INTRODUCTORY
The City Council of the City
of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday,
December 21, 1998, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The
roll was taken with the following results: Council members COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, and HINDMAN were present. The City
Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department Heads were also
present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular
meeting of December 7, 1998, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a
motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Ms. Coble.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Hindman noted that
R263-98 would be added under the Consent Agenda. The agenda,
as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice
vote on a motion made by Mrs. Crockett and a second by Mr. Campbell.
SPECIAL ITEMS
None.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
Mayor Hindman welcomed Cub Scout Pack #2, Den 11, to the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B364-98 Authorizing
construction of road, parking and trail improvements at the Cosmopolitan
Recreation
Area by city forces.
The bill was read by the
Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted the area on
the overhead. He pointed out that funding for the project had been
included in the budget.
Mr. Hood explained the project
would include road, parking, and trail improvements. The staff recommendation
is for completion of two parking lots in the north end of the park. Mr.
Hood said the project also includes resurfacing the old farm road to make
it part of the Bear Creek system.
Mr. Janku asked about the
parking next to the skateboard park. He asked if the parking lot would
preclude expanding the park. Mr. Hood said it would not. He explained
that in planning and designing the skateboard park, staff allowed for the
possible future expansion of the area to the east, and the parking lots are
being proposed to the west. He said some of the earth work done on
the park actually laid the base for the parking lots.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B364-98 was read with the
vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading
as follows:
B370-98 Authorizing
construction of an 8-inch water main serving Richland Heights, Phase
1 & 2;
payment
of differential costs above those to install a 6-inch water main; appropriating
funds.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
fairly routine project would be accomplished in accordance with City policy
with Water and Light funds paying for those costs over and above what the
developer is required to contribute. In this case, the cost difference
is $2,560.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B370-98 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared
enacted, reading as follows:
B371-98 Authorizing
construction of an 8-inch water main serving Indian Hills Subdivision.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
subdivision is located in northeast Columbia and was developed outside of
the City many years ago. He noted this had been a federally subsidized
subdivision.
Mr. Beck reported two and
four inch water lines had been installed when the subdivison was developed,
which is inadequate to provide good fire protection to the area. He
stated the City had budgeted Community Development Block Grant funds to replace
the main line serving the subdivision, and this is estimated at $42,500. He
pointed out that this subdivision is in Water District No. 2, and that is
one of the reasons the issue has not been addressed.
Mr. Janku noted that there
had been a fire in the subdivision a few years back and the flows were not
adequate to fight it.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Crockett said she was
glad to see this project move forward because the residents of the area have
waited a long time for the improvement.
B371-98 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted,
reading as follows:
B372-98 Authorizing
construction of a 6-inch water main serving Indian Hills Subdivision.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
In addition to the previous
project just addressed, Mr. Beck explained that other water lines in the
subdivision would also be replaced -- two to four inch lines, with six inch
lines. He said the estimated $25,000 cost for the project will come
from the Retained Earnings Account in the Water and Light Department budget.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B372-98 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted,
reading as follows:
B373-98 Authorizing
construction of a 12-inch water main under Clark Lane along the east
side of
Creekwood
Parkway, calling for bids.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Malon explained that
this project would be tie a major loop together just east of Home Depot. He
said the largest part of the project would be boring underneath Clark Lane. He
said it would be 140 feet deep and a 24-inch pipe and 3 to12-inch carrier
pipes will be installed in order to meet the Highway Department's specifications. Mr.
Malon stated once that is complete, the City would be installing about 335
feet of 12-inch main to tie the two ends together.
Mrs. Crockett asked if the
pipe would be bored under the new section of pavement. Mr. Malon said
the boring for the pipe will go from shoulder to shoulder underneath the
highway, so the pavement will not be touched.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B373-98 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared
enacted, reading as follows:
B377-98 Rezoning
property located on the southeast corner of I-70 Drive Southeast and
Woodridge
Drive from R-2 and C-1 to C-P.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
is approximately a six acre tract in northeast Columbia.
Mr. Hancock stated there
is also a request to leave a 100-foot "no build" buffer between the proposed
C-P and the single family development in the Woodridge neighborhood. He
noted that the proposed commercial uses are included in the ordinance, which
are basically C-1 uses. He said any building height on the property
was requested to be limited to two stories.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Tom Schneider, an attorney
with offices at 11 N. Seventh, spoke on behalf of the applicants, George
Ousley, Jr. and Wayne Sells. He explained that the front two and one-half
acres is now zoned open C-1, and the back three and one-half acres is zoned
R-2, but is platted into lots. He noted the property is currently exempt
from the landscaping ordinances.
Mr. Schneider explained the
proposal to rezone the back portion had been before the Council six months
ago, but had been withdrawn. At this time, he said the applicants felt
they have a better plan and they also have a prospective purchaser. He
reported that purchaser to be Staybridge Suites, the Holiday Inn version
of the Residence Inn. He circulated photos of a typical Staybridge
Inn as well as a typical floor plan .
Mr. Schneider explained two
significant advantages to the plan before the Council. He said it would
bring the open C-1 located on the front portion of the property under planned
commercial, so the Council can monitor all of the development amenities such
as the location, size, height, circulation of traffic, landscaping, lighting,
etc. Secondly, the applicants are proposing to devote the rear 100
feet as natural, vegetative buffer and, in fact, would be willing to deed
it to the neighborhood association. In terms of any conditions that
might be considered this evening, Mr. Schneider asked that a height limitation
not be superimposed at this time. He said the property would be reviewed
at a later date when a C-P plan is presented for approval. At that
time, he suggested that some of the development amenities, such as a height
limitations, be addressed. Mr. Schneider reported the state-of-the-art
Staybridge Suites now are typically three stories.
Mr. Campbell asked if the
applicant was willing to commit that this development would be a Staybridge
Suites. Mr. Schneider suggested that Mr. Ousley could address that
question. As part of the process, Mr. Campbell suggested that
several issues be addressed; all buildings be finished on the back in a manner
that would be compatible with the neighborhood, that all storage be fully
screened from the neighborhood, that there be no light pollution spilling
out to the neighborhood, sound control, and a solid wooden fence to prevent
lights from the traffic (parking) spilling into the neighborhood. Mr.
Schneider suspected the applicant would expect every one of those issues
to be addressed by the Council when they come back with a C-P plan.
Mrs. Crockett asked how the
applicant would feel about a 150 foot buffer strip, with the additional 50-feet
being the right-of-way on Sugar Tree Lane that will not be built. Mr.
Schneider said he did not know if the numbers would work. He explained
that the Staybridge consultants would be looking at the site to determine
the amount of square footage they would need to use. He noted the 100-foot "no
build" zone would not be used for any accessory purpose, only natural vegetation.
Mayor Hindman asked if the
Staybridge information had been presented to the neighbors. Mr. Schneider
said it had not, they had met with them several times in the spring and again
just before the Planning and Zoning hearing. He said at that time,
the negotiations with Staybridge had not firmed up. Mr. Schneider had
just received the diagrams a few days ago and he was sure the neighbors had
not seen them at this point.
Mrs. Crockett asked if a
Staybridge Suite is constructed, whether there would be an entrance and exit
off of Woodridge. Mr. Schneider replied that would primarily be up
to the Council.
Mrs. Crockett wondered if
the Council could approve a C-P conditional upon the applicants building
a Staybridge Inn substantially similar to the materials provided this evening. Mr.
Boeckmann explained that the Council could limit the use to a type of motel. He
said it would be risky splitting up the C-P plan approval from the zoning.
Tom Butcher, a local contractor,
2504 Hillshire Drive, said they believed there is a need for an extended
stay property in the City of Columbia. He said they have looked at
Residence Inn, Courtyard, and all of the others. He said they own and
operate Holiday Inn properties in other parts of the country and are very
pleased with them. Mr. Butcher reported the facilities basically cater
to the traveling clientele. He explained that business travelers enjoy
being in a residential atmosphere rather than a commercial atmosphere. Regarding
the lighting situation, Mr. Butcher noted that there would be no parking
in the rear of the building. He said all parking takes place in the
front. The back of the building would have a sport courtyard, which
would consist of a basketball net and a separate building that would house
an indoor pool, exercise room, and other such amenities. He said they
are willing to go along with this project as long as financing is acceptable. Mr.
Butcher noted the projections are to begin construction in early spring,
with an opening scheduled no later than next October.
Mr. Kruse asked if the open "U",
where the sport courtyard is to be located, will face toward the neighborhood. Mr.
Butcher replied that it would. He explained that the front of the building
would face north with a small entryway to it, and the rest of the units come
back in a "U" shape on the east and west end of the property.
Regarding a service road
going to the west, Mr. Butcher said they did not want their entrance there,
they want their entrance coming off of I-70 for more of a residential look. He
said they do not like traffic taking short cuts through their parking lot. He
said the only thing that could change that would be if the Fire Department
needed to get through. He said that could be easily handled by having
a break away gate system. Mr. Kruse said he understood there would
be no light pollution in the summer because of the trees, but in the winter
that would not necessarily be true. Mr. Butcher agreed. Mr. Kruse
said he would like to see an assurance that any exterior lighting be full
cut offs where the light is directed down toward the ground surface, as opposed
to out. Mr. Butcher said there would be some light flooding out
of the guest room windows, but as far as the courtyard and indoor pool, that
would all be low lighting, nothing that would shine up high. He said
there would be some lighting that would illuminate the parking lot to the
east and west. Mr. Kruse said that was understood.
Mr. Janku asked if there
would be a restaurant as part of this facility. Mr. Butcher said they
were just looking at the property for a motel and anything else that comes
in, they would want restrictions on as far as the elevations of the properties
set in front. He said there is no restaurant facility with their proposal.
Mrs. Crockett asked how much
property they would be purchasing. Mr. Butcher believed it to be 2.33
acres, 200 feet deep running north to south, 500 feet running east to west.
Mayor Hindman asked if they
were willing to have some kind of buildings put in between their facility
and the highway. Mr. Butcher said they were as long as they have height
restrictions.
George Ousley, property owner,
explained that it would hamper negotiations with Staybridge if the Council
were to say that was the only thing that could in on the property. He
would prefer this type of development, but he has nothing in writing at this
time. Regarding the question about the 150 foot buffer, Mr. Ousley
stated the neighborhood had agreed to his generous offer of 100 feet. He
said 150 feet would not work because it would take 50 feet off the land in
the front and there would be nothing he could do with the remaining land.
Mr. Campbell said it was
one thing to have an attractive motel, but quite another thing to consider
an open C-P zone.
Mrs. Crockett asked Mr. Ousley
if he would be in favor of tabling the issue until a contract has been worked
out, She liked the idea of the Staybridge Suites, but not open C-P zoning. She
felt the neighborhood would approve. Mr. Ousley said it was fine with
him if the Council chooses to table this issue.
Mayor Hindman noted there
is also the possibility of neighborhood concern, as well as Council concern,
about the pads between this property and the roadway. He said the Staybridge
looked like a great neighborhood addition, but he did not think a couple
of fast food places in front of it would amount to such a great neighborhood
addition.
Ms. Coble said she would
not favor the two story limitation given the project plan. She said
the way it has been constructed in other places, it looks like a really nice
development.
Mr. Kruse asked about the
large billboard on the west end of the property. Mr. Ousley said he
had requested that it be removed by the middle of January. Mr.
Kruse asked if he planned to put any more similar billboards up on the other
piece of property. If so, Mr. Kruse said he would offer a condition
that Mr. Ousley not be allowed to do that. Mr. Ousley said he had not
been contacted by any sign companies. Mr. Kruse asked if he would be
opposed to a condition limiting such a thing. Mr. Ousley said he did
not know if he would be or not. He asked if it would do him any good. He
reported he would like to think about it.
Ben Battson, 100 Arbor, President
of the Woodridge Neighborhood Association, said their position has been to
oppose any rezoning, except O-P, because of the type of businesses it would
allow adjacent to the neighborhood. He said residents are much
more comfortable with the R-2 zone, and they purchased their homes knowing
it was in place. Mr. Battson reported they are not opposed to looking
at a specific proposal and would welcome the opportunity to look at this
plan.
George Dodge, 3637 Evergreen
Lane, said he had been asked to speak for several people who could not make
it to the meeting due to illness and bad weather. He said some
time ago, these same people had said they did not want a trailer court in
the back of their property. He said the Council felt, since the land
was properly zoned, a trailer court could be placed on this property. Not
having seen the hotel plan, he said residents would like to see this issue
tabled so they can look at the new plan. Mr. Dodge stated they do not
want to stop progress, they just want to limit the type of progress that
will be adjacent to them.
There was a discussion as
to how long the issue should be tabled. It was decided four weeks would
supply enough time.
Roy Fullerton, 3012 Evergreen,
said it was hard to know which stand to take without knowing what is being
proposed. He is in favor of tabling the issue.
Mrs. Crockett made the motion
to table B377-98 to the January 19, 1999, meeting. The motion was seconded
by Ms. Coble.
Mr. Janku said before the
Council meets on the issue again, he would like to know what type of improvements
could be required as part of the C-P, particularly the road and pedestrian
access to and from the subdivision. In the past, Mr. Hancock said off-site
improvements have been limited to streets, sidewalks, and things like that. Mr.
Janku said he thought this should be on-site. He was wondering what
could be required, given the narrowness of the roadway, in the way of pedestrian
access. He said normally, a sidewalk would not be required because
the road is not improved. Mr. Janku asked that the staff keep that
in mind. Mr. Hancock said he would make a note of it.
Mr. Kruse said it would also
be helpful, before the next discussion on the issue, if the staff could figure
out the footage involved to determine whether another billboard to the east
of the existing one would be permissible -- given the 2,000 foot spacing
requirement on I-70. If not, he said there would not be any need for
a condition. If the spacing would allow another one, Mr. Kruse would
offer another condition when the issue is brought up again.
The motion made by Mrs. Crockett
to table, seconded by Ms. Coble, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman continued the
public hearing to January 19, 1999.
B378-98 Amending
Chapter 29 of the City Code to allow certain office uses as conditional
uses in
District
R-3.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that there
had been interest shown by a local hospital to lease some property on the
Stephens College campus, on an arterial collector street intersection. He
said the issue had been referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission with
a recommendation that came back on a 5-2 vote to allow it under certain conditions. He
said the recommendation is to allow office uses in R-3 areas in an institutional
setting, such as a college or hospital campus, provided the structure is
located on a collector, arterial, or local non-residential street. A
conditional use permit, good for up to two years, would have to be authorized
by the Board of Adjustment. To go for a period of longer than two years,
the applicant would have to go back to the Board of Adjustment.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B378-98 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared
enacted, reading as follows:
B379-98 Amending
Chapter 25 of the City Code to modify provisions relating to sidewalk
requirements
in industrial zoned districts and along expressways and marginal access
roads.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that the Council
had suggested that the staff look at repealing the section of the ordinance
where a sidewalk is not required. He said the staff looked into it
and has made one additional recommendation regarding where sidewalks should
be constructed, which is along expressways and along industrially zoned districts. Mr.
Beck reported that only the Council could waive the sidewalk construction
requirement.
Mr. Janku said he brought
this up when he heard about the replatting of the K-Mart Subdivision, and
it had been mentioned there would not necessarily be a sidewalk required
on Stadium because it is an expressway. He said the Council has talked
about constructing sidewalks on portions of Stadium for a long time, particularly
near the University. He had no idea why the Council would not want
something like that along Biscayne Mall also, between the roadway and the
parking lot, or even in some other areas where there tends to be some pedestrian
traffic. Mr. Janku was not sure this ordinance would accomplish that
because Mr. Hancock had indicated that Stadium is considered an expressway,
and under the language proposed tonight, this would still not be achieved. He
asked Mr. Hancock if that was correct. Mr. Hancock said it was not.
Mr. Hancock explained that
the Commission chose to recommend maintaining the exemption for freeways. They
did not think it would be a good idea to have sidewalks along I-70 or 63,
but the Commission chose to leave it in for frontage roads and expressways. He
said there would be sidewalks on one or both sides of the road when deemed
appropriate by the Commission. He said the language, "when deemed appropriate
by the Commission", is left over language from something that has been in
the ordinance for a long time relative to sidewalks along those kinds of
streets in industrial areas. Mr. Hancock reported that option was left
in -- to require sidewalks along expressway and, furthermore, to require
them along what is referred to as frontage roads (a road that is between
a development and an expressway or a freeway).
Mr. Janku suggested that
the ordinance be amended to require sidewalks except when a variance is requested. Mayor
Hindman said he would prefer that as well. Mr. Hancock thought that
would be automatic. Mayor Hindman said the language, "where deemed
appropriate by the Commission", seemed to be questionable. He thought
it should be a requirement.
Mr. Boeckmann suggested that
the ordinance be tabled to the next meeting in order to have time to work
out the language.
Mr. Beck questioned whether
the City would really want a sidewalk on both sides of a frontage road like
I-70 Drive, next to the fencing. In that case, Mayor Hindman said there
should be waiver. Although, he thought the applicant should have to
explain why a variance is requested.
Mr. Patterson said it was
staff's interpretation that this ordinance would apply as part of the platting
in new development, since it is an amendment to the subdivision, and it would
not be retroactive to old ones unless the City chooses to go back and tax
bill.
Mr. Beck said the City would
still not have policy guidance for reconstruction of an outer roadway, which
is a different part of the ordinance.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Mr. Janku made the motion
that B379-98 be tabled to the January 4, 1999, meeting for the purpose of
preparation of an amendment. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman
and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman continued the
public hearing to January 4, 1999.
(A) Construction
of the C-6 Trunk Sewer line to Bearfield area.
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Patterson explained that
this is a proposed joint project between the City and the Boone County Regional
Sewer District for purposes of eliminating the lagoon that serves the Bearfield
Subdivision. He noted that this is one of the projects identified in
the November, 1997 ballot issue. The City's responsibility, with
regard to the project, is the construction of the sewer line up to the 80-acre
point. Beyond that point, the Sewer District will pay for all costs
of line and the elimination of the lagoon. The estimated project cost
is $212,000, of which $99,200 would be that portion bringing the sewer line
up to the 80-acre point. Mr. Patterson said staff will be bringing
an interconnection agreement back to the Council for the project. Generally,
the agreements are in companion with the public hearing or prior to it; however,
he explained the time line on this is being dictated by the Missouri Department
of Natural Resources since the Sewer District is planning to use State Revolving
Loan funds for their portion of the project. The agreement which will
address customer service, the rates, and the annexation requirements will
come back to the Council in a timely manner to allow consideration prior
to actual construction. Mr. Patterson reported the City will be acquiring
the easements needed in building the line, and the Sewer District will be
paying the City for their portion of it.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Norling,
1909 E. Gans Road, explained that part of this system would go across their
property and would cut it in half. Mrs. Norling said she had
spoken with a representative of the Sewer District and was unaware this had
been put in the hands of the City. She asked if the City and Sewer
District would be working together to correct a problem. Mr. Patterson
said that was correct, and he added that the project had been initiated by
the District. He further explained the City Council approved a policy
resolution which dictates conditions of service for providing sanitary sewer. Generally
speaking, Mr. Patterson said each case is determined by the City Council,
but usually in a case like this if the resident desires to connect to the
City sewer, an annexation agreement or a pre-annexation agreement, whichever
is appropriate, would have to be entered into with the City. He
said the only way that could be waived would be by City Council action. He
said if the resident is not able to annex now, a pre-annexation agreement
would state that when the property is contiguous to the City, then annexation
would occur. Mr. Patterson said that is not a condition for the sewer
line going across the property, but a condition for connection to the sewer
line.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Janku asked where the
flow from the Bearfield lagoon goes currently. Mr. Patterson explained
that it follows the drainage area to Clear Creek. He said the drainage
goes across the Norling property.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that the staff be directed to proceed. The motion was seconded by Ms.
Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(B) Street improvements
on Scott Boulevard from Bellview Drive to Brookview Terrace.
Item B was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
is a joint project between the City and the County. He noted that the
City allocated part of their ballot issue toward joint projects with the
County.
Mr. Patterson explained that
the project initially began as a safety hazard litigation project, but due
to the reconstruction of the Hinkson Bridge and the definite need for trying
to correct some other problems on the road, it was expanded to an 1,800 foot
project with an estimated cost of $1,200,000. About 38 percent
of the project is in the City and the remainder is in the County. He
noted that the County has committed $900,000 to the project, and the remaining
$300,000 will come from City sales tax monies.
Mr. Patterson reported that
currently, Scott Boulevard is designated as an arterial street on the Major
Thoroughfare Plan, but it is only an existing 20 foot asphaltic concrete
road with open ditches and no sidewalks. He said the existing road
transitions from a flood plain elevation very sharply upward to Hillcrest
where there have been many accidents and near-accidents occurring. He
pointed out that the intention is to construct a 38-foot wide collector width
street, and although it is designated as an arterial road, it will have Class
II bike lanes on both sides (although currently Scott Boulevard is not designated
as a Class II). It is felt with all of the development and other activities
going on in the area, it would be a benefit to provide the bicycle lanes. He
said a five foot wide sidewalk is also intended along the entire east side
of the project. He said that would accommodate pedestrian traffic at
least on one side at this point.
Mr. Patterson noted a couple
of design constraints which limited the flexibility with what could and could
not be done. One was a 36-inch concrete water line that comes from
the City Water Treatment Plant back up to the City along the west side of
the road. Any movement of the line would be extremely expensive so
the project was designed to stay away from it as much as possible to avoid
relocation. Secondly, the grade itself becomes a challenge and there
will be areas with an approximate 10 percent grade on the street. Lastly,
Mr. Patterson reported there is a slight curvature in the horizontal
alignment. He said they are having to tie together elevation, horizontal
alignment, and balance it with the water line. He said this resulted
in a design that initially starts on the south end toward the east side of
the road, and it comes back up to being more centered on the north end. He
also pointed out that staff proposes to go ahead and acquire right-of-way
for an arterial street for future widening. At this time, there is
100 feet of right-of-way which will allow that any further development along
this street will be properly set back to allow for future expansion without
having further damages at a later time. He noted there had been one
neighborhood meeting, and the staff has been meeting with residents in response
to various questions.
Mr. Patterson explained because
this project is on an arterial street, it is subject to the City's tax bill
policy -- the Council deems that benefits have accrued to abutting properties
and may make assessments in the amount of the cost of curb and guttering
or its equivalent. That amount has been estimated to be not more than
$12 per foot on this project. He said the City does not have the authority
to tax bill outside of the City, so only a portion of the properties would
be tax billed. He said that would have to be addressed at the time
the Council levies special assessments. At that time, Mr. Patterson
reported the Council may wish to consider there have been improvements in
the form of curb and guttering (which improves the appearance and maintainability
of the property), there have been storm drainage improvements, there has
been enhanced pedestrian and bicycle safety as a result of improvements,
and the fact that the new street will typically improve the maintenance along
the street.
Mrs. Crockett asked if the
County has any manner of collecting tax bills against properties being benefitted
by improvements. Mr. Patterson said he was not aware of them having
any such authority. Mr. Beck said the County can only establish neighborhood
improvement districts when petitions are received from the residents within
a neighborhood. Mrs. Crockett said that did not seem fair to make all
of the improvements and then have these properties be annexed into the City.
Mr. Kruse asked about the
steep grade and whether or not a retaining wall would be constructed. Mr.
Patterson said there are some locations where there would have to be some
walls. Mr. Kruse was concerned about how they would look. Mr.
Patterson said that would have to be addressed when the final plans are examined.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Bill Lucas, 3407 Scott, explained
that his home sits at the very top of the hill on TT. His concern is
with the second phase, when Scott would turn into four lanes. He said
the right-of-way cuts right across the middle of his front yard. He
asked what kind of recourse he would have. Mr. Beck said the City would
have to compensate him for the damages. He said it would be appraised
and the appraiser would talk to him about it. Mr. Lucas wanted to state,
for the record, that directly across from his property there is raw land
(part of Katy Lake Subdivision). He asked if it would make more sense
for the City to look at acquiring land on the east side. Mr. Patterson
explained that the City is acquiring land on both sides, and at that particular
location, the proposed centerline is slightly to the east of the right-of-way. He
said if four traffic lanes are established in the area, they would certainly
be looking at trying to straighten out the curvature with the design. Mr.
Patterson stated at this point, he could not say in which direction the road
will be widened. He said every place they could stay to the east they
have done so. Mr. Lucas said he could see what they were doing right
now in Phase I would make the road safer, but he is concerned about the future
phase. Mr. Patterson said part of the City's procedure, within financial
constraints, is protection given in the form of right-of-way compensations. Mr.
Lucas asked if there is a person he could talk to. Mr. Patterson gave
Mr. Lucas the name of the City's Right-of-Way Agent. Mr. Lucas asked
if the property on the west side of TT would be annexed and when. Mr.
Patterson said he had no idea.
David Cook, 4327 Country
Hill Drive, explained that the east side of his property is on Scott Boulevard,
where the construction is planned. He asked about the relocation of
the utilities, in particular the power lines. Mr. Patterson said it
appeared there were quite a few that would have to be relocated. Mr.
Cook asked how that would be done. Mr. Patterson explained that is
typically done by the utility company, and he is not certain at this point
if those lines belong to the City or Boone Electric. On reconstruction
projects like this, the lines are normally put back the way they previously
existed -- being overhead or underground. Mr. Cook said with the proposed
50 foot right-of-way, that would put them almost on his roof top. Mr.
Patterson said he would have someone on the staff contact Mr. Cook when they
get into the relocation plans. He said Mr. Cook would be able to look
at the plans and then discuss with the utility company what can and cannot
be done.
Mr. Cook also suggested that
the staff look into the signage on the road.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Campbell said this is
one of the more dangerous roads in the City of Columbia. He has had
numerous concerns expressed over the years and was very glad to see this
project move forward. He also received some calls from people who support
the project but could not be here tonight because of the weather.
Based on previous experience,
Ms. Coble said she was pretty certain the staff would be negotiating for
the right-of-way with as little damage to existing property owners as possible. Mr.
Patterson assured the Council they would.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that the staff be directed to proceed. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(C) Proposed
development plan for the MKT Trailhead Park.
Item C was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said a report will
be presented by the Mayor's Trailhead Committee. This group has been
working for a period of time with an architect hired by the City. After
hearing the recommendation, the Council could table the issue or make a motion
to proceed with the project. He said if there is a motion to proceed,
the next step would be to have an extension of the architect's agreement. Mr.
Beck reported one of the deadlines was set in order to utilize state grant
money in 1999. In many cases, he explained that a staff report is given
to the Council following a committee report. If the Council wishes
a staff report, they will need to table the issue and request a report. The
alternative would be to motion to go ahead with the project. Regarding
funding, Mr. Beck said following the ballot issue pertaining to the buffer
ground, some funds were set aside for the Trailhead Park itself. In
addition to that, the City has obtained some Community Development Block
Grant money in the area where the parking lot and trailhead is being proposed. He
said there is also another grant and quite a bit of private funding being
worked on.
Mr. Hood noted that the architect's,
Pon and Kimi Chinn, were present to address any questions about the project.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
John Ott, Chairman of the
MKT Trailhead Committee, 15 Lucerne Court, said they had looked at this area
some time ago and had a Design Day with a number of committee members and
individuals from the community meeting to determine what might be the best
use for this particular site. He said they took into consideration,
not only this little parcel, but the area around it. One of the decisions
was that this space needed to be kept open and developed into a greenspace. The
plans show two structures, a gazebo on the west side next to the Creek and
a restroom and information facility on the northeast corner. Mr. Ott
said the information center will have a somewhat unique design as it was
taken from a design some of the committee members saw in San Francisco. One
issue was how to take a rural park and combine it with an urban parcel. To
mesh the two together, they thought a good idea would be to take native stone
and line certain parts of the Flat Branch Creek, and the gazebo area would
have more of a cut stone presentation. A big goal is to reclaim the
creek because the committee felt it to be an important part of Columbia's
history, where the initial settlement began. He noted a number of benches
will be placed along the entire length of the creek within the park. The
Committee thought it would be a good idea to tie into the railroad history
so the design of the benches would be designed with heavy metal or cast iron. Mr.
Ott noted the lighting standards would also be tied into the railroad theme. In
addition, the committee felt historical markers placed in the park would
commemorate the commercial history of the area. Bike racks would be
important to the area as the Committee envisions a number of people using
the park as a destination to either begin or end bike rides.
Mr. Kruse commented about
the width of the creek and asked if it was enhanced somehow. Mr. Ott
explained that there is an existing natural spring, and the goal is to allow
the water to collect. He said the drawing was an estimation of how
much the water might collect at any given time. Mr. Ott reported there
are two sewer lines that run through the creek, and the goal is to build
the lines up just slightly so there is an opportunity for the water to pool
and flow over the rock to have some natural water ambient sound in the park.
Kimi Chinn, 2011 Hazelwood,
explained that Chinn and Associates Architects have worked closely with the
MKT Trailhead Committee since February to develop the conceptual design. She
offered to answer any questions.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Mayor Hindman made the motion
that the staff be directed to proceed. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
OLD BUSINESS
B376-98 Voluntary
annexation of property located on the southeast side of Old Plank Road, south
of
Glasgow Drive.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
tract of land contains approximately 16 acres and that a public hearing had
been previously held on the issue.
B376-98 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted,
reading as follows:
B380-98 Granting
a variance from the subdivision ordinance requirement for sidewalks;
authorizing
the removal of the sidewalk at 3101 Woodkirk Lane.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck pointed out that
this request had been recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Hancock noted that the
street is classified as an estate lane. The rule for that classification
is that a sidewalk must be constructed on at least one side of the street,
and the side on which the sidewalk is to be installed is to be designated
by the Commission.
Tom Schneider, an attorney
with offices at 11 N. Seventh Street, spoke on behalf of the property owners,
Dr. and Mrs. Robert Gaines. He explained that they are in the process
of remodeling their home and, for aesthetic reasons, they felt it would be
preferable to eliminate the existing sidewalk as part of their overall landscaping
in connection with the project. Mr. Schneider suggested it is a sidewalk
that literally leads to no where. He said there is a cul-de-sac lot
immediately north of the Gaines property and there is no sidewalk along that
lot, nor is there a sidewalk on the east side of Woodkirk Lane. Mr.
Schneider pointed out that the variance provision, Section 25-20, allows
the Council to place conditions on variances. He thought it might be
appropriate to consider that at such point in time, if a sidewalk is installed
or required to be installed on the cul-de-sac and/or on the property across
Woodkirk Lane, that perhaps the variance would expire.
Mr. Kruse argued that the
sidewalk does lead somewhere. Mr. Schneider said he meant going north,
into the cul-de-sac.
Mrs. Crockett asked then
if only one house would have a sidewalk. Mr. Schneider said he believed
that was correct, that being south of the Gaines property.
Mr. Campbell commented that
it has been their policy to try to get sidewalks extended, not retracted. Mayor
Hindman agreed and said when the present owners move away there might be
young children and it would be a safe route for kids to go to school. He
saw no reason to allow the variance.
B380-98 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE. VOTING
NO: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. Bill
defeated.
CONSENT AGENDA
The following bills were
given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.
B374-98 Approving
the engineer's final report and authorizing payment of differential
costs for
construction
of water mains serving Richland Heights, Phase 1 & 2.
B375-98 Accepting
conveyances for utility purposes.
B381-98 Approving
the final plat of Bedford Walk, Plat 8.
B382-98 Authorizing
the acquisition of easements necessary for the construction of Brown Station
Road
from Route B to Starke Lane.
B383-98 Levying
and assessing a special tax for weed nuisance on property located at the
south
end
of Andy Drive, near Anderson Drive.
R252-98 Setting
a public hearing: construction of a 12-inch water main serving Rocky Creek
Subdivision;
payment of differential costs above those to install a 6-inch water main.
R253-98 Approving
Supplement No. 7 to FAA Automated Flight Service Station Contract for
improvements
to the automated flight service station.
R254-98 Authorizing
an amendment to the agreement with the Missouri Department of Health for
immunization
services.
R255-98 Authorizing
an agreement with Ameren UE for relocation of gas lines and the
subordination
of private easement rights due to the reconstruction of Oakland Gravel
Road.
R256-98 Authorizing
an amendment to the agreement with the Division of Family Services to
extend
the contract for the FY97 emergency shelter grant program.
R257-98 Adopting
a restated plan document for the United States Conference of Mayors deferred
compensation
plan for the City of Columbia.
R263-98 Amending
the City's Public Employees Deferred Compensation Plan.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
NEW BUSINESS
R258-98 Authorizing
a grant application to the Missouri Arts Council for funding for the City's
public
art program.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
request would be for a grant of $5,250 and would not require any matching
funds. He said the money would be used primarily for programming and
promotion.
The vote on R258-98 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading
as follows:
R259-98 Adopting
the Convention and Visitors Bureau Master Plan.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Lorah Steiner explained that
in 1996, and through the early part of 1997, there was a committee comprised
of members from just about every aspect of the community. The draft
was finalized in 1997, and she said they felt comfortable that it is still
valid and contains programs they would like to see implemented. The
primary focus of the plan is cultural tourism, heritage tourism development,
continuation of the program that is ongoing to promote the central corridor
of the Katy Trail, exposition marketing, and sports marketing. She
said the Bureau would continue to promote all current programs. The
purpose of putting the Master Plan together was to look at what the Bureau's
programs should be over the next five years, what their market focus should
be. Once they had that information, she said it was up to the CVB staff,
the Tourism Council, the Lodging Association, and the Hotel Marketing Committee
to determine what specific programs should support the goals of the Master
Plan.
Mr. Campbell said he thought
this plan was a significant move forward. However, he prepared a draft
motion that would amend the Master Plan by shifting some of the emphasis
and resources within it to provide more flexibility within it.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that the Council amend the Convention and Visitors Bureau Master Plan by
shifting significant emphasis and resources from the part of the plan placing
a tourist information center along I-70 to the part of the plan developing
cultural and heritage tourism, particularly focused in downtown. The
motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman.
Mr. Janku understood the
motion would not exclusively eliminate the idea of the tourist center, but
it was directing potential resources downtown. Mr. Campbell said that
was correct. Mr. Campbell thought as the plan moves forward, they would
see the development more specific on both items. He said that would
enable the Bureau to make a better decision as to the allocation of resources
at that time. He understood Ms. Steiner to say the Bureau would be
bringing forward a more specific proposal in the spring for the implementation
of the plan.
Mr. Kruse asked if other
communities have developed tourist information centers along interstates
in Missouri. He was aware of some highway facilities. Ms. Coble
replied that Rolla has one.
Ms. Steiner explained that
the Missouri Division of Tourism has information centers at ports of entry
throughout the state. She said they have been pretty adamant about
not developing new information centers that are not at ports of entry. She
said the only exception they have made to date is in Springfield. She
assumed that has a lot to do with the amount of traffic coming through Branson. Ms.
Steiner explained one of the things the committee has been concerned with
is the lack of information centers along the I-70 corridor. She said
there is a huge gap between Kansas City and St. Louis. That meant literally
millions of "people visits" every day, that are coming through and not getting
exposed to anything in Columbia, except what they see on the highway. She
explained that the Callaway County Tourism Board has proposed, and is in
the process of developing, a tourism information center at I-70 and Highway
54. Ms. Steiner said the Bureau is in the process of discussing with
them a possible lease arrangement for that facility. She said the Lodging
Association Advisory Board would still like to have a presence in the Columbia
area on I-70. She said that would also be contingent upon finding a
partner because the City does not have the funds to construct something. She
thought what Councilman Campbell is referring to is the allocation that was
in the original budget for the Master Plan would be reduced substantially
if Columbia was to enter into a lease arrangement with the Callaway County
Tourism Board. Her only concern with that is there is still a desire
on the part of the Lodging Association, the hotel community, and the Advisory
Board to have something within the Columbia area on the I-70 corridor. How
much of that allocation that would take they do not know yet.
Mr. Kruse asked if the information
centers are sometimes located in a private business, or if it is usually
a stand alone facility. Ms. Steiner said they are done both ways.
Mr. Campbell commented that
it was not the intent of his motion to eliminate this facility, but simply
to say that as the Bureau moves forward with the whole process, there probably
will be some development occurring, hopefully on both sides, that will allow
the City to reallocate some funds from one side to the other.
Mr. Janku saw the motion
as placing increased emphasis on the culture and heritage in downtown than
what currently exists in the plan. He asked why the motion could not
just say that and not necessarily say from one particular source. He
said then the committee could come up with how to make the increased allocation. In
adopting this resolution, Mr. Campbell said the Council would be adopting
a financial plan and it seemed to him it would be appropriate -- if they
are going to adopt the plan, to give some indication of the priorities. He
said that was what he is attempting to do with his motion. Mr. Campbell
reported in the original distribution, there was a financial plan with so
many dollars allocated to each one of the particular activities.
Ms. Coble said if there was
nothing to draw tourists in, people would not know that downtown has a wonderfully
new developed cultural tourism destination if they are not familiar with
the area. She said her hesitation in supporting the motion is that
if they are equally important, but one is dependent upon pulling in the tourists
who are passing through town, it seemed the priority should be focused on
some kind of visitor tourist information spot along the I-70 corridor. Mr.
Campbell said it becomes a "chicken and egg" kind of thing. He said
both are needed, something to pull them into as well as something to pull
them in. Ms. Coble wondered if that could be accomplished through budgetary
review when the plan comes back for an amendment. Her recommendation
is to adopt the plan as is, given the fact that it will come back to the
Council with some changes. By that time, if there has been any negotiation
with the Callaway County Tourism Board, they would know about it and that
would be the determining factor -- whether or not Columbia has some kind
of presence on Highway 70. Mr. Campbell understood the Council
would be adopting the budget now. Ms. Coble noted it will be amended
at a later date.
The motion to amend R259-98
made by Mr. Campbell, seconded by Mayor Hindman, was approved by voice vote.
The vote on R259-98, as amended,
was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R260-98 Approving
the Preliminary Plat of Wellington Manor.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck commented that this
is a major subdivision consisting of about 30.7 acres which would create
three R-1 lots and one A-1 lot. He said approval was recommended unanimously
by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mayor Hindman asked if houses
were currently on the property. Mr. Hancock believed the survey to
show an older existing house on the southeast corner. He said the platting
is in preparation for a development. Mr. Hancock explained that an
earlier proposal had come in for some apartments and some single family homes. He
said it was never approved so the applicant was rethinking the whole development
idea.
Mr. Janku asked if the sight
distance situation had been resolved. Mr. Hancock said it had been. In
terms of access to lot one, Mr. Janku said if it was eventually going to
be subdivided, how they could be certain there would be access other than
on to St. Charles Road. Mr. Hancock said when the plan was originally
proposed, he thought the Council had been opposed to the number of driveways
and their location. Mr. Janku said that was correct. Mr. Hancock
said if they were R-3, he did not know they would have much except engineering
criteria for driveway locations on St. Charles Road. He said
if the property is ultimately platted as single family lots, then the City
would have the ability to prevent the developer from establishing driveway
access on St. Charles. However, Mr. Hancock suspected this would be
a PUD. He said the Council would have to address the access issue at
that time.
Mr. Janku noted there is
no stubbing, where normally on a piece of property this size, there would
be a proposed street. Mr. Hancock replied currently on lot one, he
guessed they could put one house and that would somehow take care of it. He
said the plan right now is to put some homes on lots two, three, and four
and then reserve lot one for a PUD in the future, and eventually annex and
develop lot five. Mr. Janku asked if there was something they could
do to the plan if they wanted the access to be on to this road rather than
St. Charles Road. Mr. Hancock said he did not know of anything at this
time other than wait for the PUD. He did say that the current owner
is fully aware of the access concerns of the Council.
Upon her request, Ms. Coble
made the motion that Mrs. Crockett be allowed to abstain from voting on R260-98. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
The vote on R260-98 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSTAINING: CROCKETT. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:
R261-98 Authorizing
FY 99 social service agency contracts.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
During the budgeting process,
Mr. Beck explained that the Council budgeted $723,675 for social service
programs in Columbia. He said that amounted to providing 41 programs
in the community by 28 different agencies. He said the Council is being
asked to authorize the signing of the agreements.
The vote on R261-98 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading
as follows:
R262-98 Authorizing
FY 99 Human rights enhancement contracts and approving funding
extensions.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that these
recommendations had been forwarded by the Human Rights Commission. The
total amount requested for approval this evening is $1,161. He said
these particular recommendations were not brought up during the budget process,
but funding had been allocated to the Commission
In the packet of information,
Ms. Coble said both vendors mentioned specifically in the ordinance have
asked for time extensions on their current grants. Mr. Steinhaus said
those requests were from two programs funded last fiscal year. He said
these agencies are requesting additional time because they did not feel they
could complete their activities by the end of this year. The current
contract stipulates the programs must be completed by the end of December. Ms.
Coble asked if the agencies would be awarded 1999 funds. Mr. Steinhaus
said they would not, this would only amend their existing contracts.
Mark Epstein, Chairman of
the Human Rights Commission, 1201 Paquin, offered to answer any questions.
The vote on R262-98 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN. 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:
B384-98 Authorizing
construction of a 12-inch water main serving Rocky Creek Subdivision;
payment
of differential costs above those to install a 6-inch water main.
B385-98 Approving
the engineer's final report; authorizing payment of differential costs for
water
main
serving Stoneridge Estates, Phase 1 & 2 (Part 1); accepting a conveyance.
B386-98 Approving
the engineer's final report; authorizing payment of differential costs for
water
main
serving Arcadia, Plat 4 (Part 2); accepting a conveyance.
B387-98 Accepting
conveyances for utility purposes.
B388-98 Establishing
R-1 permanent zoning on property located on the north side of New Haven
Avenue,
east of Lemone Industrial Boulevard.
B389-98 Establishing
R-1 permanent zoning on property located on the east side of Strawn Road,
south
of I-70 Drive S.W.
B390-98 Granting
a variance to the subdivision regulations so that sidewalks will not be required
along
Walcox Drive and Sinclair Street for certain lots in Grand Oaks Subdivision,
Plat 1.
B391-98 Rezoning
property located at the northwest corner of Nifong Boulevard and Forum
Boulevard
from R-1 and R-3 to PUD-5 and C-P.
B392-98 Amending
Chapter 14 of the City Code to prohibit parking on both sides of Clark Lane
from
the U.S. 63 connector to Crump Lane.
B393-98 Amending
Chapter 14 of the City Code to authorize the sale of parking permits on the
former
GTE parking lot located at the southwest corner of Cherry and Fifth Streets.
B394-98 Authorizing
the City Manager to execute a supplemental urban agreement with the MO
Department
of Transportation for installation of sidewalks along Route B at US 63
overpass.
B395-98 Approving
the engineer's final report for the 1998 sidewalk project.
B396-98 Acquiring
easements and land in fee simple for the construction of the North Parklawn
Court
storm water drainage project.
B397-98 Confirming
the contract for the construction of the MC-7 Trunk Sewer serving Thornbrook
Subdivision.
B398-98 Confirming
the contract for the construction of the Glen Eagle Drive storm drainage
improvement
project; appropriating funds.
B399-98 Confirming
the contract for the construction of the H-4 Trunk Sewer serving the
Baurichter
property.
B400-98 Confirming
the contract for the improvements to Conley Road from I-70 Drive to the
northern
terminus.
B401-98 Appropriating
funds to return local use tax money to the Missouri Department of Revenue.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) The Hamlet
Subdivision Storm Drainage Project.
Mayor Hindman noted that
this report had been tabled from the December 7, 1998, meeting.
Mr. Beck reported that a
fax was received today that had been forwarded to the Council. He said
it was from the attorney representing the developer of the area. He
raised some questions regarding the funding of the project, particularly
the interest rate that would be charged. Mr. Beck pointed out that
Mr. Campbell had been meeting with Mr. Patterson and the neighborhood group. He
asked Mr. Patterson to explain the proposal.
Mr. Patterson said the action
needed by Council was a direction for staff to proceed with preparation of
two contracts; one with the Hamlet Home Association and one with Mr. Tosini,
the developer. The difference in the report, based on the letter received
today, is that the agreement with Mr. Tosini would increase his contribution
by $18,500. Therefore, the City would be paying much less for this
project. The agreement with the Home Association would be secured by
their power to levy assessments on their members, and the developer would
secure payment by a secondary lien on about five acres of property he owns
that is not platted as part of Hamlet Subdivision, but is adjacent to it
and is part of the original tract. Mr. Patterson pointed out that the
President of the Home Association was present to answer any questions.
Mr. Campbell said this three
way negotiation has been negotiated and renegotiated over time. He
thought the present agreement was fair to everybody concerned. Mr.
Campbell reported it had been approved by the Home Association and by the
developer, and now they needed the City to move it forward.
Dick Purcell, 4405 Sussex,
expressed his gratitude to Mr. Patterson and his staff for the excellent
job they have done providing a plan that meets the homeowners requirements. They
are hopeful it would provide them a good drainage system to replace the disaster
they have lived with for the past several years. He also thanked Mr.
Campbell for bringing the groups together and helping them through their
difficulties in trying to reach a consensus.
Mr. Campbell made a motion
that the staff be directed to proceed. The motion was seconded
by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Patterson asked about
direction on the request regarding the interest rate.
Mayor Hindman noted that
the City's present rate is nine percent and there was a request that it be
the same as treasury bills. Mr. Janku said he had felt for some time
that the tax bill rates are too high. He thought the City should look
into having an interest rate that reflects current rates. He noted
the IRS lowered the interest rate on overdue obligations.
Mr. Beck said he had discussed
this with the Finance Director and he did not think there was any problem
with reducing the rate some. He stated the philosophical question is
whether or not the Council wants to have a rate a little higher than the
going rate to encourage payoff so tax bills are not carried for ten years. Mr.
Beck understood that part of the increased cost was associated with the kind
of construction being done. He said this project is more of a decorative
type of construction than what was originally planned. He explained
that what is being proposed is that the storm water utility pick up a substantial
portion of the cost, which might typically be looked at by some as a property
benefit. Mr. Beck noted what is being planned is very generous on the
part of the City.
Regarding a floating interest
rate, Mr. Beck said when promoting a project and the question comes up about
the interest rate, there is no way to tell what it will be until the time
the Council ties the project down. He said the unknown is a disadvantage. If
the Council chooses to go with a floating rate, his recommendation is that
it be slightly above the amount suggested in the letters. He said if
they go with a set rate, perhaps it could be lowered one to one and one-half
percent from what it is now.
Ms. Coble asked if this needed
to be discussed tonight for the purposes of the Hamlet project. Mr.
Patterson said staff only needed direction whether to proceed with negotiations
on that basis. He said they could bring back a recommendation on the
exact interest rate based on internal discussions. He said that could
be shared with the property owners during the negotiations. He said
the question is whether or not the City is willing to consider something
other than nine percent.
Mrs. Crockett said if residents
do not want to finance something for nine percent, they could go to their
local bank and get the money at a lesser rate. She felt the interest
rate should be left as is.
Mr. Campbell said he was
not too excited about changing the rate on this, but on projects for low-income
or something similar, he could see the need for the City to be more generous. He
said it used to be the common rate was one percent over the prime rate. Mr.
Campbell stated the City did not want to be in the business of encouraging
the financing, so interest on tax bills should be above the common rate.
Mr. Beck suggested that they
proceed with the project with the understanding that the rate would be reviewed
and a recommendation would come back to the Council for approval.
(B) Legislative
Priorities - 1999 Session.
Mr. Beck noted that many
items listed were taken from the suggestions of the Missouri Municipal League,
with a few being specific to Columbia. If the list is adopted by the
Council, it would be made available to the City's legislators.
Mayor Hindman said he would
like to have more time to review the list. He suggested a work
session. Mr. Coffman and Mr. Campbell agreed. Mr. Kruse noted
that bills are being filed now. He suggested providing direction to
the staff and the City's lobbyist, and then study it as well. Mayor
Hindman said he might be opposed to some of the things outlined in the report.
Ms. Coble said that the City
is paying someone to represent our interests in Jefferson City, and they
are reconvening on January 6. She noted the lobbyist would have no
agenda and no direction.
Mr. Janku suggested that
the Council schedule a work session January 4, before the next Council meeting. Mr.
Beck said if the Council could review the list, and if more explanation was
needed, he would get it for them. Mr. Janku suggested that the lobbyist
be forwarded a copy of the list so it could be monitored.
Mr. Kruse said he would like
to add one item to the list. He asked that the City oppose any legislation
to rollback local control of billboards.
It was decided the list would
be discussed at the pre-Council dinner January 4, 1999. Anyone having
questions regarding the list was asked to call the City Manager's Office.
(C) Transfer
of Funds.
Report accepted.
(D) Sanitary
Sewer District Petition - Maupin Road Area.
Mr. Beck noted that this
is a 23-lot petition to work on a sewer in the area on a 50/50 basis. The
next step would be for the Council to direct the staff to proceed with surveying
and engineering work.
Ms. Coble made the motion
that the staff be directed to proceed. The motion was seconded by Mrs.
Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(E) West Broadway
Sidewalk - McBaine Avenue.
Mr. Beck said the Council
had asked the staff to look into this area. He said they were all aware
the sidewalks are not in the best of condition along this section. The
policy is 50/50 and the City would need to program their portion of the cost
. If the Council wishes to proceed, he said the staff would need to
do survey work and put it on the CIP Plan.
Mr. Janku thought they should
move forward on it. He felt it was something where the public should
bear the entire cost of funding. He said the Master Plan deals primarily
with new construction, not reconstruction. He thought the Council would
have to address how they pay for reconstruction throughout the community. He
did not think it should be done on a 50/50 funding basis.
Mr. Campbell said the south
side of Broadway was only marginally better than the north side. He
said if they proceed Mr. Janku's way, they would have to set the other project
back, and he felt both of them should be constructed. He said the need
is there on both sides.
In terms of how they determine
their priorities for reconstruction, Mr. Janku said this should be on the
Master Plan.
Ms. Coble suggested that
the staff be directed to add it into the program and initiate the survey
of the abutting property owners. She said that would be the action,
and the other seems to be the policy examination and revision -- does the
City do renovations or reconstruction as part of the Master Plan. In
addition, Ms. Coble stated the Council would have to review how that pertains
to tax billing abutting property owners versus the City taking on full cost
of projects along arterials. Mayor Hindman asked Mr. Janku if that
was what he meant. Mr. Janku said it was.
Mr. Campbell said he would
be in favor of the property owners paying for the reconstruction, but not
for the additional width. He did not think that was part of the
reconstruction. He said that could be decided later.
Ms. Coble made the motion
that the staff be directed to proceed with programming the project and initiating
a survey of abutting property owners on Broadway. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Kruse.
Mayor Hindman asked if he
understood that the Council is not voting on how it was to be paid for tonight. Mr.
Beck said that should probably be a part of the property owners survey. Mr.
Janku said residents could be surveyed to see if they are interested in paying.
Mr. Beck asked whether the
City has been paying 50/50 on some maintenance work. Mr. Patterson
said we have, and noted that there is a provision in the policy resolution
for 60/40 on priority sidewalks. He reported staff thought this was
a 60/40 project until they found out there was nothing on the Master Plan
for reconstruction. He said the intent of the policy resolution was
to be 60/40 percent on sidewalks on the Master Plan. He said their
intent was to survey the property owners based on trying to determine what
their perception of the need was, and explain the current policy resolution,
if it were to be followed, and solicit their comments on the project and
report back to the Council. He said they were not going to tell them
at this point that the project would proceed. Mr. Patterson stated
staff could explain the current policy and indicate the Council is discussing
an evaluation of it.
Mr. Janku said if it was
determined the abutting property owners do not want the reconstruction, the
Council would decide if it was needed in the public interest or not.
The motion made by Ms. Coble,
seconded by Mr. Kruse was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Ms. Coble pointed out that
new sidewalks have been constructed where the City has paid all of the cost. Mayor
Hindman said he thought they agreed, but what was bothering him was that
they might be pushing the cart a little before the horse.
It was decided the entire
maintenance subject would be coming back from time to time.
(F) Proposed
Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance Regarding Resubmittals of Petitions
for Zoning
Map
Amendments.
Mr. Beck said the suggested
policy read that no petition to amend the zoning map would be accepted if
it is the same or substantially the same as a petition submitted within the
previous 12 months, which was denied by the City Council or withdrawn after
the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing by the applicant. He
said the protection for the applicant, which he felt was very important,
was it still provides that someone could appeal to the Council on an individual
basis if they felt a staff member did not accept an application that should
be processed because it was substantially different.
The question came up as to
how one would appeal to the Council. Mr. Beck said the applicant could
write a letter to the Council stating why they feel their application for
rezoning should be reconsidered in less than the 12 month period.
Ms. Coble asked if the details
are what the staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission
work out, hold hearings on, and then come back to the Council with a report. Mr.
Beck said that was correct.
Mrs. Crockett asked if applicants
would still be able to have things reconsidered without having to go back
through the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Boeckmann said that
was not just on rezonings, but any defeated ordinance. He said that
would still apply.
Ms. Coble made the motion
that the issue be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the
purpose of holding a public hearing with recommendations to come back to
the Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously
by voice vote.
(G) Ozark Air Lines
Negotiations.
Mr. Beck said if the council
agrees with the five items listed, the staff would like to have a motion
directing them to proceed. He said leases would still have to come
back to the Council for approval.
Mayor Hindman made the motion
that the staff be directed to proceed as described. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Coffman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Upon receiving the majority
vote of the Council, the following individuals were appointed to the following
boards and commissions:
BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION
Skinner, Terry R., 3716 Lansing, Ward 3 - term
to expire 07/31/01
Wise, Rick J., 208 Orleans Ct., Ward 2 - term
to expire 07/31/02
COMMUNITY SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION
Cosgrove, David B., 3705 Forum Blvd., #224 -
term to expire 12/31/01
Miller, Dianne H., 34-A Broadway Village, Ward
6 - term to expire 12/31/01
FIREFIGHTER RETIREMENT BOARD
Danley, Daniel A., 107 E. Ridgeley, Ward 5 -
term to expire 12/31/00
POLICE RETIREMENT BOARD
Harper, Milt, 1004 LaGrange Ct., Ward 5 - term
to expire 12/31/00
RISK MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Pistel, Fred, 2105 Cobblestone Ct., Ward 4 -
term to expire 1/1/02
SPECIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Danuser, K. Blake, 6000 Arrowhead Lake Dr.,
County - term to expire 1/1/02
Puckett, K. Dale, 2103 S. Country Club, Ward
3 - term to expire 1/1/02
Waters, Jack, 712 Westridge Drive, Ward 4 -
term to expire 1/1/02
SUBSTANCE ABUSE ADVISORY COMMISSION
Bennett, Katy V., 804 W. Green Meadows, Ward
5 - term to expire 10/31/99
COMMENTS OF THE COUNCIL, STAFF, AND PUBLIC
During the last several years,
Mr. Campbell reported some residents are raking their leaves into the street
gutters and leaving them there. This has resulted in an overload for
the street sweeper. He asked that staff prepare a report on the feasibility
of the City picking up leaves directly from the street, in addition to or
instead of, in bags only. He said it is done in other cities
and he thought it is time for us to look at it closely.
Regarding traffic signals
at Broadway and Fairview, Mr. Campbell said the left turn from Broadway to
Fairview has both a green arrow and a yield on green signal. He said
the high speed traffic on Broadway makes the green yield dangerous. He
asked the staff to work with the State Transportation Department to eliminate
the left turn green yield signal.
Regarding traffic signals
at Stadium and Ashland Road, Mr. Campbell said he has received requests for
a traffic signal at the intersection. He thought it had been addressed
in the past; but he requested that any study be reviewed and updated. If
a traffic signal is warranted because of increased traffic volumes or accidents,
Mr. Campbell asked that a signal be installed.
Mr. Campbell explained that
currently the applicant requesting a rezoning only pays for the cost of advertising
and nothing else. He said the City has a policy regarding sharing the
cost of building inspections during construction and related requests. He
thought it would be reasonable for a similar policy to be established for
zoning requests.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that the staff be directed to review the topic with the Planning and Zoning
Commission and return their recommendation to the Council. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Regarding boarded up and
vacant buildings, Mr. Campbell stated this is often a signal that an area
is in decline. He said these structures contribute to further decline
by creating a negative image. He pointed out that many cities have
policies that require such buildings to be removed within a reasonable length
of time.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that the staff be directed to review the topic, with Planning and Zoning
if appropriate, and return their recommendation to the Council.
Mayor Hindman asked if he
would object to staff examining other options besides tearing the structures
down. Mr. Campbell said he would not. Ms. Coble said she would
not be in favor of something that would contribute to tearing down the City's
housing stock. Mr. Campbell said he was not in favor of that either. He
was referring to when it gets beyond the point of doing anything else. Mr.
Coffman said he was frustrated by historic homes that remain vacant. Mr. Campbell
said he would not want to tear down a home if it could possibly be salvaged. He
would prefer a policy that would encourage either rehabilitation or, in desperate
cases, tearing it down rather than leaving it. Mr. Janku said there
is a process on the books for condemnation. Mr. Campbell said they
had encountered difficulty on the corner of Clinkscales and Worley and in
some other areas where it took years to get structures removed. Mr.
Janku believed that involved the problem of out-of-state property owners. He
thought that might be the key.
Mr. Campbell said if the
Council felt there was not a problem, he would withdraw his motion. Mayor
Hindman thought there was a problem, but did not think it was altogether
the abandoned houses. He said there are some occupied houses where
there are big problems for neighborhoods. He would like to see it expanded
to include options regarding deteriorating or nuisance buildings in any neighborhood. He
reported Rochester, Minnesota enacted an ordinance that has worked very well
and has eliminated a lot of drug traffic in the neighborhoods. Ms.
Coble thought as broad a scope of information that could be brought to the
Council would be helpful.
Mr. Campbell asked that a
report be brought back. It was decided it would not go to the Planning
and Zoning Commission, only to the staff.
Mr. Coffman said that the
East Campus Neighborhood Speeding Committee has urged him to bring their
concerns about the east/west streets that run south of Broadway, down to
Bouchelle and to the University, to the Council's attention. Along
that stretch, William Street has a 20 mph speed limit, and residents want
to know why the east/west streets could not be made the same. He said
there is concern about a great deal of families with children moving in the
area. He asked for a report on this area, if not a city-wide report. Mr.
Coffman is interested in any mechanism that could help with speeding.
Mr. Coffman brought up the
ordinance pertaining to marijuana possession and the associated paraphernalia. He
noted there had been a precipitous drop in the number of those cases that
have been processed through City Court. He said there has been a question
about whether that is a policy in the Police Department or the Prosecutor's
Office. Since that time, he explained the hours the municipal judge
works had been increased to three-quarter time.
Mr. Coffman had a copy of
a letter written to the President of the Boone County Bar Association about
this matter from the former Deputy Chief of Police, Dennis Veach. He
stated the letter refers to an operating procedure that all arrests, regardless
of severity, are assigned to state court now. Mr. Coffman asked what
the policy is and what the reason is for it. He asked for a report.
Mr. Kruse asked if Columbia's
ordinance is for first offense only, or any offense under a certain amount
of marijuana possession. Mr. Coffman said it would typically be a misdemeanor
amount, but did not recall a first offense component to it. Mr. Boeckmann
did not recall the amount, but said it is based on amount. Mr. Coffman
asked if the City had recently added paraphernalia to it. Mr. Boeckmann
said it had been added a few years ago. Mr. Coffman said he would be
interested in knowing the reason for the drop in cases referred to City Court
since summer. Mr. Kruse said he would be interested in knowing as well. He
said it reflects the value of the community, so he is curious as to what
has changed. Ms. Coble reported the Council debated the need to increase
the Municipal Judge's time to three-quarters and, having done that, it is
ironic that now there seems to be a policy of sending cases that previously
went through the Municipal Court to the state court level.
Mr. Coffman understood the
letter to say that all narcotic arrests are transported to the already overcrowded
jail to post bond.
Mr. Coffman asked for a report
regarding Broadway and 63 traffic. Because of the continued growth
of the shopping areas, he said the traffic has increased and people are finding
it more and more difficult to make a left turn into Broadway Village. He
noted there is a great deal of traffic congestion at the Trimble Road intersection
as well, and the area is becoming increasingly dangerous all of the time. Mr.
Coffman reported the residents would like a turn lane and perhaps a traffic
signal in the general location. Ms. Coble commented that she drives
through this area twice a day and it is a mess. She said the traffic
backs up to William.
Mr. Beck said he had been
in meetings with the Highway Department encouraging that something be done
about the situation. He said the State realized there is a problem,
but no progress is being made. He said staff would keep working on
this issue.
Referring to a report received
from Tony Davis, a Rock Quarry Road resident, Mr. Coffman said he had been
concerned about a couple of culverts (the first two after going down the
hill). He said the report had indicated that the cost of replacing
the culverts would be rather expensive -- approximately $40,000 and $80,000. Mr.
Coffman commented if the City is to believe the engineers, the Cambridge
Place development would actually reduce the storm water. He said that
remains to be seen, and he can understand maybe waiting to deal with the
storm water problems; however, he thought there is a more immediate problem
with the first culvert at the turn. He said there is not room for two
cars to pass. Mr. Coffman reported not only is the road very narrow
with the guardrail on the inside of the curve, but it has started to erode
into the roadbed. He wondered if there were any temporary measures
that could be taken, short of replacing the culvert, to make it more safe.
Mr. Kruse commented that
he continues to receive complaints about the Growing with Columbia tourist
information signs. He recently made a point of looking at them, and
probably 85% of the signs are not plumb. Mr. Kruse stated the signs
are not being maintained and are leaning in various directions. He
said they are also of inconsistent height. He explained that he contacted
the president of Growing with Columbia and asked him about it. He said
the response was defensive.
Mr. Kruse made the motion
that the City Manager be directed to write the Chairperson of the Board of
Directors of Growing with Columbia to express concern about maintenance of
the Growing with Columbia signs installed on City and State rights-of-way. He
asked that the letter include a statement of the Council's desire that the
signs be of consistent height and be made plumb. The motion was seconded
by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku noted that next
year Cosmo Park would celebrate its 50th anniversary. He asked if there
could be some kind of community recreation recognition of the long-standing
support the Cosmo's have given to Columbia's parks, and particularly that
park.
Mr. Janku asked for information
on what could be done to ensure an accurate census. He said there are
things that could be done in advance of it, both as a staff and maybe as
a Council, to facilitate an accurate count. He asked for a staff report.
Mr. Janku noted a new federal
law dealing with work force development. He was interested in knowing
if any type of monies might be available to help fund the City's C.A.R.E.
Program. He reported the budget for this program currently is coming
out of the general fund.
Regarding Stadium and I-70,
Mr. Janku said in the past the Council has received reports from the State
and also from Public Works. He understood the State has put it on its
list of potential improvements -- the turning problems. He wanted to
know if funding had been found for it, in terms of their priorities.
Mayor Hindman asked Mr. Beck
if he had been meeting with the census people. Mr. Beck said he met
with them once, but Mr. Hancock's staff has been meeting with them more regularly.
The meeting adjourned at
10:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Penny
St. Romaine
City
Clerk
© 2024 City of Columbia