rezoning property located on the north side of I-70 Drive NW and west of Garden Drive from A-1 to R-1.

 The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
 Mr. Beck explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval of the R-1 request (Tract A), and denial of the C-3 request (Tract B).  This had also been the recommendation of the Planning staff.
 Mayor Hindman understood that the applicant had asked for R-1 and C-3 zoning.  Because the recommendation had been for denial of the C-3, the ordinance was prepared per that recommendation - approval of the R-1 zoning only.  Since this was different than what was requested by the developer, an amendment sheet had been prepared.  He said the amendment would be put on the table and public comment would be asked for.  There was a discussion as to whether or not the tracts should be voted on separately.
 Mr. Boeckmann suggested that the Council invite anyone wishing to speak to address both the proposed R-1 and C-3 zoning request.  After hearing comments, the Council could decide whether or not to amend the ordinance to include the C-3 request.
 Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing on both Tracts A and B.
 Tim Capehaart, an employee of Marshall Engineering with offices at 300 St. James Street, explained that Mr. and Mrs. Moosmann had asked him to speak on their behalf.  Regarding the amendment, he thought it would be beneficial if the Council could address the issue as two different tracts.  That had been the original intention when Mr. Moosmann's rezoning request was filed.  Mr. Capehaart reported the R-1 zoning would be an extension of the current platting, which is already a part of the Moosmann property.  He said Mr. Moosmann felt the C-3 request is appropriate because this tract is located next to the Interstate.  Mr. Capehaart explained there are some large drainage areas in the area that still need to be addressed.
 Jay Edam, 1604 Apple Valley Court, said his property is approximately two lots removed from the C-3 request.  He had no opposition to Tract A (the R-1 zoning) but he did have very strong feelings of opposition to the C-3 request on Tract B.
 Mr. Kruse asked Mr. Edam if he could see Tract B from his home.  Mr. Edam said he could see it from his rear deck.
 Rob Emerson, 1600 Apple Valley Court, explained that his lot adjoins Mr. Moosmann's property.  He had two strong objections.  His first was that C-3 zoning butting up against an R-1 tract is not compatible.  He wanted to see buffer space between the properties.  His second objection was that there was no plan for any buffering to occur.
 Gary Dunkerly, 1910 Garden Drive, spoke about what had occurred in Valley View Garden West during its development.  This subdivision is located north of the present tract being considered.  There have been approximately 70 homes built in this development and, as a neighborhood, they had opposed the construction until the necessary infrastructure was manufactured to serve the additional homes that were going to be built.  The Planning Commission had agreed that the infrastructure was much less than what it should be, and the Council had also discussed it and realized there were major problems with this area.  Mr. Dunkerly said an agreement had been brought forward because of the existing problems.  The agreement outlined that only a portion of the development would be allowed for the first two years in order for improvements to the infrastructure to occur.  Mr. Dunkerly said the development is now completed, and the infrastructure residents had received from the City consisted of two stop signs.  Mr. Dunkerly is very concerned about any more development being approved until the City gets serious about the promises made to the neighborhood addressing the infrastructure.  He said they are talking about essentially everything coming out of the west development, through the old neighborhood to get out.  He said there are not any collector streets, and presently all of that traffic is coming through this neighborhood.  Mr. Dunkerly said a south entrance is needed for any new development, and now there is a chance to complete this entrance with the request before the Council now.  That is why he has a problem with approving the R-1 and letting the other tract sit there.  Mr. Dunkerly stated that would mean another 20 or 30 houses coming through the old neighborhood.  Residents are opposed to any rezoning in the area until the infrastructure needs are addressed.
 Mr. Kruse said it appeared the only way to get to Tract A would be to construct a road from I-70 Drive NW and, in order to develop it, a road would have to be built.  Mr. Janku said there was another way, but it could not be seen on the map.
 Mr. Dunkerly said any development of the two tracts should be a through street to I-70 Drive NW.
 Mr. Campbell asked if the Council could require that a street be built before there are any occupancy permits issued.  Mr. Hancock did not think so.  He asked if Mr. Campbell was referring to allowing the R-1 development, with the provision that the length of the street be constructed before any permits are issued.  Mr. Campbell said that was what he was asking.  Mr. Hancock said he did not think that had ever been done, but that did not mean that it could not be done.  He said there was no special zoning for off-site improvements.  Mr. Campbell said Mr. Dunkerly had brought up a good point and that he remembered all too well the discussion he was referencing.
 Mr. Dunkerly said he was also in support of the other two speakers regarding the commercial abutting the residential, even the proposed R-1.  He said it probably needed to be planned commercial down by I-70 Drive.  Mr. Dunkerly referred to the first public hearing this evening and the fact that the Council seemed to be happy about the fact that the developer was willing to contribute to the cost of the infrastructure.  He said the developer for the West development said he would contribute to the infrastructure, but because there was no agreement that could be reached between the City and this individual, that deal fell through.  Mr. Dunkerly reported residents got nothing.
 Ivan Neiburg, 2507 Lilac, lives in the older section as well, and wanted to echo what Mr. Dunkerly had said.  He is definitely opposed to the C-3, and based upon what Mr. Dunkerly had just said, he thought the whole application should be reconsidered.
 Gus Moosmann, the developer, said he would like to put a road through to I-70 Drive.  He said that is not the problem, the problem is that he can not afford to do so if there are not any lots to sell off to help pay for the road.  He said it would cost $100 per foot to put a street in, and he would have to come up with the money in order to do it.  Mr. Moosmann said some type of commercial was the only logical thing to do on Tract B.  He added that he did not like the C-P he got dealt on the storage units, and did not think it would work in this case.  Mr. Moosmann said the noise from the highway would not work for R-1 or even duplexes.
 Mr. Janku asked if Mr. Moosmann had explored the possibility of duplexes.  Mr. Moosmann said just because someone lives in rental property, did not mean that they cannot hear.  Mr. Janku agreed, but said there is a lot of development that surprisingly goes in adjacent to Highways 63 and 70.  Mr. Janku asked about the length of Tract B, and how many feet there was from I-70 Drive to Tract A.  Mr. Moosmann said it was approximately 800 feet.
 Mayor Hindman said it was hard for him to see how the Council could allow new houses to be built at this location, in addition to what already exists.  Mr. Moosmann said he could see their point, but hoped they could see his.  He said he had to make money off the ground before he could put the road in.
 John Parfet, 1810 Garden Drive, said this area had received a lot of development over the years from the asphalt plant constructed to the north, the expansion of the concrete plant, and construction of Valley View West.  Discussions have included the infrastructure that has not occurred.  He could understand the situation as far as the R-1 zoning and would reluctantly agree with it, contingent that it would give Mr. Moosmann the opportunity to develop the southern outlet that has been discussed many times.  Mr. Parfet said the Commission questioned why there was a need for so much of the C-3.  He said maybe there could be a compromise as far as a different type of zoning for a buffer and still allow Mr. Moosmann the opportunity to develop the property.  Mr. Parfet said he did not have a clear answer and basically opposes the whole thing in view of the problems created with the development of Valley View West.
 Mayor Hindman asked if he understood that Mr. Parfet would be reluctant but would agree to the idea of the R-1 zoning even though there is no assurance that there would be an outlet onto Business Loop 70.  Mr. Parfet said it was the chicken or the egg, but yes, he would agree to the R-1 zoning.  He said residents have been down this path before when the development of Valley View West was allowed, and at that time there had been some assurances the infrastructure would be put in place.  Mr. Parfet reported the development occurred and there is still no infrastructure.
 Mr. Beck said in this sector of the community there has been a lot of infrastructure completed.  He said the City was able to get the Highway Department to make a high priority of Route E, and had brought another road into the outer roadway down across the creek to establish two entrances into the subdivision.  There would soon be three entrances counting the road that will be improved to the north.  The City and State Highway Department are both investing a lot of money on roadway.  Mr. Beck would be the first to agree that a connection to the south is needed.  He suggested that Tracts A and B be considered together, by the developer, to create a planned layout for the area that would properly buffer the R-1.  Mr. Beck reported a compatible use to the R-1 was needed to off-set the street cost.  He said if the City were to force the street, we would have to buy the right-of-way and everything else.  As a resident of the community, Mr. Beck said he would not be too excited about doing that.
 Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
 The Council decided not to vote on the amendment sheet on Tract B which Mr. Boeckmann indicated would, in effect, deny that rezoning request.
 Mr. Campbell said he would vote against the rezoning on Tract A because current infrastructure does not allow traffic to move freely to the south.  He wanted to see an overall plan on how the R-1 tract would be buffered.
 Mr. Janku said when a person lives in an R-1 zoning district, there is a hope to have some idea of what is going to be next to you.  He said if the Council approved this as R-1, they would not know what was going to come in next.  He said it was going to be difficult for the developer to come up with something that would satisfy an R-1 home owner.  Mr. Janku thought the best thing to do was to ask the developer to come back with a plan to include R-1.  He said then those people who are buying R-1 will know what is going to be next to them and they can make up their own minds.
 Mayor Hindman said he was not going to support this request with the hope that the developer would come back with a planned development.
 B10-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, CROCKETT.   VOTING NO:  COFFMAN, HINDMAN, JANKU, CAMPBELL, KRUSE.  Bill defeated.
B11-98 Approval of revised PUD Plan for the Highlands, Phase 8, and variance to the subdivision regulations relating to maximum cul-de-sac length, and street closure.

 The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
 Mayor Hindman noted that a request had been received to table this item.   Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
 Mr. Kruse made the motion that B11-98 be tabled to the February 16, 1998, meeting.  The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.
 Mayor Hindman noted that the public hearing would be continued to the second meeting in February.

(A) Voluntary annexation of property located on the southwest corner of Vawter School Road and Old Mill Creek Road.

 Item A was read by the Clerk.
 Mr. Beck explained that this is a 20.5 acre tract of land located in southwest Columbia.  He said a single family residential structure is currently being planned.  This request had been reviewed by various City departments as well as by the County agencies.  Approval is recommended.
 Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
 There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

(B) Voluntary annexation of property located south of Thompson Road, east of and adjacent to Garden City Subdivision.

 Item B was read by the Clerk.
 Mr. Beck noted that this is a 19.6 acre tract of land adjacent to the Garden City Subdivision.  He said the preliminary plat for this had been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.  The request had been for 57 single family lots.
 Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
 There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

(C) Voluntary annexation of property located west of Bearfield Road and south of Nifong Boulevard.

 Item C was read by the Clerk.
 Mr. Beck explained this is a 35 acre tract located in southeast Columbia and presently zoned A-2 by the County.  The proposed subdivision contained 114 duplex lots, not yet approved or recommended by the City.
 Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
 There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

(D) Street construction on Brown Station Road.
 Item D was read by the Clerk.
 Mr. Beck pointed out that this project would be financed partially by tax bills against abutting property owners.  For that reason, he asked Mr. Patterson to make a presentation of the project for the record.
 Mr. Patterson explained that this public hearing is for determining the necessity for reconstruction of Brown Station Road from its southern termini with Route B north to Stark Avenue.  He said this segment of road is classified as an arterial street in the Major Thoroughfare Plan, and had been constructed as a highway many years ago as a link between Columbia and Hallsville.  He said the road is shown in the current Bicycle Plan as a Class II Bicycle Lane and is on the current Master Sidewalk Plan.  The existing roadway is approximately a 20-foot wide asphalt pavement with road side ditches and no sidewalks, with the right-of-way varying from about 65 feet to 75 feet in width.  The overall project length will be about 7,500 feet.  Current traffic volumes were calculated in 1996 and showed about 4,270 vehicles per day near Blue Ridge Road, 3,250 vehicles per day near Elm Grove Drive, and 3,280 vehicles per day at Starke Avenue.
 Mr. Patterson said it is proposed that Brown Station Road be constructed to a 38 foot wide collector street standard.  Additional widening will be necessary for turn lanes at the Blue Ridge Road intersection where a left turn bay is proposed.  Sidewalks will be constructed along the entire east side of the project, and along the west side, from the south end, north to Gene Drive.  Mr. Patterson reported this is a distance of about 3,200 feet on the west side.  He pointed out that sidewalks are not proposed as part of the project north of that location, on the west side, as this is primarily undeveloped land.  Sidewalk construction could be anticipated in conjunction with development as it occurs.  Any gaps that occur could be filled in with the tax billing process at a later date.
 Mr. Patterson said a crosswalk and a short segment of sidewalk will have to be constructed along the north side of Leeway in order to complete the sidewalk network for the school system.  At the time the project comes back, staff would make a determination and recommendation to the Council whether to do that by tax billing abutting property owners.  He said a determination would have to made as to how it would fit in with the City's sidewalk policy.  Staff felt it was important to have the work done in conjunction with the project.
 Since Brown Station Road is classified as a Class II Bike Lane, Mr. Patterson said it is proposed that parking be removed from the street and bicycle lanes be striped and signed to conform to the Class II requirements.  He mentioned that the COLT Railroad crossing near the south end of the project is being planned for improvement by the Water and Light Department.  The two departments would coordinate that improvement project so it ties in with the reconstruction of Brown Station Road.  Tree removal along the project is primarily limited to fence row trees, and the 36-inch oak trees along the Old Keene School House will be preserved.  During development of the final construction plan and during negotiation for right-of-way, Mr. Patterson said individual property owners will be consulted with regard to any replacement trees that might be necessary as a result of the project.  He said staff would certainly try to accommodate their wishes in order to assure that the replanting is at least equal to the trees being taken out as a result of the project.  A neighborhood meeting was held in January of last year in order to acquaint the property owners with the intent of the project, and 11 out of the 50 property owners were in attendance.
 Mr. Patterson explained that the resolution estimate for the project is $1,684,700 with funding for the project being proposed as having $105,700 coming from tax bills against abutting properties, approximately $718,000 from County rebate funds, and the remaining $861,000 from the quarter percent sales tax.  Since it is an arterial street, he explained that the abutting property owners are subject to a tax bill up to the amount of the curb and guttering or an equivalent cost.  That amount has been defined in this project as a maximum of $12.10 per lineal foot.  He said that would be for a maximum of 500 feet per parcel.  Mr. Patterson pointed out that there were some properties that may receive additional relief from tax bills by being residential R-1 lots that are through lots with limited or no access on Brown Station Road.
 Prior to levying the special assessments, Mr. Patterson pointed out that another public hearing would be held at which time the Council will determine the special benefits to any abutting properties, and also address at that time any relief for through lots that do not benefit from direct access to the street.  At that time, he suggested some benefits the Council may wish to consider as follows:  the curb and guttering will improve the appearance and maintainability of the lots along the street, better storm water run-off control will be provided, reconstruction will allow new driveway approaches to be built improving access to the properties, sidewalk construction will provide enhanced pedestrian safety along the corridor, and the new street surface will provide for more efficient snow removal and street cleaning.  The staff recommendation is to proceed with the project.
 Mrs. Crockett asked about the sidewalks and how far they would extend.  Mr. Patterson said the sidewalk on the east side would run the entire length of the street, and approximately 3,200 feet on the west side from the south end up to Gene Drive.
 Mayor Hindman understood this to be basically a two-lane road with a left-turn lane.  Mr. Patterson said it would be one lane in each direction with bicycle lanes on both sides, and a turn lane at Blue Ridge road is anticipated.  Mayor Hindman said he would be curious to see what was being planned for pedestrians crossing the street where there are three lanes.  He asked if the Council would be able to look at the plans as they are developed.  Mr. Patterson said it would be back for public hearing, and that the bid call would approve final plans.  He said efforts would be to concentrate pedestrian traffic on Leeway because it seems to be more commonly used due to the school.  Staff hopes to encourage most of the pedestrian crossing at that location.  Mayor Hindman said he would like to see the plans before they are in the final stages.
 Mrs. Crockett asked how long it would be before construction occurs from Starke Lane to Route B.  Mr. Patterson said that was not funded in the CIP at this point.  He noted that staff does not anticipate the construction of this portion to begin until 1999.  Mr. Patterson explained they did not want to have any interruption while Route B is still under construction.  Mrs. Crockett asked if it would be done in one phase.  Mr. Patterson said it is anticipated the work be done using one contract, but it is necessary to phase and stage the work in order to maintain traffic access.  He said there would be financial benefits in approving a single contract, even though the work would have to be phased.
 Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
 Dale Johnson, a Gene Drive resident, understood that the sidewalk would not extend north of Gene Drive.  Mr. Janku said it would extend on the east side of the street, not on the west side.  Mr. Johnson asked if there would be a need for him to build a sidewalk at his expense on his side of the street.  Mr. Patterson said that would be a decision the Council could and certainly would make at some point as development occurs.  He said there would be no assessment as part of this project, except for the street.
 Tom McNab, 104 Clinkscales, spoke in support of the project and said it has been needed for some time.  On the east side of the street, south of Blue Ridge, he understood the sidewalk would run along some industrial zoned property he owns.  Mr. Patterson said that was correct.  Mr. McNab said he did not necessarily have a problem with it, but he knew a sidewalk was needed on the west side of the street because of the school and the day care center.  He wondered, in essence, if the money would be better spent installing a sidewalk on the west side and eliminating one on the east side.  He did not know that there was that much foot traffic that would warrant both sides of the street having sidewalks.  Mr. McNab said he would support the work whatever the decision.
 Brian Snarr, spoke on behalf of the Boone County Farm Bureau.  He explained that this property is located at the COLT Railroad Line, on the south side of Brown Station Road.  He said they were supportive of the street work, but pointed out that there is a steep embankment next to their property and were concerned about the location of the sidewalk.  He said they would like to be involved in the planning of it.  Mr. Snarr noted that paying for improvements out of their budget would keep them from participating in other projects, such as books they donate to the schools.
 Steve Tubesing, 4916 Brown Station Road, was in favor of the overdue improvement to Brown Station Road.  He said the immediate extension did not really affect him because he lives just past Starke Lane; however, he has a problem with abutting property owners having to pay the $12.10 per foot assessment on the improvement.  He understood their properties would be improved, but said they are not the only people using the road or the sidewalks.  He asked why these residents are the only people being taxed.
 Mr. Janku explained that the entire City was paying for the work.  Mayor Hindman said the City tries to proportion the curb and gutter costs by what is felt to be a fair amount to assess the property owners.  He said the rest of the cost is paid by the City.  Mr. Campbell asked what the current estimated cost per foot was.  Mr. Patterson said collector streets are running from $180 to $200 a running foot.  He said on this project, assessments against property owners are only 6.2% of the estimated construction cost.  He said the other 93.8% is from sales tax and other monies.  Mr. Janku noted that $1.5 million was coming from the general fund.  Mr. Tubesing said the property owners on Brown Station Road are tax payers also.  He said they help pay for the curbs and gutters in other neighborhoods.  Mr. Janku indicated he paid for these costs also when he purchased his home.  Mr. Beck pointed out that over 60 miles of streets have been tax billed to abutting property owners, most of them in the area of $8 per foot.  He said now it is $30 per foot in residential areas.  His point is that streets like Worley, have had a big percentage of the construction costs paid for by the property owners living on them.  He said it had just been in recent years where the cost has been reduced to the curb and gutter cost.
 Diana Leach, 2908 Shingle Court, explained that she built her home in this area last summer.  She is a single parent and it took every dime she had to build her home, and now the City is wanting to tax bill another $500.  She did not have the money to pay for this.  She agreed the road needed to be improved.
 Mr. Campbell pointed out that there is a special provision for through lots.  Mr. Patterson said Ms. Leach's lot is one of those that would be subject to up to 50% relief because it backs up on Brown Station Road and is a residential R-1 lot.  Mr. Patterson noted that the tax bill amount could be paid over a period of ten years.
 Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
 Mr. Janku noted that there is minimal landscaping planned for the project.  He suggested that the City look at some adopt-a-spots at the intersection of Brown Station and Route B as both projects move forward.  Mr. Patterson pointed out that any additional right-of-way would be an additional expense.  Mr. Janku said he was not suggesting that, but rather noting it.  He said there is a new development going in at Brown Station and Route B.  He said it would be an opportune time to work with those property owners to develop some adopt-a-spots.
 Mr. Kruse pointed out that there is also nine feet between the curb and the sidewalk in most of the area.  He said there is room for street trees.
 Mrs. Crockett made the motion that the staff be  directed to proceed with final plans and specifications.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B1-98 Authorizing construction of a skateboard facility in Cosmo Recreation Area.

 The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
 Mr. Beck explained that public hearings had already been held on this issue.  He said this bill will authorize the staff to proceed with purchasing some of the items for the skateboard facility.  The estimated cost is $39,000, and the facility will be built in the Cosmo Park Recreation Area.
 Mr. Janku said he is in support of moving ahead with the project.  Although there was an agreement by the neighborhood association to defer some improvements at Oakland Park, he expected questions regarding improvements.  At the next meeting, Mr. Janku said there is an ordinance up for approval dealing with the Oakland improvements.  He thought it would be appropriate for a third of this cost to be borne by the general fund as opposed to delaying some of those improvements.  He said there had been a lot of testimony about the superiority of Cosmo Park as opposed to Oakland Park.  He thought there may be a better way to appropriate funding rather than to delay the tennis courts so significantly.
 B1-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B3-98 Authorizing land acquisition for a roadway corridor for the Southampton Drive/Green Meadows loop connection.

 The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
 Mr. Beck explained that City staff met with the Department of Transportation Department regarding the design of AC.  He said a proposed intersection would be located where Southampton ties into Route AC.  He said the State was looking for a commitment from the City as to a location.  Mr. Beck explained that this ordinance would authorize the staff to purchase approximately five acres of land on the south side of AC.  This will be the first step toward making the connection between Southampton and AC.  Mr. Beck noted in the last budget, there was a section in the CIP regarding the purchase of a corridor in advance of development.
 B3-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B6-98 Approving engineer's report and authorizing payment of differential costs for an 8-inch water main serving Bedford Walk, Plat 6.

 The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
 Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway, pointed out that before an expense can be incurred, an appropriation must be made.  He said there had been none made for this particular payment.  The bill which authorized the work, B317-96, provided for no appropriation.
 Mr. Malon explained that the account this work is being charged to is an account that is used for an annual level of expenditures for these projects.  At the time the ordinance was passed, there was an amount left in that account from the previous fiscal year that had been carried over.  He said Finance had checked this information and verified that the funds were in fact there and could be encumbered.  Mr. Malon pointed out that in December of 1996, the Finance Department brought forward an ordinance that appropriated one-half of the year's CIP for all of the accounts.  He said the Council also, at that time, passed a resolution authorizing that if a bond issue election was passed and bonds were sold, those amounts could be refunded by the bond issue.  Mr. Malon reported that issue passed in April, and in late April or early May another appropriation ordinance had been brought forward that reappropriated the rest of the funds for the balance of the CIP for that fiscal year.  He said funds were already appropriated for that entire fiscal year, and the funds were actually available at the time the ordinance was passed.  Mr. Malon said it did not appear there is any need to do another appropriation.
 B6-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B16-98 Authorizing acquisition of the Boone House located at 10 N. Fourth Street; authorizing assistance to raise funds for restoration.

 The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
 Mr. Beck explained that earlier public hearings had been held on this particular project as part of budget discussions.  He said the Council had allocated CDBG funds toward the project and the application has been made to HUD.  HUD has recently certified that grant money could be used for the acquisition and preservation of the property.  Mr. Beck reported intentions are not to rehabilitate the building or do any reconstruction work.  This ordinance would authorize the staff to begin negotiations for the purchase of the property from the Warren's.  He pointed out that all HUD guidelines would have to be followed regarding appraisals and how the property is negotiated.
 Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway, said he did not feel that the purchase of this house is an essential service to the citizens of Columbia.  He said even though this project involves grant money, it is still tax payer money.  He suggested that the City work within its means and spend the $2,000 the group collected for a plaque to be put somewhere on the property.
 Ms. Coble said she did not agree with Mr. Lane.
 Mr. Campbell said there was a large number of people in his Ward who felt that the preservation of historical structures is important.
 Mayor Hindman noted that CDBG monies were designed to be used for community development.  He saw it as being a sound community development investment and something that will mean a lot to a great many people in Columbia.  Mayor Hindman stated the home would be developed as a part of a significant attraction to the City.
 Mr. Janku said the reason acquisition of the property  is appropriate is because this is an area the City is attempting to redevelop.  He said the downtown area is an important central part of the community, and the project has been strongly supported by the Convention and Visitors Bureau because of the potential for tourism.
 B16-98 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

R10-98 Requiring removal of elevated walkway adjacent to Eighth and Cherry parking facility.

 The resolution was read by the Clerk.
 Mr. Beck commented that the attorney for the owner had sent a letter regarding the elevated walkway, and it had been indicated that the owner no longer wants to be involved in the project due to the cost.
 Mayor Hindman said the letter had made it sound very expensive and negative.  He said this bothered him as did the Glenn's entrance.  He asked what would happen with it.  Mr. Patterson said that case is different as the City built the garage up to Glenn's entrance.  He said the plans do not show that entrance being taken out or blocked up.  With regard to the letter from Ms. Menser's attorney, Mr. Patterson said the City's architect had looked at the walkway and realized there would be quite an expense in rebuilding it due to significant problems with the walkway itself and the deck that it ties into.  It had been determined it would be very expensive to rebuild the walkway to be both safe and accessible.
 Mr. Janku asked if there had been any other discussions with various property owners along Broadway.  Mr. Patterson said the Special Business District Board discussed it at their last meeting.  He said they forwarded a letter saying that in its present condition and based on the fact that it is understood to be required for an exit, the Board would support reconstruction of the walkway provided that the building and design costs would be covered by the building owner.  That decision was ascertained on the perceived hardship that would be placed on the downtown building owner if there was no rear exit to the building and the apartment became unusable.  The Board had gone on to say that the permit requirements for an upstairs apartment offered other solutions such as a rear exit by way of a fire escape and other means.  He said the Board favored those kinds of options over a raised walkway.  Mr. Patterson said it had been later determined that the walkway is not a required exit.
 Mr. Janku asked about the dumpster in the alley.  Mr. Patterson said some decision still needs to be made on it.  He said the architect had tried to find alternatives, but none of them will be inexpensive.
 The vote on R10-98 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

PR20-98 Establishing policy on spending City funds for playground equipment on public school property.

 The policy resolution was given second reading by the Clerk.
 Mr. Beck explained that this bill would establish Council policy as to how to prioritize the use of City money for playground equipment on school property.  He noted that any future decision on this would require a follow-up agreement with the School Board.  Mr. Beck reported the policy emphasizes the availability of funds.
 The vote on PR20-98 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Policy resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

 The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.
B2-98 Authorizing land acquisition to construct sidewalk along north side of West Broadway.

B7-98 Calling for bids for construction of a flood intake structure at Wetland Treatment Cell No. 3 in the McBaine bottoms.

B8-98 Approval of final plat of Hyde Park Planned Commercial Subdivision, Block 1, a major subdivision.

B12-98 Approval of Replat of Lot 83 of Country Club Villas III.
B13-98 Approval of Replat of Lot 73 of Country Club Villas III.
B14-98 Assessing special tax for weed nuisance at 2016 S. Deerborn Circle.
B15-98 Calling an election to be held April 7, 1998, to elect Mayor and Council members for Wards 3 and 4.

R21-98 Setting a public hearing regarding improvements at Oakland Park.
R22-98 Setting a public hearing regarding Westwinds Neighborhood Park Development Project.

R23-98 Setting a public hearing regarding special assessments against property benefitting from improvements made to Richardson Street from Ripley Street to William Street.

R24-98 Setting a public hearing regarding construction of an 8-inch water main on Chapel Hill Road.

R25-98 Setting a public hearing regarding construction of a 12-inch water main on Fairview Road and Ash Street.

 The bills were given third reading and the resolutions read with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:

R26-98 Authorizing agreement with Curators of the University of Missouri for Lee School Mural project.

 The resolution was read by the Clerk.
 Mr. Beck said in the Cultural Affairs budget this year, there was a provision made for smaller projects that would be recommended by the Committee.  He said this was one of two on the agenda this evening.
 The vote on R26-98 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R27-98 Authorizing agreement with Curators of the University of Missouri for Artificial Eye concert.

 The resolution was read by the Clerk.
 Comments were called for with none received.
 The vote on R27-98 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R28-98 Authorizing agreement with Memorial Day Weekend-Salute to Veterans Corporation for use of Columbia Regional Airport.

 The resolution was read by the Clerk.
 Mr. Beck noted that this agreement is a continuation of an event that has taken place at the airport over the Memorial Day weekend for several years now.  He said this group would have to comply with FAA requirements.
 The vote on R28-98 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R29-98 Assignment of lease agreement from Central Missouri Aviation to AKRW, Inc.

 The resolution was read by the Clerk.
 Mr. Beck noted that this is somewhat of a technical change in the lease agreement to keep the ownership current.
 The vote on R29-98 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R30-98 Authorizing staff to proceed with the preliminary action of issuing and refinancing Water and Electric Bonds.

 The resolution was read by the Clerk.
 Mr. Beck explained that this is a follow-up of the ballot issue approved by the voters.  He said the Water and Light Director and the Finance Director have been meeting with some of the advisors on the issuance of the bonds.  He said this would begin the process of developing the bond issue itself.  Mr. Beck reported a presentation will be made to the Water and Light Advisory Board later this week.  He said there would be recommendations and additional paper work coming back to the Council before actually moving forward with the sale of the revenue bonds.
 The vote on R30-98 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE.  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:
B17-98 Approving final plat of The Terebinths, Plat 111, a major subdivision.
B18-98 Approving replat of portions of Mataora and Charity Baptist Church Subdivisions.

B19-98 Rezoning property located at 127 S. Fifth Street and 415 Locust Street from M-1 to C-2.

B20-98 Rezoning property located at 209 and 213 Third Avenue from R-2 and O-1 to C-P.

B21-98 Approving engineer's final report; authorizing payment of differential costs for an 8-inch water main serving Avalon Subdivision.
B22-98 Authorizing construction of an 8-inch water main on Chapel Hill Road.

B23-98 Authorizing construction of a 12-inch water main on Fairview Road and Ash Street.

B24-98 Accepting conveyances for water and utility purposes.
B25-98 Authorizing construction of improvements at Oakland Park.
B26-98 Authorizing construction of Westwinds Neighborhood Park.
B27-98 Authorizing agreement with Markey and Associates for engineering and design services for the renovation of the Oakland Park swimming pool.

B28-98 Approving the engineer's final report, levying and assessing special assessments for improvements to Richardson Street from Ripley Street to William Street.

B29-98 Accepting the bid of C.L. Richardson Construction Company for construction of Sanitary Sewer District No. 138 and appropriating funds.

B30-98 Amending Chapter 22 of the Code of Ordinances to allow the assessment of the cost of construction of local non-residential streets.

B31-98 Amending Chapter 11 of the Code of Ordinances as it relates to storage of unlicensed motor vehicles.

B32-98 Amending FY 98 Pay Plan.
B33-98 Authorizing appropriation of $50,000 for a Comprehensive Community Child Care System.

B34-98 Authorizing acceptance of a domestic violence enforcement grant and appropriating funds.
(A) Public Notification of Pending Subdivision Plats.
 Mr. Beck noted that this report had been requested by the Council.  He said Mr. Hancock had checked with some other cities to see how they handled the situation.
 Mr. Campbell asked that the issue be put on the work session schedule.  He thought an extensive discussion would be required.  Mr. Janku asked that it be moved up quickly.

(B) Oakland Park Pond Improvements.
 Mr. Beck said the School wanted to apply for some grants to conduct studies of the pond as a class project.  He said the staff did not anticipate any problems with this request.
(C) Oakland Gravel Road Street Lights.
 Mr. Beck noted that this report had been requested by the Council and it had been prepared by the Water and Light Director.  Mr. Beck said he had written a few notes on the bottom of the report as to whether or not the Council wanted to proceed prior to the major Oakland improvement project.
 Mr. Janku said it was an important project and asked if he understood that the project would not begin until 1999.
 Mr. Campbell said he had a similar request, although the street had already been built.  He was referring to Smith Drive.  He asked for a staff report to go along with this one.  He said the Council had previous discussions regarding a street light policy -- when lights should be installed and the magnitude of that lighting.
 Mrs. Crockett thought it made sense to put the street lighting in when the road is worked on, but she wanted to see the road put in as soon as possible since there are no sidewalks or street lights.
 Mayor Hindman asked about the less expensive 100 watt fixtures.  He wondered if that was a temporary measure.  Mr. Beck said it was.  Mr. Janku thought it would help, and that the north end of the street is particularly bad.  Mrs. Crockett said a lot of that property is located in the County (the east side).  Mr. Janku thought the poles were all on the west side of the street.
 Mr. Janku said the poles are set back and thought it would not be necessary to move them as part of the construction.  He asked why it would cost more to install the lighting now if the poles would not be moved at the time of construction.  Mr. Malon said it would depend on what kind of lighting levels that is wanted on the street.  He said if it was going to be improved to collector street standards, there would be more lights of higher intensity to provide uniform lighting down the street.  He said staff would install more and different kinds of lights in order to get the uniformity down the pavement.  He said the question was what standard did the Council want to use.  Mr. Janku thought the Council should delay a decision until it can be discussed at a work session.
 Mr. Campbell asked about Smith Drive and whether or not it was located in the City or County.  Mr. Malon said it was in the Hamlet, which he thought was in the City.  Mr. Campbell said when street lighting comes up for discussion, he would like Smith Drive included.
 Mr. Kruse said he would like to see the standards addressed.

(D) Golden Knights Parachute Team.
 Ms. Coble made the motion that the request be approved.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Coffman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

 Upon receiving the majority vote of the Council the following individuals were appointed to the following boards:
Lane, Henry, G.,k 1816 E. Broadway, Ward 6 - term to expire 6/17/98

Allen, Ronald D., 600 W. Covered Bridge Road, County, term to expire 2/16/01

 With regard to street lights, Mr. Kruse said he had written a memo to Mr. Beck about the replacement of the lights on Forum.  He was hopeful that this work would be done after the work session, and asked if it had been scheduled yet.  Mr. Beck said if it had, staff could put it on hold until after the work session.
 Mr. Campbell asked for a report regarding the scheduling of soccer practice fields, particularly those at Fairview.  He said the residents in the neighborhood feel that young people are drag racing down the street to get first access to the fields.  Mr. Janku said the problem is that the City removes all the goal posts at Cosmo and there are no fields available in the winter.  He said the only fields available are the ones like Fairview.  Mr. Janku reported it was a problem of maintenance of the fields.  Mr. Campbell said he would like the report to take into consideration Mr. Janku's comments.
 Mr. Coffman made the motion that the staff be directed to resubmit the application for the designation of Rock Quarry Road as a scenic road.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
 Mr. Coffman understood the City had received support from MoDOT regarding the intersection of Stadium, East Pointe, and Audubon.  He was hopeful this project could move swiftly.  He understood they were waiting now for Hollywood Theatres to put together an engineering plan.  Mr. Coffman asked about the possibility of putting in a crosswalk, and understood that was not what the Theatre had originally planned.  He asked if the Theatre would not agree to install the crosswalk, whether the Council could enhance the project to some degree to get this completed.  Mr. Janku said street lighting should be addressed also.  He said part of the problem is that people cannot be seen when they cross the street.  Mr. Campbell thought it should be a policy that when lights are installed, walk lights should also be put in.
 Mr. Coffman made the motion per his above crosswalk request.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
 Regarding budget billing, Mr. Coffman said he was hopeful the City would have the ability to offer budget billing before much longer.  Mr. Janku said they had all been hoping that for a long time.
 Mr. Campbell asked if there was anything the Council needed to do in order to get the playground equipment taken care of at Grant School.  Mr. Beck thought it could be taken care of without further Council action.
 Mr. Janku said Mr. Malon had told him a while back that there was a plan being developed to landscape their building on the Business Loop across from the Power Plant.  He was hopeful the project would be brought forward with the spring planting that would soon be occurring.
 Mr. Janku said he would like staff to look into a policy about sidewalks being tied to building permits rather than when the plat plans are submitted.  He was referring to when streets are improved after the plat is in place.
 Ms. Coble had a letter she would pass along to the staff.  The letter referenced removal of parking, or prohibition of truck traffic, on south Fourth Street and Conley.  She said something needed to be done to avoid truck traffic going through the residents' yards.
 Ms. Coble asked that at the next meeting when the Council hears the measure on authorizing the Domestic Violence Enforcement Grant, they receive a full report on the process for hiring personnel.
 Mayor Hindman asked about the street cleaning policy.  He said it has been his observation that the streets presently look like a coal mining town.  He realizes the City saves money by using the cinders that would otherwise have to be hauled to the dump.  He thought the City should be obligated to clean them up also.  Mr. Patterson said that the street sweepers are out just as soon as the weather permits.  He said they have been out already, but it takes almost a month to go around the entire City.  Mrs. Crockett said the problem was made worse where the sweepers have to go around cars parked on the streets.  She wondered if there was any way to post signs the day before sweeping.  Mr. Kruse asked that, if possible, the streets that get the heaviest application of cinders be the first to be cleaned.
 Mr. Janku commended the Public Works Department for sweeping the streets before bicycle events.  He said both the Columbia Bicycle Club and the Columbia Track Club received notices requesting that the City be advised when these groups schedule events so the streets could be swept to ensure the safety of the routes.  He said both groups were very appreciative of this service, and had published it in their newsletters.
 Mr. Beck reminded everyone that there is an alternative to cinders.  He added that he had been told the City had done an outstanding job of getting traffic moving during very difficult conditions last week.  He said this person had expressed their thanks for the City using the materials they did.  Mr. Beck stated the Public Works Department had done a great job.  The Council agreed.  Mr. Beck thought the material being used was appreciated during icy weather, but it is a question of how fast it can be cleaned up.
 The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
     Respectfully submitted,

     Penny St. Romaine
     City Clerk