INTRODUCTORY
The City Council of the City
of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday,
April 19, 1999, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The
roll was taken with the following results: Council Members JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, and CRAYTON 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 April 5, 1999, as well as the minutes of the special meeting of
April 12, 1999, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made
by Mr. Campbell and a second by Mrs. Crockett.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Hindman noted that
R81-99 was being added under New Business.
Upon her request, Mr. Campbell
made the motion that Mrs. Crockett be allowed to abstain from voting on R79-99. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
The agenda, as amended, including
the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made
by Mr. Janku and a second by Mr. Campbell.
SPECIAL ITEMS
1. Presentation
of City's Audit Report.
Mr. Beck explained that the
firm of Ernst and Young have completed the fourth year of their overall contract
to conduct an audit of the City's budget. He outlined the documents
that had been submitted as part of the process. In addition, Mr. Beck
referenced the Finance Director's report which shows ten year trends in the
various departments and operations of the City. In conclusion, he reported
that the City continues to be in strong financial condition as evidenced
by the audit itself and also by the City's bond ratings. Mr. Beck explained
that the audit report had been the topic of discussion at pre-Council dinner.
Phil Hanson, Chair of the
Finance Advisory Committee, stated that the Finance Advisory Committee has
met and reviewed the audit reports and the management advisory letter. He
said the Committee concurred with the reports and were ready to forward them
to the Council.
Lori Fleming noted that a
review of the general fund indicates that the City's revenues came in slightly
over budget and the expenditures under budget. She said that allows
for a surplus in the fund balance, which is necessary because the budget
process requires that the excess be used as a revenue source in subsequent
years. Ms. Fleming explained that all of the internal service funds,
except one, had net income transferred to retained earnings. She reported
that the financial statement is on the City's Web Site, and is also available
in the Library or in the Finance Department.
Mayor Hindman made the motion
that they accept the Audit Report. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku
and approved unanimously by voice vote.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B88-99 Authorizing
relocation and replacement of water mains along Scott Boulevard at Current
Road;
appropriating funds.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained this project
is in southwest Columbia wherein the City is lowering a hill to make a safer
intersection. In order to do that, the water main in the area needs
to be lowered. While doing so, the size of the main will be enlarged
to increase capacity. The cost is estimated at $20,000 and will be
paid for out of water and electric funds.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B88-99 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared
enacted, reading as follows:
B90-99 Rezoning
four parcels of land located north and east of the northeast corner
of Ballenger
Lane
and Clark Lane: Tract A from A-1 to C-P, Tract B from R-1 to C-P, Tract C
from C-P to
PUD-8,
Tract D from R-1 to PUD-8.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the
Planning and Zoning Commission had tabled this issue several times in order
for the neighborhood association and the developer to work things out. He
further explained that there had been some changes made which reduced the
number of dwelling units from eleven to eight per acre, in addition to the
types of uses that would be allowed in the C-P tract.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Craig VanMatre, an attorney
with offices at 1103 E. Broadway, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He
noted that the Council had received two letters from him which add to the
restrictions proposed for the property. He explained that they are
reconfiguring approximately 12.2 acres of presently zoned C-P land to 12.3
acres of C-P. He explained the reason for the discrepancy in PUD-11
to PUD-8 was due to whether or not a portion of the greenbelt acreage could
be included for density purposes. Mr. VanMatre reported the applicant
intends to deed restrict any construction from occurring in the greenbelt,
assuming the density of the PUD tract is eight per acre. He said that
would give them the 240 units needed to make this a commercially viable development. Mr.
VanMatre commented that they have worked with the neighbors to gain their
support for the project, and would meet with them again when the actual plan
is developed.
Judy Johnson, member of the
Zaring Neighborhood Association, said she was very grateful that Mr. VanMatre
and Mr. Kirchoff have been working with the residents. Ms. Johnson
said there were still a few concerns, but because this is a PUD project,
they felt things could be worked out. She outlined the concerns included
that Ballenger Place be adequate for the additional traffic that will be
created, and residents would also prefer a lower density in the northern
area. She noted the applicant had promised to limit the height of the
PUD units as well. Ms. Johnson said residents are very pleased to see
the greenspace.
Carl Skala, Chair of the
Hominy Branch Neighborhood Alliance, announced that their membership had
reached a consensus agreement in support of the pending revised rezoning
request. He said the agreement relates to four issues: redistribution
without expansion of existing C-P acreage from the southeast to the north
area of the tract with additional use restrictions; increased residential
density within the 30 acre subject tract to PUD-8 with a limit of 240 total
units; a building height limit of no more than two stories; and a minimum
of 37% green space set aside to permanently accompany the revised request. He
expressed the residents concerns with regard to the lack of formal plans. Mr.
Skala agreed with the staff's assessment relating to the proposed development
on the 100 year flood plain for Hominy Creek, and the green belt agreement
contained in the approved preliminary plat of Thessalia. He also relayed
concerns about the potential for excessive lighting within the 12.4 acre
C-P tract. Mr. Skala reported residents are also troubled about the
issue of pocket densities within the proposed PUD-8 tract. He noted
that the Association supports the notion that a well-planned multi-family
development can provide some necessary balance for the problems associated
with urban sprawl.
John Clark, 403 N. Ninth,
member of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission, spoke about their involvement
with the Metro 2020 Plan and the Ped Net issues. He pointed out that
there is a Ped Net Master Plan in the works, and that they are hopeful it
will help address some of the various planning issues that will be involved
with the actual project for this location. Mr. Clark commented this
particular green belt area is likely to be very important in making trail
connections and asked the Council to take that into consideration.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Campbell noted it is
nice to see development and neighborhood associations come together.
Mayor Hindman said he was
pleased to see a trade-off of some higher density in exchange for green space. He
thought that was the kind of approach the Council had been looking for.
B90-99 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared
enacted, reading as follows:
B96-99 Authorizing
the construction of a biking and hiking trail at Columbia Cosmopolitan
Recreation
Area.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the
Rhett's Run Memorial Committee was requesting use of the northern portion
of Cosmo Park for a biking trail. He noted numerous hearings have been
regarding the issue. The projected cost for the trail is $80,000 and
it would be paid for through private funds. He asked Mr. Hood to describe
the project.
Mr. Hood explained that the
Parks and Recreation Department began working with the Rhett's Run Committee
in late 1997 to develop a proposal for a mountain bike facility to be used
by the citizens of Columbia. The project being presented this evening
is the result of a very lengthy, effective planning process which included
a series of public meetings. He said the meetings included a design
workshop hosted by the Rhett's Run Committee in June of 1997. Mr. Hood
reported there had been a public hearing at the Parks and Recreation Commission
meeting in February of 1998, and the layout and actual flagging of the trail
and field occurred in August of 1998. He stated that was followed by
a public tour of the proposed layout of the trail. Mr. Hood related
that a myriad of concerns have been raised throughout the process and the
project being presented tonight is a result of the planning effort.
Mr. Hood explained that the
proposal this evening has been significantly scaled back in size compared
to the original proposal. The proposed trail was shown on the overhead. He
stated the trail would be 2.4 miles in length, with the majority it being
constructed to a three foot width, requiring a clearance of approximately
six feet. The construction would be done primarily by hand tools and
there would be no old growth or mature trees removed. Mr. Hood indicated
that staff felt the trail has been properly designed and planned to help
minimize erosion, and, in general, he believes it will be compatible with
the space available and the existing network within the park. Mr. Hood
noted the popularity of mountain biking, and he said they expect it to continue
to increase. By properly planning and developing the trail, the City
could help meet the needs for this recreational activity while at the same
time trying to minimize the impact of the sport on the natural environment.
Mr. Campbell noted that he
had received a call from someone concerned about the intersections between
the walking trail and the mountain bike trail. He asked how the dangers
of such intersections would be minimized. Mr. Hood said that could
be done by two different approaches. One was that the intersections
will be properly signed so that people on either trail would realize they
are approaching an intersection. The second was that in designing the
mountain bike trail, the planners purposely created curves or upgrades that
will slow the bikers down as they approach the intersection.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Dan Ruether, on behalf of
the Rhett's Run Committee, explained that the Committee was formed for the
purpose of commemorating a friend of his as well as doing something that
would benefit the community as a whole. He noted the planning process
had been open to the public and that they had welcomed community input. Mr.
Ruether related that community concerns had not fallen on deaf ears, and
they had worked with the Greenbelt Coalition, Sierra Club, and the Cosmo
Club.
Joanne Whitely, 303 S. Glenwood,
spoke on behalf of the Native Plant Society of the Hawthorne Chapter. She
explained that the Bear Creek Nature Area was created 22 years ago and it
has remained undisturbed since then. She said the area is too small
for the proposed mountain bike trail and they felt another site should be
pursued. She felt forcing bikers and walkers to use separate trails
would be difficult, if not impossible. Ms. Whitely believed the uses
are incompatible.
Marion Mace, 1993 S. ElDorado,
spoke as a member of the Executive Committee of the Osage group of the Sierra
Club. She said the membership does not oppose a mountain bike trail
in the Bear Creek Nature Area, but their approval is conditional. Ms.
Mace reported they felt the City should take ultimate responsibility for
a high level of maintenance and management of the bike trail. She said
this would include closing the trails when the surface is wet, posting trail
closings at every entrance, and providing a hot line that announces trail
closings. In addition, they felt closings should be announced on the
radio as well. They are also interested in some patrol and enforcement
to ensure proper and safe use of the trail. Ms. Mace explained that
because bike trails are steeper, there is more risk for erosion than an average
hiking trail would be. Lastly, she said they felt the trail should
be moved out of sensitive areas, including the segment that runs along the
stream between flags 12 and 32 on the proposed map and the area close to
the Wetlands near flag 18. She said these are particularly sensitive
areas and are likely to be subject to erosion. Ms. Mace noted that
the Sierra Club supports the route called alternative number one.
Jeff Barrow, 1007 Coats,
President of the Greenbelt Coalition, explained that their mission is to
protect open space. He noted that they have been involved with this
project from the start as the Committee had invited them to learn about the
project and comment on it. Mr. Barrow reported the Coalition's stance
is also neutral, but they have consistent concerns that have been voiced
at several public hearings. Some of these concerns include that if
the trail is built, the environmental impacts be minimized, as well as minimizing
the potential conflicts between the two different groups of users.
Mr. Barrow understood that
most of the money for the construction of the trail is being donated, but
felt that now is the time to determine the estimates for the ongoing cost
of maintenance. The Coalition felt the first part of maintenance, the
fact that the trail is well-designed, had been taken care of. However,
they are troubled about the construction seemingly going on an ad-hoc basis. Mr.
Barrow indicated the Coalition had been told that when construction begins,
it will be routed in a way that will minimize environmental impacts. If
that is the case, the Coalition would like to have a representative from
the environmental community present to ensure the people building the trail
are being as sensitive as possible to the environmental impacts. He
reiterated other concerns voiced by the Sierra Club. Mr. Barrow stated
the Coalition also questions what procedures are in place relating to emergency
procedures (extricating a seriously injured user), and they thought it would
be a good idea to make helmets mandatory for people using the trail. Mr.
Barrow recommended that the trail be built in three phases and offered overheads
to explain his plan.
Tom Braker, 504 Crestland,
noted Cosmo Park is well-developed to provide access to the youth of Columbia. He
said the skateboard park is nearing completion, and mountain biking is becoming
an increasingly popular sport. Mr. Braker thought the project was one
that would continue to make Columbia a diverse and great place to live.
Arro Froese, 1908 Creasy
Springs, said a lot of bike riders have used the park and this project would
improve the trail making it more user friendly. Mr. Froese indicated
he assisted in installing some of the water sheds in the area when he was
a 16 year old Scout with Troop 64, and is well-aware of the environmental
impact mountain biking has.
Mrs. Crockett asked Mr. Froese,
as a mountain biker, whether he wears a helmet. Mr. Froese replied
he did. He said if anyone sees a biker in yellow without a helmet on
they were looking at a fool. He noted the Bicycle Club gives helmets
away.
Dan Devine, 2709 Pine Drive,
spoke as a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission. He had followed
this project for three years and reported how impressed he has been with
the Rhett's Run Committee. Mr. Devine explained the Committee has listened
very closely to all of the people involved, and he was sure they would continue
to do so. He thanked the Committee for their efforts.
Mrs. Crockett asked how the
Commission would propose to handle the maintenance. Mr. Devine explained
that the Committee had said they would probably take care of most of the
maintenance. He thought the City would have to step in from time to
time, but he did not see that being a major issue.
Mr. Campbell asked about
control and how monitoring would be done. Mr. Devine stated his
feeling in working with the Committee is that they are interested in doing
the work and making the best possible bike trail. It was his impression
that the Parks and Recreation staff are happy with what the group has done
and felt they could work with them effectively.
Toby Gilkum, an architect
with Peckham and Wright, explained that his firm had done the initial evaluation
of the north end of the park for the Rhett's Run Committee. They
had found, despite the presence of the natural flora and fauna and its proximity
to the Wetlands, the north end of the park was not in terribly great shape. Mr.
Gilkum reported that many of the existing trails are eroded and the airport
lake is a sorry sight to see. He said the site should not be portrayed
as a nature preserve in its current condition -- it is not utilized that
way nor is it designated by the City for that function. Mr. Gilkum
thought it to be a slight misrepresentation to call it such. With regard
to the preservation of a trail once it is installed, he said the Columbia
cycling community has done an excellent job policing, patrolling, improving
and maintaining the existing bicycle trails within the state parks. He
felt that they have demonstrated their willingness and their capability to
do so, and he has no reason to believe it would be different with this trail.
Mr. Gilkum reported that
this site was one of several that was considered for a bicycle trail for
mountain biking and was chosen due, in large part, to its proximity to Columbia's
population center. He said this park represents a cycling destination
that young people who do not have vehicular transportation can access, which
makes it a tremendous asset. Mr. Gilkum noted that this project is
seen as a no cost opportunity for substantial improvement to City property
allowing a greater variety of recreational activities. While there
are issues to be resolved with regards to maintenance of the trails, it does
represent an opportunity to improve a public facility.
Erica Scanlon, 201 Spring
Valley, said she uses the park for recreational purposes and felt a bike
trail would destroy the area. She spoke about the wildlife she has
seen in the area and felt that a bike trail would scare them away.
Dawn Gatomas, 1506 Wilson
Avenue, said it was important to her quality of life to have within the City
limits an area that is not developed. She is in support of the project,
but objected to the site.
Mr. Coffman asked if Ms.
Gatomas encounters mountain bikers when she uses that portion of the park
presently. Ms. Gatomas responded she does not, but to increase the
trails would alter the landscape greatly. Mr. Coffman asked if she
thought it would help with the bikers being on a different trail. Ms.
Gatomas did not think a separation would make much difference.
Cammy Ronchetto, 2325 Lake
of the Woods Road, voiced her support for the project and explained that
she has a ten year old son who mountain bikes and races around the state. She
reported she also mountain bikes with him. Presently, she said there
is not a place for children to go and mountain bike. Ms. Ronchetto
felt it important to encourage youth to be very fit, athletically and physically,
and the only other bike trail she knows of is in Rock Bridge State Park,
which is not a safe place for the children to get to by bike. She said
it is possible for kids to access Cosmo Park without them having to have
another adult drive them there. Ms. Ronchetto is certain the Bicycle
Club would be interested in aiding with the upkeep of the trails. She
noted they provide trail maintenance at Finger Lakes.
Dan Clinkinbeard, a biker,
spoke in support of the project as a father and grandfather. He would
like to have a place for the next generation of kids to go and ride bikes. He
reported people would have to learn how to share the trails so that everyone
can use them.
Dan Glover, 808 Broadhead,
vouched for the fact that the Columbia bicycle community does do trail maintenance. He
noted that he has organized many clean-up events at Finger Lakes Park, and
the Park Superintendent is so appreciative of their efforts that he bought
them a bunch of tools. Regarding erosion, he said they have found the
enemy is not bikes, horses, or people, but water. Mr. Glover said if
a trail is built right it gets the water off quickly and there will be no
erosion.
Dee Dokken, 208 Sanford,
said she spoke to a mountain biker when she had been on the trail, and the
biker had told her that the Show-Me State races had been on the sled hill
and on the old roads, not on the actual hiking trail. She asked if
that was true. Mr. Hood replied that to his knowledge they used the
old roads, the sled hill and the trail. Ms. Dokken agreed erosion problems
are created primarily by motorized vehicles and horses. She saw mountain
bikes as allies in enjoying and protecting natural areas. Ms. Dokken
suggested that the bikers be given a separate park.
Kimi Chinn, an architect
with offices at 1103 E. Walnut, explained that she has been a mountain biker
since 1992. She suggested looking at examples of trails already in
place where hikers and bikers are sharing trails, and the work and maintenance
of these trails, especially at Rock Bridge State Park, Three Creeks and Finger
Lakes. She said if this trail is developed, she did not think
it would be inundated by bikers to the point where nobody else can enjoy
it. Ms. Chinn did not think the trail would take a lot of maintenance
because it is a quarry and there is a lot of rock there. She pointed
out that it is good to have mountain bikers on the trails because it keeps
them clear.
John Stansfield, an assistant
professor of business administration at Columbia College, spoke in favor
of developing Rhett's Run because it would be a good investment for the City. In
addition, it is the type of amenity Money Magazine would look at in determining
whether or not this is one of the best places in the country to live. Mr.
Stansfield reported the economic benefit to the City would exceed any costs
to the City.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
In terms of closing the trails
and setting up a hot line, Mr. Janku noted that there is already a sports
hot line that is used to report closings. He asked if it could be used
for closing trails as well. Mr. Hood said it could. He said the
current hot line is used for all of their cancellations and the trails could
be added at virtually no cost.
In terms of site selection,
Mr. Janku asked Mr. Hood to give some background on what was reviewed before
deciding on the Cosmo Park location. When the process began, Mr. Hood
said staff had looked into three or four sites with one of the criteria being
that it had to be a large enough acreage. He said they did not look
at anything smaller than 90 to 100 acres. He said there is only one
other site in the park system that would fall into that size range and that
is Grindstone Park. Staff had not felt this to be the best type of
facility to be placed in that park. Mr. Hood explained the remaining
sites were owned by other City departments, and the evaluation was that Cosmo
was the superior site.
Mr. Campbell noted that it
had been mentioned several times that maintenance would be handled by the
Committee and the bicycle community. He felt it would still monetarily
impact the City and asked if that had been budgeted. Mr. Hood replied
that ultimately the maintenance of the trail would be the responsibility
of the City Parks and Recreation Department. He said they hoped to
use volunteers to minimize that cost, but they would include some figures
in the upcoming budget. Assuming the trail should be closed when it
is wet, Mr. Campbell asked who would post those closings. Mr. Hood
said that would be the Parks and Recreation Department's responsibility. He
said the agreement, as proposed, indicated once the trail is built, the maintenance
and operation of it is turned over to the City's Parks and Recreation Department. He
said the Department would make those decisions. Mr. Campbell asked
if that would be an additional activity for his department. Mr. Hood
said at this point they do not make those decisions on trails, but they do
routinely make them on many other facilities. He said it would simply
be another facility they would make those types of decisions on.
Regarding the offers to consult
about the construction of the trail, Mr. Coffman asked if it would be feasible. Mr.
Hood said the Parks and Recreation Department would be happy to meet with
any group and work with them. He felt they should make their position
known to the Department rather than to the Rhett's Run Committee.
Mr. Janku thanked the Committee
and the Walter's family for their willingness to make the project work. He
is in favor of the project because it would allow the proper development
of the area in terms of planning for trails which are already occurring and
will continue to occur. He said they can separate the bicycle, to the
maximum extent possible, from the pedestrians. This had been possible
on the MKT Trail where a separate walking area was created for pedestrians. Mr.
Janku noted another issue that has been touched on is the accessibility of
this park to the community, and particularly young people. He said
that is seen with the skateboard park and how young people are using it to
such a great degree. He realized how accessible this park could be
for a determined young person when he saw two individuals riding their bikes
while carrying golf bags on their back from the golf course on Stadium Boulevard.
Mr. Campbell said this is
a generous offer from the family and the Committee, but he had two concerns. One
was the intersection with the walking trail and the other was erosion. He
said over time almost any trail would cause erosion, but he thought it would
be manageable.
Ms. Crayton said everyone
who uses the trail needed to help maintain it, which included both walkers
and the bikers.
Mayor Hindman is in favor
of the project and thought it to be in the right place. He said not
only is it highly accessible through the Bear Creek Trail and the roads that
lead into Cosmo Park, but the park itself is highly used. Regarding
maintenance, Mayor Hindman noted he had a great deal of confidence in the
Parks and Recreation Department. He said they have managed to maintain
all kinds of facilities and have demonstrated extreme skill in doing so. He
was encouraged by the volunteer effort and said he expected they would follow
through. Mayor Hindman pointed out that this facility would be designed
by two people who have been key course designers for the 1996 Olympic Mountain
Bike Course, they have designed and consulted in World Cup Courses, and they
have worked on championship courses in a dozen or so states. He said
they would actually be building this trail for the City and it will be a
quality job. Mayor Hindman did not think there will be another trail
like it and it will have a minimal impact on the environment. He thanked
the family for their contribution and the Committee for all of their hard
work. Mayor Hindman stated it would be a terrific contribution to the
City of Columbia.
B96-99 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared
enacted, reading as follows:
B103-99 Authorizing
change orders to the contract with APAC-MO for the Forum Boulevard
and
Sewer
District No. 137 project; approving engineer's report; levying special
assessments;
appropriating funds.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
would formally approve the work completed last year on Forum Boulevard and
Sewer District No. 137.
In regards to the Forum project,
Mr. Patterson reported the item of significance is the extension expansion
of the project to accommodate the development at Chapel Hill and Forum. He
noted the change orders listed in the report describing the work.
Mr. Patterson explained Sewer
District No. 137 was established by the Council in January of 1994. He
said the project was brought forward on the basis of a petition from one
of the property owners in the area that did not have public access to sewer. After
the District was formed, he noted there had been a public hearing on May
2, 1994, at which time the Council approved the project. The project
had been bid separately and it was felt the prices came in very high. It
was decided to rebid the project in conjunction with improvements to Forum
in order to gain some advantage on the economy of scale. The public
hearing for the Forum project was held June 19, 1995.
Mr. Patterson reported the
project relating to Sewer District No. 137 consisted of construction of a
septic tank effluent pump system that serves five separate parcels of property. He
said the construction of the force main and the connection to the gravity
sewer allows these properties to connect to a public sewer line by installing
an effluent pump at the discharge of the septic tank. The gravity flow
line was evaluated at the time of the public hearing and it was determined
to be five times as expensive as the step system that had been recommended,
which the Council ultimately approved to be constructed. The total
project cost was $16,887.72, but the assessment had been set at a maximum
of six cents per square foot and the tax bills, therefore, would generate
only $10,440 of the project cost, with the sewer utility contributing the
remainder (approximately $6,500). The individual assessments on the
property would range from approximately $800 to $3,780.
Mr. Patterson outlined the
primary benefits to be considered would be the ability for the property owners
to connect to a public sewer system that would eliminate septic drain fields
which frequently fail and discharge effluent to open surface areas and ditches. This
would remove from the properties the potential financial and environmental
liabilities that they would incur in the event of a failure of the septic
systems. If Council finds the benefits of having the public sewer available
to the properties is at least equal to the amounts being proposed for assessments,
the ordinance tonight should be approved.
Mr. Campbell noted that the
Council received letters from one of the landowners raising several technical
problems of possible failure. He asked him to address the issues raised. Mr.
Patterson explained that one concern had been the depth of the line. During
the inspection, staff required the contractor to lower the line in two locations
so they now have assurances that it will not freeze. He said the pump
issue is the same as it was when addressed at the public hearing -- the 25-feet
approximate head on it is not a major technical problem. Mr. Patterson
said the reference in the letter continues to be toward grinder pumps. He
reiterated that this is not a grinder pump system, but an effluent pump system
(it is pumping out the effluent from the septic tank). He said staff
felt the system had been properly designed to assure that there would not
be the potential for back-up in the houses. In general, he said the
concerns were the ones that had been addressed with the design in construction. Mr.
Patterson reported staff believes the system will be acceptable and up to
standards.
Mr. Campbell asked what cost
the landowner would incur in addition to the tax bill. Mr. Patterson
said the home owner would be responsible for the installation of the pump
itself, which would be approximately $600.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Wilbur Zumwalt, 1508 Mills,
explained that he had bought five houses within the subject sewer district
44 years ago. He indicated he had always fought against the step system
because of the flaws in it. Mr. Zumwalt read a letter that he sent
to the Council. He reported he would never connect to this system and
he did not want to pay for it. Mr. Zumwalt was under the impression
that he was going to be charged more than what was being currently discussed.
Mr. Patterson explained that
Mr. Zumwalt was referring to the cost estimates that had been provided to
the Council at the time of the public hearing. He said at that time,
three alternatives had been presented to the Council: the step system
for a total construction estimate of $16,600.00; the alternative which was
approximately five times more than the one Mr. Zumwalt had requested of them
and was estimated at $89,300; and a third option of $41,300 that included
some other properties not part of this project. When talking about
comparisons, it was the comparison of what Mr. Zumwalt had requested of the
City and what had been proposed.
Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Patterson
to comment on the number of septic tanks in the area. Mr. Patterson
said he thought there were four, three belonging to Mr. Zumwalt and one to
the Mills property.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Campbell thought Mr.
Patterson had adequately explained the problems in the area and the need
for additional sewers. He believed this project seemed to be the most
cost efficient manner in which to do it.
Mr. Janku noted the staff
is generally supportive of gravity sewers, and the fact that they have developed
something other than that means it must not have been very practical in this
situation. Mr. Beck agreed and said there would have to be a substantial
reason to go this route or they would have gone with the gravity sewer.
Mr. Patterson noted that
this is the system that had been constructed in The Highlands as there had
been no other option. He said they prefer not to put these in unless
they are the only viable option. He pointed out that staff also did
a 20-year life cycle cost analysis so they were not just comparing the initial
cost when presenting a proposal of this nature to the Council.
Mr. Campbell asked about
the system in The Highlands and whether there have been any major problems
with it. Mr. Patterson said he did not recall any and he thought it
had been used for at least six years now.
B103-99 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared
enacted, reading as follows:
(A) Voluntary
annexation of property located on the east side of Rock Quarry Road,
south of City
limits.
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
approximate 22.6 acre tract is located in southeast Columbia. It would
allow for a sewer line to be connected to an existing house located on the
property. Although the zoning is not part of this request, Mr. Beck
said the owner had suggested that they may want to have it permanently zoned
A-1.
Mr. Coffman asked if this
would add an extension of Rock Quarry Road to City maintenance. If
the road is part of the annexation request, Mr. Beck said it would be maintained
by the City. Mr. Coffman asked if there was some work that would need
to be done (referring to erosion). Mr. Patterson said the County had
planned some improvements, but he was not sure if it has been taken care
of. He noted there are problems with the road and drainage, and they
are trying to address that with some remedial action, but he did not think
there has been any major reconstruction. Mr. Coffman asked if plans
might be changed because of this annexation request. Mr. Patterson
said he was not aware of any and explained that reconstruction of the road
would be prioritized by the Council.
Mayor Hindman noted that
no action is required at this time.
OLD BUSINESS
B93-99 Approving
the final plat of the Village of Cherry Hill, Plat 1; granting a variance
from the
subdivision
regulations regarding street width; authorizing a performance contract.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained the location
of this project as being south and east of the southeast corner of Chapel
Hill and Scott Boulevard. This approximate 28 acre tract would create
about 70 R-1 lots and five lots of common area. He noted that the applicant
is requesting a variance to allow a 28 foot wide street rather than the required
32 foot street width. The variance received a five to four vote in
favor by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Beck also noted that
the staff report raised questions relating to parking and street width. He
suggested that the Council may want to review the street width policy as
they are beginning to see more and more requests for variances with regard
to street width. Mr. Campbell reminded the Council that he had asked
for that information about three weeks ago.
Roy Finley, 601 W. Nifong,
offered to answer any questions regarding the project.
Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Finley
to comment on parking and street width. Mr. Finley said he had provided
the staff with supporting data regarding street widths. The information
supports the idea that narrower streets are a good thing from the standpoint
of reducing the speed of traffic and, thereby, reducing noise and enhancing
safety. For this concept to work like anticipated in traditional neighborhood
developments, Mr. Finley said it is recommended that parking be allowed on
both sides of the street rather on one side as the staff is suggesting. He
reported this is proposed because parked cars become traffic calming devices. Mr.
Finley noted that this particular street has a common area over a long portion
of it so it did not have very many lots on it.
Mary Green, 713 Hilltop,
asked if sidewalks are planned for the project. Mayor Hindman
replied that there would be five foot sidewalks with space between the sidewalk
and the curb. Ms. Green said she was pleased to hear that as she was
supportive of the walkability issue.
Mr. Campbell said these developers
are pioneers in the sense of trying some different things in this development. He
thought the Council should grant the request and see if it will work as it
could contribute to some of the policies Mr. Beck is talking about possibly
revising. Mr. Campbell observed the materials that had been presented
suggested that it has worked in other cities.
Mayor Hindman said this would
be an outstanding development and he was in favor of it. He said the
commercial area looked very innovative.
Mrs. Crockett agreed that
it would be a great development, but said she had a problem with parking
on both sides of the street if the width was going to be 28 feet. She
noted the Council received a letter from the Fire Department recommending
that parking be eliminated on one side for safety reasons.
Mr. John commented that the
zoning regulations in effect now (wide streets with deep setbacks) have been
based on the dreaded automobile traffic. He said that created a lot
of the sprawl everyone is worried about. He agreed that the Council
needed to go back and look at the ordinances to allow some flexibility in
regards to street widths. In this case, however, it is a short street
that is open at either end and a fire truck could get in. Mr. John
felt that this plan allowed for flexibility.
Ms. Crayton asked if the
houses would have driveways and garages. Mayor Hindman said they would. Ms.
Crayton assumed the on-street parking would be for visitors. Mayor
Hindman said that was his assumption also, although there are people who
do not have room in their garage to park a car. Ms. Crayton asked if
the sidewalks would be wheelchair accessible. Mayor Hindman said they
would be.
Mr. Janku commented that
if parking on both sides of the street is found to be a problem, it could
be removed from one side after the fact.
B93-99 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CAMPBELL, JOHN,
COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: CROCKETT. Bill declared
enacted, reading as follows:
B94-99 Amending
Chapter 19 of the City Code as it relates to the employee classification
plan.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this
amendment would clarify ordinances relating to the employee classification
plan and the grades contained within it. He reported it would allow
some flexibility through the budget year.
B94-99 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared
enacted, reading as follows:
B95-99 Amending
Chapter 26 of the City Code as it relates to the license tax on hotels
and motels.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said questions have
been raised pertaining to how the local tax is computed. He said this
bill is intended to clarify the procedure so it is uniformly administered,
particularly in Columbia. He explained it would assure the elimination
of a lodging tax on the state and local sales tax portion of the bill. Mr.
Beck noted that this amendment has been reviewed by the Convention and Visitors
Advisory Board and it is their recommendation that this change be adopted.
B95-99 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B99-99 Confirming
the contract for the construction of Wetlands Treatment Unit #4.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said the bids on
this major wastewater project had been excellent with the low bid from Phillips
Grading and Construction, Inc. out of Boonville being $2,904,565.09. He
said there had been a total of four bids received and all had been below
the engineer's estimate.
B99-99 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared
enacted, reading as follows:
B104-99 Establishing
a moratorium on the demolition of structures on the National Register
of
Historic
Places.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that Mr. Coffman
had submitted a proposed amendment that would prohibit the demolition or
removal of structures in an area involved in the National Register of Historic
Places, primarily applicable to the Stephens situation. He said all
additional information received has been forwarded to the Council.
Mr. Coffman explained that
the intent of the amendment is to limit the moratorium to educational institutions
as defined by Section 29-6.
Mr. Coffman made the motion
that B104-99 be amended per his amendment sheet. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
David Rogers, an attorney
with offices at 813 E. Walnut, spoke on behalf of Charlotte Overby, a home
owner in the immediate area on Willis Avenue who would be affected by the
demolition of the nearby structures. Mr. Rogers is also representing
the East Campus Neighborhood who also opposes the demolition of these buildings. Mr.
Rogers said at least twice in the last few years the Council has adopted
moratoriums, and the City Counselor's Office had advised the Council that
was the appropriate way to achieve the end of suspending operations while
legislation was being considered. He believed the Council should carefully
review Section 29-6 pertaining to the zoning regulations for educational
institutions, such as Stephens College and Columbia College.
Mr. Rogers explained that
Stephens is apparently operating on a plan that was adopted in 1981, and
he understood there may even be some question as to whether or not the plan
was actually adopted. He said the City has simply not been regulating
these institutions as the ordinance requires them to. Mr. Rogers commented
the regulation of these institutions is pretty vague under the ordinance. He
said Mr. Boeckmann's argument that this moratorium is improper because the
intention is to allow time to convince Stephens not to demolish the homes
on Willis Street is a self-defeating argument. The purpose of the moratorium
is to allow the Council time to have the Planning staff and the Planning
and Zoning Commission make recommendations as to possible changes in Section
29-6 or other related ordinances. Mr. Rogers reported they are
not asking the Council to allow for time to convince Stephens to alter their
plans, but asking the Council to give themselves time to order Stephens to
do something by means of the zoning ordinance. He noted that 29-6 does
not speak to demolition, but thought a new ordinance might. Mr. Rogers
related when the College needed the Council's vote to build the new building
on Willis, they sent a Vice-President and a lawyer to make certain representations
to the Council about their intentions. Tonight, when they want to do
away with the houses on Willis and disavow their prior promises and representations,
they send a different Vice-President and a different lawyer. Mr. Rogers
urged the Council to pass the proposed amendment and pass the ordinance as
amended. He suggested this bill may be further amended to stipulate
the moratorium will provide the Council with sufficient time to consider
amendments to Section 29-6.
Daniel Jordan, 1717 Amelia,
Chair of the Benton-Stephens Community Association, addressed conformity
with the current ordinance. He believes the College is in violation
of 29-6 (b) and thought they should be stopped from further action until
they comply with the regulation. He explained that this section requires
Stephens to have a development plan, sometimes called a master plan. Mr.
Jordan noted the plan that is currently on file with the City is at least
17 years old. He pointed out that the ordinance further requires that
if there is a major deviation from the document, the plan shall be amended
and resubmitted. He displayed a map of the grounds that accompanied
the Stephens plan. He explained that it is divided into 23 sections. By
Mr. Jordan's count, there are deviations in one out of three of the sections. He
enumerated the deviations which he believed made the map irrelevant. Mr.
Jordan asked that the moratorium be passed until Stephens is in compliance
with the ordinance.
Mr. Janku asked if Section
29-6 is in the zoning regulations. Mr. Boeckmann replied it was, and
added that it is part of the R-1 zoning regulations and under the permitted
uses.
Debbie Sheals, 406 W. Broadway,
Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, spoke with the College this
afternoon and did not see much indication of their willingness to discuss
the matter. She did thank Mr. Bryan, Vice-President of the College
and said she saw some line of communication at least forming. Ms. Sheals
pointed out that another item that has changed since their plan was filed
is that the City has a Historic Preservation Program. She explained
there has been some confusion in that Stephens was not aware they were next
door to a Historic District. She said everyone who owns property in
the Historic District receives a letter from the State Department of Natural
Resources indicating the consideration of such a district and allows a mechanism
by which they can comment. She said no comment was received from Stephens. Ms.
Sheals reported that what Stephens does with their property does affect their
neighbors, and they are trying to get a little more acknowledgment and input
of that.
John Pascucci, 3104 Timberhill
Trail, explained that he owns property at 112 College Avenue. He said
Stephens sold a parking lot not too long ago off of North College Avenue,
and noted now they want to build another parking lot. He was concerned
about the affect the demolition would have on the homes on the other side
of College that interface with Willis. He reported the City has laws
for a reason and Stephens should have to abide by these laws just as any
other citizen would have to. Dr. Pascucci explained that he had gone
through two of the houses slated for demolition and thought they were beautiful. He
passed around a booklet with a map of Stephens on the back which was issued
in June of 1998. He said the map showed all of the houses on Willis.
Charlotte Overby, 113 Willis,
spoke about fairness. She asked if it was fair for Stephens to refer
to whichever plan is most convenient for them at the time, and why they are
not held to the same standards for planning that every other institution
and developer is. She wondered if this is fair to residents of Willis
and Bass and everyone else in the City who works hard to make central Columbia
an affordable, livable, nice place to live. She questioned why Stephens
College's property rights and goals are worth more than hers and her neighbors. Ms.
Overby reported she wants the College to thrive and grow and, in good faith,
she and her neighbors want the chance to negotiate and have input into what
happens on their street -- to find common ground. She said if
the ordinance is defeated, the Council would be saying it is all right for
residents to sometimes get mislead by administrators and that planning policy
only affects some people. Ms. Overby commented if the Council passes
the moratorium, they would show they recognize there is more than one interested
party here.
Matthew Harline, 301 McNab,
displayed overheads of the 1981 master plan on file with the City. The
plan depicting Area B, the area in question, is being held for parking for
Area C, the area including the metal shed facility which serves as a gymnasium
and maintenance shed. Mr. Harline reported the College had said they
did not need parking in Area C in March of 1998. He explained that
Area A is across the street and linked by a pedestrian mall. He said
that is the reason they need parking in Area B. Mr. Harline noted that
Area A also included the new Columbia Independent School, which is not on
the master plan, and old South Auditorium which is being slated for possible
parking. Mr. Harline said the College also owns houses on Broadway
(Area D) which is targeted for parking. In addition, Stephens has built
a new parking lot at the corner of Walnut and College, which is shown as
a building on the master plan. His point was that it would have been
very difficult for any of the property owners to determine which parts of
the plan were active and which were not. Mr. Harline believed it is
also very difficult for the Director of Public Works to determine how to
enforce the ordinance. He felt that rendered the ordinance completely
toothless and definitely in need of review because of no protections for
people who want to protect their property. Mr. Harline also noted gaps
in the map on Willis Avenue -- one of the houses planned for demolition is
not on the plan because it was not owned by the College in 1981.
Mark Thomas, 608 Morningside
Drive, described a neighborhood meeting about a year ago wherein John Fitzgibbon,
former Vice-President in Charge of Facilities Management at Stephens, spoke
to their group. Mr. Thomas reported that Mr. Fitzgibbon had spoken
at length and answered a lot of questions. He said they talked about
all of the issues being discussed tonight -- the historic district, the Stephens
plan, and about being good neighbors. He said they talked a little
about the new facility Stephens wanted to build and the parking variances
they were requesting. When the neighborhood had asked about the properties
on Willis owned by Stephens and the potential for selling these, Mr. Fitzgibbon
had indicated that the College still liked being a property owner, but if
they ever wanted to get out of the business of rental property they would
let East Campus know. Mr. Thomas reported they also discussed whether
Stephens had any immediate plans to demolish the Willis homes, and Mr. Fitzgibbon
had said "we have absolutely no intention of destroying any buildings on
Willis -- none whatsoever". Mr. Thomas said residents accepted that
assertion on good faith, and as a result, had not raised a big issue about
the variance requirements for the proposed multi-purpose facility between
Dorsey and Willis. He commented residents had felt they had a verbal
agreement with Stephens, and the College had broken their trust.
Elaine Hartley, 1308 Bass
Avenue, member of The Friends of Historic Willis Avenue, read a statement
written by a Willis Avenue resident who could not be present tonight. The
letter was addressed to the Mayor and Council from Erin Baldridge. Ms.
Baldridge explained in the letter that she owns the house at 101 Willis that
will be left standing in the middle of the parking lot. She said the
entrance of the lot would go past her bedroom windows and noise and lights
of cars will be passing by on three sides of her house, as well as the lights
in the parking lots that will be needed to make it safe. The letter
said that Stephens has a long history of broken promises that did not begin
with this administration. She asked the Council to make Stephens accountable
to the community before finding they have lost history and living space that
cannot be recovered. Ms. Baldridge also said that when she had been
barred from a press conference last week at Stephens College, she had been
approached by Bob Bedal, Vice-President of Student Affairs, who had told
her that Stephens was acting on the national level and was not interested
in local and community concerns. Ms. Baldridge asked what would be
next if Stephens is allowed to proceed further with their block by block
approach to planning. She asked the Council to pass the moratorium.
Jay Hasheider, 1403 Windsor,
a resident of the Benton-Stephens Neighborhood, explained that he lives one
block away from the proposed demolition site. He understood the moratorium
would only affect historic districts, and regardless of the Council's vote
tonight, demolitions would be allowed to continue. Mr. Coffman said
he was afraid that was true. Mr. Hasheider pointed out that the 1981
plan included Area I, which are the tracts that will be demolished in Benton-Stephens,
located in the 1400 block of Walnut. He said the current plan indicates
that this two block area encompasses the College's major academic buildings,
the chapel, two dormitories and five rental properties. No major changes
had been anticipated in this location. Mr. Hasheider said if what he
read in the paper is correct (the homes on the 1400 block of Walnut are also
slated for demolition), he did not see how Stephens could do that according
to their current plan.
Christian Els, 11 Willis
Avenue, said he and his wife were finally able to buy their first home about
18 months ago. He spoke about the investment in their home and what
the impact would be on the face and character of their neighborhood. Because
of the pledge made last year by Stephens about there being no significant
alteration to the rest of the neighborhood, Mr. Els reported residents had
accepted this at face value and have now been let down. He felt they
have been used and taken advantage of. Mr. Els explained the reason
they are asking for the moratorium is for the opportunity to engage in constructive
dialogue with Stephens College to find out what their true plans are, and
to determine if there are common ground issues they can discuss. He
urged passage of the moratorium.
Mr. Els asked the people
in the audience in favor of the moratorium to stand. Approximately
five dozen people stood.
Dan Simon, an attorney with
offices at 601 E. Broadway, explained that he is the lawyer representing
Stephens College tonight. Mr. Simon stated that Stephens is very strongly
opposed to this particular ordinance. He said they felt it to be 100%
unlawful as it constitutes an attempt to temporarily impose a zoning ordinance
without going through the required provisions of Chapter 89 of the Missouri
Statutes and Chapter 29 of the ordinances of this city. He said it
also constitutes a violation of this city's own building code, which would
entitle any property owner under the same circumstances to obtain demolition
permits. Mr. Simon added that it constitutes an unlawful interference
with the ability of Stephens to implement and follow a plan that has long
been approved by the City. Mr. Simon noted that he was appearing with
Jim Bowers, a land use attorney from Kansas City, who is probably more capable
of answering these legal questions than he. Also in attendance are
a number of representatives of Stephens College. Mr. Simon explained
that Dr. Marcia Kierscht, President of Stephens College, would not be in
attendance because of an illness in the family. She apologized for
her absence. He indicated Mr. Bob Bedal, a Vice-President, would try
to cover for her.
Mr. Simon reported anyone
who lawfully owns property under the existing zoning is entitled to proceed
forward. He has heard a lot of talk this evening about Stephens College
conforming with the law, and that is all the College is asking -- that the
City conform with the law. Mr. Simon commented it has also been implied
that people have been mislead, that the College has withheld its intentions
that these particular lots on Willis Avenue would be used for parking. He
found that impression to be simply false. Commencing in 1976, Mr. Simon
said the Council approved a plan that authorized and provided for the placement
of parking at these locations, and the issues before the Council now are
almost identical to the ones considered in 1976. He related there had
been talk about preservation of housing in the central area, talk about preserving
the old residences, and at the time the City Council voted 5-1 to approve
the plan that provided for this parking. It had been recognized this
was a long-term plan, that it would be implemented on a long-term basis when
the houses had to be torn down because either the College needed the parking,
or because it was no longer economically feasible to continue to use them
for rental properties. One of the Council members voting for the ordinance
was Clyde Wilson, who was at one time the President of the East Campus Neighborhood
Association.
Mr. Simon noted in 1961,
the Council adopted an ordinance that provided for campus master plans. He
reported Stephens has consistently filed master plans. The first plan
was submitted in 1962 and was approved that same year. It was then
revised in 1964 and approved at that time. In 1975 and 1976, a plan
was approved which dealt with, among other things, Willis Avenue. It
shows parking for Willis Avenue right on the face of the plan. Mr.
Simon pointed out that since 1976, the homes on Willis Avenue have been slated
for parking. In that year, the President of Stephens told the Council
that the houses had been acquired to hold for future parking. It had
also been conveyed the homes would be torn down when it would no longer be
justifiable to retain them for rental purposes.
Mr. Simon observed the 1981
plan that has been consistently referred to does not differ in any material
respect from the 1976 plan. Again, the Council proceeded to amend the
plan and it had been provided that the Willis homes would be used for parking. Despite
what anyone says about there being a misrepresentation, Mr. Simon said there
are members of this Council who asked what was going to happen to the houses
on Willis Avenue, to which Mr. Fitzgibbon stated that the plan was not going
to be changed. He said there were then, in fact, no present intentions
to remove the houses, but there is now such an intention. Mr. Simon
reported the reason for the change in intention is because the College now
has the money to implement the plan. He said that money was raised
in reliance of the plan and as a representation of the plan. Mr. Simon
stated the 1981 plan is like any other in that once it has been approved,
the Council cannot change the conditions. Furthermore, he believed
the Council cannot impose, on a temporary basis, zoning ordinances and land
use laws without going through the procedures of Chapter 89 of the Missouri
Statutes and Chapter 29 of the City's own ordinances. Mr. Simon said
that meant hearings before both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
City Council. None of those procedures have been followed.
Lastly, Mr. Simon outlined
the moratorium represents a violation of the City's own building code. He
said it is a non-lawful depravation of property rights of the College. Like
the residents, the College simply wants the law followed. Mr. Simon
wondered what the Council's next step would be if they approved the moratorium. He
asked what they would tell Stephens College, who is in the business of educating
people, not in renting houses or rehabilitating them. He questioned
whether the Council would tell the College they must keep the houses and
spend money they want to use for educational purposes to rehabilitate the
houses, that they have to rent the houses when they choose to no longer rent
them. Mr. Simon asked if Stephens would be told to sell the houses,
and if so, whether the Council was going to determine when or what terms,
etc. He reported the Council did not have that authority. Mr.
Simon respectfully asked the Council to reject the ordinance.
Mr. Coffman asked why Stephens
had referred to the 1981 plan when they were before the Council previously. Mr.
Simon said he thought it was neither the College's or the City's finest hour. The
belief was that the correct plan was the 1981 plan. He thought the
planner himself would say he was of the opinion that the correct plan was
the 1981 plan. Mr. Simon said he did not believe it was. However,
if one looks at the plans, he did not think there was any material deviation
between the 1976 plan, which was amended in 1978, and the 1981 plan. Mr.
Coffman asked Mr. Simon if he believed there have been major deviations since
1976. Mr. Simon said he did not, and pointed out that there is a City
official empowered to make that decision -- and that is the Public Works
Director. He said if Stephens comes in and seeks from the Public Works
Department a building permit, and if the Director believes there is a substantial
or material deviation from the plan, he can require that the plan be amended. He
said it was amended in 1998 for that reason, as it was in 1988 for the same
reason.
Mr. Coffman referred to a
document and asked why Stephens submitted documents they referred to as updates
to their master plan. Mr. Simon said the document was not dated so
he could only tell him what he thought happened. In about the 1988
time frame, there was a substantial dispute over the area across from Boone
Hospital Center. He said there were several updates that went on at
that time and the document might be a part of it. Mr. Simon commented
it may also be simply that the 1981 plan was given to the City for informational
purposes. He did not find anything inconsistent in this with what was
said here, and, in fact, the College did acquire the residences with the
hope of protecting its peripheries, but acquired them for parking purposes. Mr.
Simon reported the minutes of the 1978 meeting reflect exactly the same issues
that are being considered tonight.
Regarding Section I of the
1981 plan referred to earlier (the Walnut Street houses), Mr. Coffman asked
under what authority Stephens has to tear them down. Mr. Simon said
he was not certain they need any authority to tear down any structure other
than a demolition permit from the Public Works Department. He thought
Stephens had the right to do that provided it fulfills all of the conditions
pertaining to the issuance of a demolition permit. If the College wanted
to tear them down and build something else there, Mr. Simon thought that
may be a different mater. Mr. Coffman asked if the College could put
a parking lot in. Mr. Simon said that was not for him to decide, but
for the Public Works Director to decide. He said if the Director determines
that is a substantial deviation from the plan, he would have every right
to require that the plan be amended to allow for that parking lot.
Mr. Janku asked if the 1978
plan was adopted as an ordinance. Mr. Simon said the 1976 plan was
adopted by ordinance, and amended by ordinance again in 1988. Mr. Janku
said he assumed it is recognized that the City Council has authority in the
area of zoning because it is a legislative decision. Mr. Simon agreed
and said that was a given. Mr. Janku asked why the Council would not
have the authority to make a determination as to whether or not something
is a substantial change to a plan they adopted by ordinance. Mr. Simon
responded because the Council, by ordinance, have given that authority to
the Public Works Director. Mr. Janku observed there is a resolution
this evening that stipulates changes to ordinances have to be approved by
the City Council. He was confused by Mr. Simon's assertions. Mr.
Simon referred to the language in 29-6 which provides that the Public Works
Director determines whether there is a substantial deviation, and if so,
he would then require that the plan be amended through the normal zoning
processes. Mr. Simon said the issue tonight was whether this City Council
will impose a moratorium on demolition permits for educational institutions
in historic districts, which is only directed at Stephens College. He
said the question is whether the Council has the lawful authority to impose
such a temporary moratorium irrespective of all the other business they have
talked about. Mr. Simon said the answer to that question, in his opinion,
is a flat no. Assuming that is true, Mr. Janku wondered about the other
issue relating to the plan -- should the Council make a determination that
it has been substantially deviated from, can they require that it be amended. Mr.
Simon submitted that the area of the plan they are talking about has not
been deviated from and has not been amended. Mr. Janku said he may
agree with that just for discussion sake, but he was referring to the plan
in general. He said the Council has heard testimony as to the differences
between what was contained in the original plan in 1978, and what has occurred
in certain locations. Mr. Simon said he did not hear any testimony
that would indicate there have been substantial deviations from the plan,
but people's opinions can differ about that. Mr. Janku said that was
where discretion comes in with a legislative body.
Robert Bedal, Academic and
Student Affairs Vice-President of Stephens College, said their Board and
administration are steadfast in their desire to enhance parking for the south
central core of their campus. He noted a reference made earlier relating
to the historic district, which was organized around the time the campus
was doing some planning in 1995. He said the question had been why
Stephens had not made a comment at that time. He said the then Vice-President
for Administration was asked to investigate what meaning or implication a
historic district would have on their plan. He passed out a copy of
a document to illustrate why the College had not commented. There was
a note on it that had been sent to the President indicating that this person
had spoken with Steven E. Mitchell of the National Register Coordinator for
the Historic Preservation Program, and he made assurances that an historic
designation placed no constraint on what Stephens could do with their property. Mr.
Bedal commented it was, therefore, not an issue with the College and that
is why no comment was given at that time. Mr. Bedal reported that Stephens
is not a monolithic institution that is growing and expanding at an ever
increasing rate. He said the administrators have been paring and shaping
the campus to meet the needs of a modern Stephens College. Throughout
that process, they have also been most interested in one thing; providing
a compact, functional and vibrant campus environment for students and for
the community, whether it is for an arts event, a class, a luncheon, etc.
Mr. Bedal explained what
drives the College's desire to improve parking along Willis relates very
much to the heart of that matter. He pointed out that Stephens would
be spending somewhere between $10 and $12 million in the next several years
for the purposes previously stated. He commented that process began
when the multi-purpose facility was constructed. He noted the College
is not going to be constructing 12 more buildings, and that was really the
only major building in the whole enterprise. Mr. Bedal outlined funding
would be spent primarily on restoring, beautifying, and updating the physical
plant, including some of the most important historic buildings in the City
of Columbia. He related Stephens has sold off assets in order to concentrate
on the east side of College Avenue. For more than two decades, the
College has been waiting to implement this plan on Willis. He said
the project is moving forward now because they have the money in place. At
the same time, Mr. Bedal stated the College's recruitment efforts resulted
in a 27% increase in their incoming class last year, and they are 20% ahead
on deposits this year. He reported this is an exciting time for Stephens
and he was very sorry it is creating a problem for some of their neighbors,
but the reality is that the College is important to Columbia and important
to the residents of the East Campus Neighborhood, and Stephens plans to continue
to move forward with their program.
Mr. Campbell was concerned
about the impact on the remaining houses, in particular, two houses on the
northern portion of Willis Avenue. He noted one would be completely
surrounded by driveways and a parking lot. He said the value of that
house will be severely impacted by the action of the College. Mr. Campbell
asked if Stephens was willing to go in and give a fair price for those properties
to allow for a compact and contiguous area. Mr. Bedal said nobody in
the neighborhood had approached the College about purchasing their home. Mr.
Campbell asked if the College had approached them. Mr. Bedal said they
did not because they did not want to presume these individuals would be interested
in selling their homes. He said there is no question that the College
is willing to try to work with the residents with respect to issues such
as berming, landscaping, and trying to create an environment that is going
to be as friendly as possible to the neighborhood. In that regard,
he knew Vice-President Bryan would be trying to communicate with the neighbors
on those issues.
Ms. Crayton said she was
concerned about the impact on the person whose house will be in the middle
of the parking. She thought there needed to be more communication on
both sides. Mr. Bedal said he could not speak on behalf of the Board
in terms of acquiring property; however, he could and would insist they address
the question relative to a possible purchase. He indicated the College
would investigate it.
Mr. Janku asked what the
plan shows as to the number of parking spaces that will be created by removing
the six houses. Mr. Bedal said the maximum estimated number is 80. Mr.
Janku asked if there is an actual plan. Mr. Bedal said the College
was not at the point of having designed a specific architectural plan. He
noted that was obviously something that will have to come with a permit. Mr.
Janku asked what the total parking proposal was for the area between College
and Willis. Mr. Bedal thought that to be in the area of 150 spaces.
Mr. Campbell said the University
of Missouri had found itself in a similar situation last year in Kansas City
when they were going to take over a large amount of houses for parking. He
said when that was brought to the attention of the Board and President, the
whole process was stopped. The President had said the University should
go back to the drawing board and work with the neighbors. Mr. Campbell
asked if Stephens has considered such a move. Mr. Bedal reported Stephens
is very interested in trying to reduce the impact on the neighborhood, but
with respect to whether or not the Board has thought about a reconsideration
of the demolition, he said the College has thought about it and they are
not reconsidering. He said they are planning to proceed. Mr.
Bedal indicated one of the reasons the actual design of the parking lots
has not gone forward is that they are not opposed to involving the people
on the block in helping them figure out how to make it as livable, attractive,
and functional as possible. He said that includes some give and take
on the number of spaces that will be proposed.
Mr. Janku asked about preserving
a structure. He said the schematic that was presented to him depicted
driveways, which in essence lead up to another house that will be retained
by a home owner with a significant amount of landscaping. He asked
why not leave the structure in place to provide buffering rather than tearing
down the houses and putting in landscaping. He was sure the neighbors
would prefer the house as a buffer rather than landscaping. Mr. Bedal
said at this point that was probably an artists rendering. Mr. Janku
asked why it was distributed if it had no meaning. Mr. Bedal said because
it gives an impression of what the campus will look like. He had stated
earlier that this was not an architectural plan and he did not know how else
to explain it. Mr. Janku said if Stephens is demolishing the houses
because they are old and decrepit, they should just say it. Mr. Bedal
said although it is true the houses are not in good condition, that is not
the reason Stephens wants to demolish them. He explained they want
to tear the homes down so they can accomplish what they have planned to do
for over two decades.
Mr. Campbell asked if he
understood correctly that Stephens College is not willing to sit down with
the neighborhood and work out compatible plans with them. Mr. Bedal
said he felt Stephens is willing to communicate with the neighborhood association
on matters that the College feels are germane to the neighborhood. He
said that is not to say they are willing to allow the neighborhood to set
the objectives of Stephens College. Mr. Bedal stated that may be a
hard reality for the neighborhood and he realized it is a difficult situation,
but he was trying to be frank and honest with the Council. He said
the College has objectives and goals that are essential to its survival,
and instead of an attempt to prevent the College from proceeding with their
plans, the focus could have been shifted to how the residents could influence
the final appearance of the neighborhood, which would have perhaps been a
more constructive tact.
Mr. Coffman suggested that
meeting with the neighborhood prior to announcing their plan might have helped. Mr.
Bedal understood Mr. Coffman's point. Mr. Coffman asked if he understood
that the number of houses to be destroyed was not on the table, that Stephens
was not interested in saving even one home. Mr. Bedal said it is not
a matter of trying to save a home or not save a home, but a matter of implementing
a plan that has been in place and fully approved and known to the neighborhood
and City Council for two decades. He reported he has some difficulty
understanding why this is as difficult an issue as it is, and yet he knows
why -- because there are people involved in the neighborhood. Mr. Bedal
stated that does not take away from the fact that the College has a plan
which is very important to its future. Ultimately, what is good for
Stephens College is what is best for Columbia. Mr. Bedal commented
he was quoted earlier as having said that local things do not matter to Stephens
College. What he really said was Stephens is a national college and
they have to be competitive on a national basis. He said they also
recognize that Columbia has been their home since 1833, and that Stephens
was the first institution of higher education in the City. He said
the College is very proud of that. Mr. Bedal reported students come
to Stephens in part because of the great reputation the City of Columbia
has. He said they never take that for granted.
Deb Durran, Dean of Students,
Chief of Security, and Director of Athletics, said she is extremely proud
of the new building that will open next year providing many activities for
their students, and hopefully, the facility can be shared with the City of
Columbia and other groups that express an interest in renting it. She
spoke out of concern for the Stephens students. Ms. Durran reported
that parking is a problem and more is needed for the activities and events
that are scheduled in Stamper Commons. She explained that is the heart
of student life --where the students eat, get medical attention, and check
their mail. Ms. Durran related that a nicely lighted parking lot with
security phones would provide many benefits for the students in the way of
convenience to take care of their daily business. She asked the Council
to take into consideration the safety and security of the many houses that
are not currently inhabited on Willis and College. Ms. Durran explained
that she receives weekly reports about the kinds of activities that are taking
place in those homes nightly. She asked that the College be allowed
to move forward with their plans.
Mr. Coffman asked Ms. Durran
if she was aware of the study that attempts to show that having residences
adjacent to educational institutions actually enhances the safety of the
students. Ms. Durran said she believed that could be true, but the
houses she is speaking about have no residents in them. Mr. Coffman
asked if it was the College's decision not to have people living in them. Ms.
Durran responded that the College has not had people living in them for a
long time. Mr. Coffman saw that as the problem.
Lindsey Trosper, a third
year student of Stephens College, reported that having lived both on and
off campus, she could testify to the fact that there is an extreme need for
safe parking, not only for the students of the College, but also for the
visitors that come to the campus. As a former resident of the campus,
she explained that she was frequently forced to park on unlit and unsafe
streets. She said that had not only created a fear in herself, but
also a fear in her parents. Now that she lives off campus, she is forced
to park in unsafe areas on the campus. Ms. Trosper noted that more
and more students are bringing cars to campus and there is simply a need
for additional parking.
Margaret Herron, Associate
Dean of Enrollment Services, spoke as someone who markets the College on
a daily basis. She explained that 67% of the students from Stephens
come from out of state, and one of the first questions they ask is whether
or not they can bring their cars with them. She said 85% of their students
live on campus and because there is not adequate parking, many students are
forced to cross Broadway to the lot near the Doctors Park. Ms. Herron
said if there was a parking lot behind Stamper Commons, it would be much
easier for them to sell the College because they would be able to reassure
parents that their child would be safe walking from the lighted parking lot
across an overpass to residence halls. She pointed out that when looking
at a women's college, safety is a major issue.
Karen Wilms, 3460 Woodrail
Terrace, spoke on behalf of the Stephens College Alumina Association Board. She
read three statements in support of the College and the master plan. The
first was a Board Resolution passed April 10, 1999, which endorsed the Board
of Trustee's decision to implement the master plan. The second was
a letter to the Editor of the Columbia Daily Tribune dated April 16, 1999,
from an alumina in Pebble Beach, California who was in support of the master
plan. The third statement was her own endorsement of the master plan,
and her belief that implementation of the plan would help ensure that Stephens
survives and thrives in the next century.
Hank Waters, a member of
the Board of Trustees, explained that he is also a member of the Capital
Campaign Executive Committee, a group of people leading the campaign all
over the country to raise money for Stephens. He said on April 8, 1999,
there had been a meeting of the Executive Committee and 18 alums had been
present. He read the resolution on behalf of the master plan that they
adopted at that meeting, which indicated they are in support of the decision
to raze 17 rental structures on the Stephens College Campus as part of the
long-range plan for the campus. Mr. Waters related that he has lived
in Columbia his entire life, and for as long as he could remember, colleges
like Stephens have acquired property on their peripheral areas. He
believed it should be clear to everyone that those properties were being
held for expansion of the campus -- parking or whatever else might be needed. Mr.
Waters commented it was never Stephens intention to be in the housing business.
Regarding the question about
the remaining properties that would be left, Mr. Waters said he thought it
made sense for Stephens to try to come up with some fair method of evaluating
those properties, and the administration should be willing to talk to those
owners about buying them. He thought the College could use the properties
if the people want to sell them.
Denton Warn, said he lived
at 1509 E. Walnut since 1981 up until about a year ago. Mr. Warn still
owns the property. He indicated he also worked at the College as a
security guard for about two and one-half years, and in that capacity, he
had been in several of the houses in question. Mr. Warn reported these
homes were never outstanding properties and are not desirable. He said
when the University leveled entire square blocks for acres of parking, this
Council did nothing. When Columbia College demolished houses for parking
and sports fields, the Council again did nothing. Mr. Warn thought
that was appropriate because those institutions owned the property and their
actions violated no laws or regulations. Now, he asked, when Stephens
College wants to get out of the slum lord business by tearing down a few
decrepit houses to provide convenient parking, why they would be treated
differently than the others. Mr. Warn pointed out that the Council
makes changes in plans at every meeting when it comes to Planning and Zoning
matters. He thought the neighbors should be happy that Stephens is
finally doing something rather than allowing the homes to slowly fall apart.
Waldo Palmer, 414 Alexander,
said that the young women at Stephens deserve safe parking lots.
Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway,
explained that he is a supporter of Stephens College and he thought them
to be a very important part of this community. He urged the Council
to support their efforts.
In rebuttal, David Rogers
explained this bill would only provide for a 90 day moratorium. It
would not be the end of the world. Mr. Rogers believed the main issue
is that there are many things that could be considered within the 90 days. He
said the Council might consider what is going to be required for a demolition
permit because that is not zoning in itself, and this is an issue that needs
to be reviewed, especially when referring to homes that are within the historic
district. Mr. Rogers reported he had recently been surprised to find
out that a parking lot does not require a building permit. During the
moratorium, he explained the ordinances could be amended to stipulate that
construction of a parking lot would require a building permit. In addition,
the College could possibly pursue the purchase of the adjacent properties
and perhaps the neighborhood could support the design of some type of parking
lot. He commented the 90 day moratorium would allow for time to discuss
those issues. Mr. Rogers believed the moratorium is lawful and encouraged
the Council to support it.
Regarding Mr. Janku's question
about zoning power and the Council's legislative authority, Mr. Boeckmann
said when the Council considers a zoning request, they are acting in a legislative
function and have quite a bit of discretion. When acting on a subdivision
request for example, the Council's legislative discretion is determined at
the time the subdivision ordinance is adopted. When a subdivision is
before the Council, he said it is a question of acting in an administrative
capacity and they have much less discretion. Mr. Boeckmann reported
when referring to planned districts, the Council has discretion on the zoning
aspect, but it is an open question (i.e., the way the ordinance is
structured). The Council can grant the zoning and when it comes to
approving a plan, he thought an argument could be made that they have less
discretion. The only Missouri case Mr. Boeckmann was aware of
that dealt with it in a more traditional PUD, such as Columbia had originally
where both issues were considered at the same time, it was considered legislative. What
is occurring in this case is a rather odd creature in the City's zoning ordinance. Mr.
Boeckmann explained that the Code does not exactly establish it as an overlay
zoning district, it is structured as a permitted use in R-1 districts. He
said colleges are included, but before a building permit can be issued, they
are required to have an approved plan, and the building permits that are
issued have to be in conformance with that plan. Mr. Boeckmann reported
it was not exactly a planned district, but as close to it as anything. How
much discretion the Council has is an open question as well. The plans
required by the ordinance are not all that specific and there are a couple
of strange things about it. He said there is nothing in the plan that
prevents demolition of a building, nothing that prevents Stephens College
from acquiring additional land, and nothing to permit the College from selling
property within their planned campus area. With that as background,
Mr. Boeckmann said the issue is, under the current ordinance, can Stephens
simply get a demolition permit and tear the buildings down. He thought
the answer to that is yes. Mr. Boeckmann related there is nothing in
Section 29-6 that would prevent it.
In reference to the validity
of a moratorium, Mr. Boeckmann said issues have been raised on both sides
of the question. He has given the opinion that, generally speaking,
moratoriums can be valid as long as they are for a sufficiently short period
of time and that there is a legitimate purpose for enacting it.
Regarding the issue raised by Mr. Simon
pertaining to public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and
the City Council prior to adopting a moratorium, Mr. Boeckmann said the time
involved in that would make it impractical to do so. He reported in this
case, he would argue that it is really not a land use ordinance and that
the moratorium is geared toward demolishing a building, which is not directly
a zoning land use type issue. If the statement that any ordinance that
affects land at all comes within the zoning powers in Chapter 89, Mr. Boeckmann
believed the City would be in the position where we have an awful lot of
ordinances that affect the use of land that have not been enacted through
the Chapter 89 zoning process. He thought it a bit of stretch to say
that all of those would require public hearing before both the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council.
Mr. Boeckmann explained that
recently, the Council adopted an Historic Preservation ordinance. He
said that would be the kind of ordinance that would deal with this issue
before the Council. When talking about the validity of a moratorium
ordinance, he said that would pertain to the purpose of the moratorium. Early
on, he was told the purpose of this moratorium was to delay things so something
could be worked out on the issue. Mr. Boeckmann did not think that
delay would be a valid purpose and would not support this moratorium. He
said the issue has come up about there being other reasons the Council should
look at Section 29-6 as a reason for a three month delay. Based on
testimony this evening, he did not think any of those reasons validated the
passage of this moratorium. Mr. Boeckmann thought if the properties
on Willis were being considered for placement in the Historic Preservation
District, that might be another reason to support the moratorium, however,
the Historic Preservation ordinance specifically implies that the Council
cannot initiate the zoning. The ordinance stipulates the only way it
can be initiated is by either the owner of the property in the case of a
landmark, or by 60% of the owners according to tax records for a district. That
had been the process that was established by the Council. Mr. Boeckmann
did not think the residents were anywhere near to having an application filed
to establish an historic district.
Mr. Campbell asked if it
would be reasonable for the moratorium to be enacted in order to allow the
two groups to come together and enact a plan, which would then come back
to the Council. Mr. Boeckmann replied he did not think so. He
said there has been a plan, an approved public record, identifying a parking
lot on Willis Avenue.
Mr. John asked how this moratorium
differed from those enacted in the past relating to live adult entertainment
and signs. Mr. Boeckmann said the reason for those moratoriums was
to prevent people from rushing in and getting permits before the public hearing
process could be completed. He said it entails considerable time to
do that. Mr. John asked what had happened to those who had already
applied for permits prior to enaction of the moratorium. Mr. Boeckmann
said one individual had applied for a permit before the live adult entertainment
moratorium was adopted and they were able to start up a business.
Apart from the demolition
permit issue, Mr. Janku asked if the Council, as a legislative body, felt
there has been a substantial deviation from the master plan, whether they
could require the College to resubmit a new plan. Mr. Boeckmann said
the best mechanism is through the building permit application. Mr.
Janku asked about other uses that are different and do not require a building
permit. Mr. Boeckmann explained the College has the underlying zoning
and a plan. He said it is not that clear to him that Section 29-6 deals
directly with uses. If it did, he thought Stephens would have problems
when they sell their property -- whoever bought the property would still
be subject to the plan. Mr. Boeckmann believed it would be a pretty
hard argument to be successful with.
Ms. Crayton asked if the
Council would start piecemealing other moratoriums for other entities in
the City. She did not want to penalize Stephens and than not have things
in place for someone else.
Mr. Boeckmann said there
are equal protection issues involved as the bill was amended tonight. Instead
of applying to everyone in the Historic District, it only applies to Stephens
College. He said that raises equal protection and special legislation
issues.
Mr. Campbell asked if there
are any City permits besides the demolition permit (i.e., soil disturbance,
etc.), which would be required of the College. Mr. Boeckmann said maybe
a land disturbance permit. Mr. Patterson corrected that statement and
said there would be no permits required other than the demolition permit. He
said the property, if it is paved, would be subject to landscaping. Mr.
Rogers interjected that a land disturbance permit would be required. Mr.
Patterson said that would be true if the area is more than two acres in size.
Regardless of whether the
moratorium passes, Mr. Coffman said he was going to ask that the Council
send Section 29-6 to the Planning and Zoning Commission for them to review. He
will make the appropriate motion at the end of the meeting. With that
in mind, he offered another amendment.
Mr. Coffman made the motion
to further amend B104-99 by adding a Section 4 reading that, "The purpose
of this ordinance is to allow sufficient time to determine the validity of
current development plans under Section 29-6, and to consider possible changes
to Section 29-6 as it relates to any institution required to submit a development
plan."
Mr. Coffman said the purpose
is to correct what he felt to be some serious flaws in the ordinance that
have been brought out by this debate, and also to clarify what the current
Stephen College plan allows for. Up until today, he had been operating
under the assumption that the College was working from the 1981 plan. Mr.
Coffman noted the plan contains vague and limited information and it is not
clear to him what the current plan would allow. He said the Board of
Adjustment has denied the College's plans with Hillcrest Hall because of
deficiencies in the plan. Mr. Coffman said he is very disturbed by
all of the proposals that have been sent to City Planning that have changed
the way the master plan looks. He thought these are major deviations
and he questions whether or not the plan is valid. Mr. Coffman would
like to see Section 29-6 revised to include demolition permits because in
his mind, destruction of facilities contained in plans can affect the public
interest just as much as construction of new facilities. Mr. Coffman
said the point right now is a three month moratorium, which he thought to
be very reasonable under the circumstances. He related these homes
are historic and a decision would be truly irrevocable. Mr. Coffman
is not convinced of the College's need for parking when the Council was,
in fact, told a year ago that there was no need for parking in the area. Mr.
Coffman said there are seven neighborhoods represented this evening and they
understand the benefit of working together with large institutions or developers.
The amendment to further
amend, made by Mr. Coffman, was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously
by voice vote.
Mr. Janku said he appreciates
the fact that Stephens needs parking. He was one of the four Council
members that voted in favor of the multi-purpose facility last year. Mr.
Janku added that he had asked about parking at that time. He said if
the gym had been linked to tearing down the homes on Willis, he doubted that
he would have voted in favor of their request. Mr. Janku reported he
would like to see Stephens modify their plan to still allow for a substantial
amount of parking, while preserving a number of the structures. The
money the College is graciously willing to spend to buy out an existing home
owner or two could instead be used to rehabilitate the houses. Mr.
Janku commented the Council is accustomed to having developers and institutions
sit down and work out compromises so that people come out happy and yet they
still accomplish their goals. He believes the same can happen in this
instance. Mr. Janku stated this whole neighborhood issue is going to
come up again, and Stephens College needed to do something about the situation
now.
Mr. Campbell said he did
not like the idea that these homes will be torn down, but at the same time,
he respects the right of Stephens as a property owner to do some things with
their property. He did not like the fact that Stephens and the neighborhood
have not worked together. Mr. Campbell was particularly concerned about
the two or three houses that would be cut off by the proposed development. He
felt Stephens has a moral obligation, if not a legal obligation, to buy the
houses if they go forward with their plans. One of the purposes of
the zoning ordinances is to protect the rights of property owners from the
actions of their neighbors. In this case, the College may not be violating
the letter of the ordinance, but he thought it would be a violation of the
spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Campbell reported he would vote for the
moratorium because he would like to see the neighborhood and Stephens work
together and come back to the Council with a modified plan that would meet
some of the questions of protection for the neighbors to the south that would
remain on Willis, as well as addressing questions of landscaping and the
other homes in the Walnut Street area.
Mrs. Crockett said the property
on Willis Avenue is owned by Stephens College and they have had a plan on
file since 1976. She said it has been stated all along that these houses
would be used for parking when they needed it and could afford it. Mrs.
Crockett had checked into the condition of the houses and was told by a reputable
person that they were not in good repair. Mrs. Crockett did not understand
putting good money after bad when something is ready to fall down. She
said if Stephens is not allowed to tear the houses down, they could board
them up to where we would have another situation like the one on Providence
Road. Mrs. Crockett stated if the neighbors had checked with the City,
they could have seen the plan for parking. She indicated for those
reasons, she would vote against the moratorium because that had been the
advise by legal Counsel, and she did not want to see the City end up in court
over something they probably could not win. Mrs. Crockett agreed that
Stephens should work with the property owners when it comes to landscaping.
Mayor Hindman observed the
fate of the Willis homes are a great concern to many people. However,
Stephens has embarked upon an improvement plan which, if it were not for
the homes, most would say is a pretty good plan. He said the approach
was probably not to try to balance those two things. Mayor Hindman
reported in 1976, the Council approved a plan that allowed for these homes
to be torn down for parking purposes. In 1988, the Council approved
it again. Mayor Hindman did not think, if the moratorium is passed,
there was any reasonable way the Council could change those circumstances. With
an approved plan, they as a Council cannot come in and modify it. Mayor
Hindman compared it to trying to modify a final plat, which the Council has
no authority to do because it belongs to the person once approved. He
did not see how a moratorium could change the rights that Stephens College
has with respect to this plan. Mr. John also felt there was an
approved plan. He said although the College has sold off some tracts
that were once on the plan, that did not mean the plan does not stay in effect. Mr.
John believed if the moratorium is passed and a modification to the ordinances
are made, Stephens could not be held to the changes because they already
had an approved plan. He felt the Council would be setting themselves
up for a lawsuit they would lose, or there would be a lot of changes
to current ordinances that would not affect this particular property. Mr.
John indicated he would have to vote against the moratorium.
Ms. Crayton said she had
listened to the speakers and heard about the impact the demolition would
have on the area residents. She thought it was time for the two sides
to sit down and talk to each other like adults. Ms. Crayton reported
even though the property belongs to Stephens, the College could meet with
the neighborhood to minimize what actually happens to the community. Ms.
Crayton said she would support the moratorium because she wants the two sides
to work it out.
B104-99, as amended, was
given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:
JANKU, CAMPBELL, COFFMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: CROCKETT, JOHN, HINDMAN. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
CONSENT AGENDA
The following bills were
given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.
B86-99 Accepting
a conveyance for electric utility purposes from Lou Fusz Properties,
L.L.C.
B87-99 Accepting
a conveyance; approving the engineer's report and authorizing payment of
differential
costs for 8-inch water main serving Heritage Meadows, Plat 4.
B89-99 Accepting
conveyances for utility purposes.
B91-99 Approving
the final plat of The Highlands, Plat 12-B; authorizing a performance contract.
B92-99 Vacating
a drainage easement within Heritage Meadows, Plat 4.
B97-99 Authorizing
acquisition of easements to construct the Grant Lane improvement project.
B98-99 Authorizing
acquisition of easements to construct a recreational trail along Bear Creek.
B100-99 Accepting conveyances
for street, utility and sewer purposes.
B101-99 Authorizing an agreement
with Boone County concerning road improvements to Grant
Lane.
B102-99 Authorizing a quit
claim in favor of the MO Department of Transportation in connection with
the
construction of the Route AC improvement project.
R72-99 Setting
a public hearing: storm drainage improvements in the Alton Avenue area between
Seventh
and Eighth Streets.
R73-99 Setting
a public hearing: street construction on Fourth Avenue from Garth Avenue
to
Providence
Road.
R74-99 Setting
a public hearing: improvements at the intersection of Paris Road and Hinkson
Avenue.
R75-99 Transferring
funds from the Perche Substation Account to the Route B Project Account.
R76-99 Authorizing
an amendment to the Airport Airline Agreement with Ozark Air Lines.
R77-99 Authorizing
a grant application to the Missouri Arts Council for promotion of the public
art
program.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
NEW BUSINESS
R78-99 Authorizing
a local government certification agreement with the Missouri Department of
Natural
Resources.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
bill would provide for 13 additional responsibilities to the City, four of
which would be optional. He noted that the Historic Preservation Commission
felt these items could be accomplished with minimum effort.
The vote on R78-99 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN,
CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading
as follows:
R79-99 Approving
preliminary plat no. 2 of Heritage Meadows; authorizing a variance
to the
subdivision
regulations.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
plat would create 38 lots for single family use and one 16.9 acre lot zoned
PUD-8. He said there is a 5.86 acre lot which has not been given permanent
zoning to date. The variance request is for the street width from the
32 foot standard width to 22 feet.
Mr. Hancock noted that the
staff had made an issue in the staff report about wanting an extension of
a street to the south. He said the Commission was presented with an
assessment of the extension of Norfolk Court or Chilton Court. He said
it was an analysis the applicant's engineer provided for the Commission's
benefit. Mr. Hancock reported the Commission chose to approve this
request without a condition for an extension to a stub street to the south,
and with a recommendation for approval of the variance. He commented
that this is the tract that is also subject to future rezoning, annexation
zoning, which had been discussed a few months ago.
Mr. Campbell said the Council
had previously discussed the possible need for the realignment of Southampton
at some point. He asked if the platting of these three lots preclude
that, or in any way affect it. Mr. Hancock said as long as a final
plat is not approved it would be acceptable. Mr. Campbell indicated
he just wanted to ensure that options are kept open.
Mayor Hindman asked where
the next north/south street is to the east. Mr. Hancock said the next
major street would be Forum Boulevard, a mile or two away. Mr. Rogers
said Royal Heritage would be the next street. Mayor Hindman thought
it looked like there would be a blockage of north/south streets. Mr.
Hancock said there are all kinds of local streets to the east, but he was
referring to the closest major street to the east as being Forum. He
related that issue had been brought up in the staff report pertaining to
there being a stub street to the south, just for neighborhood connection. He
said the assessment that was provided was that there are some serious physical
limitations in the engineer's mind. Mr. Hancock thought that was why
the Commission chose to recommend it as is, but the staff typically prefers
to see connections whenever possible, and a stub to the south was their only
opportunity. Mayor Hindman asked if the staff is willing to go along
with the physical limitations on it. Mr. Hancock said he would rely
on the Commission's recommendation to the Council because the staff made
their recommendation to the Commission.
Mr. Janku asked where Merefield
stubs in. Mr. Hancock said it goes on over to the earlier phases of
Heritage Meadows.
Roy Rogers, 1614 Whitburn,
explained that he is the developer of this property and he offered to answer
any questions. He said the reason there are no streets to the south
on the plat they are asking for preliminary approval on is because of a 30-foot
bluff that is some 200 feet long. He thought it was inappropriate to
design a street stubbed in that direction. The neighborhood street
that goes to Southampton is Royal Heritage. He said it is stubbed to
the south. Mr. Rogers explained the reason for the cul-de-sac variance
is because they want to provide some landscaping rather than filling it in
with concrete.
Mr. Campbell asked about
the bluff line. Mr. Rogers said it is where the creek is. He
said there is green space to the end of his property behind the lots to the
east. He noted there will be green space to the lots on the south side
also.
The vote on R79-99 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. ABSTAINING: CROCKETT. Resolution declared adopted,
reading as follows:
R80-99 Authorizing
an amendment to the agreement with the Missouri Department of health
for
comprehensive
family planning services.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the
City has a contract with the State Department of Health and they have sent
notices out to all of the agencies indicating that this amendment needs to
be signed assuring that no state funds are expended for the purpose of performing,
assisting, or encouraging abortions.
The vote on R80-99 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN,
CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted,
reading as follows:
R81-99 Authorizing
a temporary certificate of occupancy for a building on lot 2 of Forum
Chapel
Plaza.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
is a situation wherein the applicant is not quite able to get all of the
required work done before they are ready to occupy it. In this case,
he pointed out the ordinance stipulates only the Council can approve the
applicant putting up a bond or letter of credit to assure they will get the
berm built with landscaping.
Bob Kilgore, 2509 Lacewood,
explained that he had a letter from the developer stating that he would put
up the bond to take care of everything. He handed the letter to the
City Clerk.
The vote on R81-99 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN, CRAYTON. 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:
B105-99 Accepting
private streets constructed during 1998.
B106-99 Authorizing
acquisition of easements necessary to construct the B-16 Trunk Sewer, B-17
Trunk
Sewer and Bear Creek Outfall Sewer.
B107-99 Authorizing
an amendment to the agreement with Burns & McDonnell; approving Change
Order
No. 1 and engineer's final report for landfill Cell No. 2 project.
B108-99 Authorizing
the construction of intersection improvements at Sixth/Broadway,
Hitt/Broadway,
Waugh/Broadway, Eighth/Walnut; calling for bids.
B109-99 Authorizing
the reconstruction of Grant Lane; calling for bids.
B110-99 Authorizing
the reconstruction of Brown Station Road from Route B northward to Starke
Avenue;
calling for bids.
B111-99 Confirming
the contract for construction of street improvements at Scott Boulevard and
Current
Road.
B112-99 Confirming
the contract for street construction on Oakland Gravel Road from the end
of
improved
pavement north of Smiley lane, 1600 feet north.
B113-99 Authorizing
the acquisition of easements for the Worley Street - Again Street West
drainage
improvement project.
B114-99 Amending
Chapter 27 of the Code to define "minimum bill" clause as the demand and
energy
charge for the current month.
B115-99 Confirming
the contract for the water main construction project under Route PP.
B116-99 Authorizing
a utility relocation agreement with Boone County.
B117-99 Accepting
easements for utility purposes.
B118-99 Rezoning
property located on the southwest corner of South William Street and Bass
Avenue
from R-3 to O-P.
B119-99 Rezoning
property located on the east side of South Fourth Street, between East
Broadway
and Cherry Street from M-1 to C-2.
B120-99 Rezoning
property located south of the eastern terminus of Pendleton Street from R-3
to
O-P;
approving an O-P Development Plan.
B121-99 Rezoning
property located on the southeast corner of East Broadway and South Ann
Street
from R-3 to O-P.
B122-99 Rezoning
property located within the Benton Stephens Neighborhood from R-3 to R-1
and
R-2.
B123-99 Amending
chapter 29 of the Code to establish a $150 processing fee for most rezoning
requests.
B124-99 Approving
the final plat of The Hamlet, Plat No. 7; authorizing a performance contract.
B125-99 Approving
the final plat of Midland Subdivision; approving a variance to the subdivision
regulations;
authorizing a performance contract.
B126-99 Voluntary
annexation of property located on the east side of Rock Quarry Road, south
of
City
limits.
B127-99 Establishing
permanent A-1 zoning on property located at 2720 and 2750 Mill Creek
Terrace.
B128-99 Amending
Chapter 2 of the Code to add a new provision relating to the purchase of
architectural,
engineering and land surveying services.
B129-99 Establishing
procedures and guidelines for procurement of architectural, engineering
and
land surveying services.
B130-99 Amending
Chapter 2 of the Code to establish the Columbia Trust.
B131-99 Appropriating
funds for the Columbia Trust.
B132-99 Appropriating
funds for the printing of "Awareness of Chemical Hazards" brochure.
B133-99 Appropriating
funds for the purchase of police equipment.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Intra-departmental
Transfer of Funds.
Report accepted.
(B) Stephens
College Request to Close a Portion of Walnut Street.
Mayor Hindman noted that
this request has been withdrawn.
(C) Use of City
Parking Facilities.
Mr. Beck explained that the
City's Office of Volunteer Services was requesting the top level of the parking
plaza for their second annual volunteer recognition event planned for June
3 from 5:30 to 8:00 in the evening. He also reported that the Boone
County Medical Alliance would like to use the Sixth and Cherry garage in
October. Mr. Beck said he had asked the staff to develop some
policy and guidelines for dealing with these requests so they would not have
to be approved by the Council, unless there are some unusual circumstances.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that the two requests be approved as stated. The motion was seconded
by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(D) Proposed Rezoning
of Property Located on North Side of E. Sexton Avenue.
Mr. Beck noted that the Council
had requested this report which pertains to the downzoning of eight lots
on East Sexton, between North Garth and Grand Avenue. The area is currently
zoned R-4 and has been such since 1979.
Tom McNab, 104 Clinkscales,
explained that the latest plan he has in mind for this property consisted
of handicapped housing or barrier free housing. Recently, the neighborhood
met with the MHDC people in Jefferson City and persuaded them to deny tax
credits for multi-family housing in this area for reasons of increased traffic,
higher crime, and several other issues. He said some issues made sense
and some did not. Mr. McNab reported there is a need for handicapped
and barrier free housing and he would like a little time to put a project
together. Mr. McNab said he would also like to meet with each Council
person individually and give them a tour of some of the properties he owns
and manages. He would prefer to put something together that would be
a compromise and less than the R-4 density.
Mr. Campbell asked what density
he was thinking of. Mr. McNab replied he would prefer an R-3 zone. Mr.
Campbell asked how many dwellings per acre that would be. Mr. McNab
believed it to be 17.2 . He explained plans are just in the concept
stage right now. He will be meeting with Services for Independent Living
and expects that one and two bedroom units will be designed. Mr. McNab
did not anticipate any three bedroom units, but was not sure density was
the real issue given the type of housing that he wants to construct. He
pointed out that he may come back to the City for some help in financing
and other issues.
Mr. Janku asked if he was
talking about some type of condominium or home ownership project. Mr.
McNab said that is correct, he thought there was some merit to owner occupied
handicapped housing or condominiums. He explained that he is currently
building some condominiums off of West Broadway, at Broadway and Fairview. He
said this project would not be identical to that one, but they have done
a nice job on those units and he would like the opportunity to show these
to the Council.
Ms. Crayton said what she
would like to see more single family dwellings because residents are tired
of multiple dwelling structures. She reported the Douglass Neighborhood
Coalition had talked to HUD in December, and she said there is something
they could do. Ms. Crayton stated they could work with Mr. McNab and
with HUD to purchase the property so they can put single family dwellings
on it. She said they do not want any more projects. Mr. McNab
said he did not want any projects there either, and he would be more than
happy to meet with Ms. Crayton and was looking forward to it. Mr. McNab
indicated he plans to contact each Council member.
Ms. Crayton said she would
like to meet with Mr. McNab prior to referring this issue to the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
(E) Street Closure
Request and Use of Downtown Sidewalks.
Mr. Beck noted that these
requests were for the Twilight Festival and the Columbia Festival of the
Arts. The staff recommended approval.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that the requests be granted as written. The motion was seconded by
Mrs. Crockett 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 committee.
AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD
Shapiro, Nicholas J., 4013 Newport Ct. - Ward
4
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
John, Martha K., 3301 Greenridge Rd. - Ward
3
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Scavone, Edward W., 918 Texas - Ward 2
COMMENTS OF THE COUNCIL, STAFF, AND PUBLIC
Mr. Coffman reiterated his
desire to refer to the Planning and Zoning Commission a review of Section
29-6. He thought it would also be appropriate to have the Commission
review the current development plans for institutions under that Section
for sufficiency, and also to look at whether 29-6 should include demolition
permits/building permits as a trigger to determine whether a plan needs to
be reviewed to ensure that the action is in compliance with the development
plan. In addition, Mr. Coffman would be interested in the Commission
addressing the standards, if there are any now, under the ordinance. He
thought there probably should be. Mr. Coffman said he would like to
see a site plan and perhaps other requirements that would make these development
plans more like the plans they are use to looking at, perhaps in the format
used by Columbia College. He thought that could possibly eliminate
the kind of controversies they dealt with tonight. Regardless of whether
this will help the current controversy with Stephens College, Mr. Coffman
said it might help avert a tragedy in the future.
Mr. Hancock asked if Mr.
Coffman was asking the staff to process an amendment to 29-6 that would require
plan compliance, not only for building permits, but for demolition permits. Mr.
Coffman said that was one thing he would like for the Commission to look
at. Mr. Hancock asked if he would like for them to review the plans
the City has on file for all three institutions, looking at every building
on each of the institution campuses for compliance with an approved plan. Mr.
Campbell said no. Mr. Hancock asked if the third item was to look into
asking for more detail on the plans. Mr. Coffman said that was correct,
but he was not sure about the second one. Mr. Hancock said they would
do the first and third.
Mr. Janku questioned whether
Mr. Coffman is asking for a staff report, or if he was directing something
to the Commission. He explained normally, the Council starts off by
asking the staff for a report. Mr. Janku thought that might help refine
the issue and then it could be referred to the Commission. Mr. Coffman
said he guessed that was the proper method, but he was suggesting that these
issues be sent directly to the Planning and Zoning Commission, considering
the three month time limit the Council imposed on Stephens this evening. Mr.
Coffman reported he could amend his request to ask for a staff plan
about what changes might be appropriate.
Mayor Hindman asked if Mr.
Coffman was thinking the City could make changes that would affect what Stephens
College can do. Mr. Coffman said he was not sure, but at the least
he thought there was some deficiency in this Section that has been brought
out by the debate tonight. He wanted to make sure this issue is reviewed
to prevent future problems.
Mr. Janku said he thought
it was worth looking at, and beginning with a staff report would help to
refine the issue, and then the Council could discuss it at the next work
session or pre-Council dinner.
Mr. Coffman said he would
obviously like to see something reach the Council within the next three months. He
said perhaps a staff report would be the best way to go to make sure they
have a concrete proposal.
Mr. Coffman made the motion
that his request be amended to request a staff report about possible changes
to 29-6 per the above conversation. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Coffman said that he
had received an inquiry from the Bluff Creek neighborhood pertaining to the
Job Center. He said there is still some damage from the tornado that
tore through the area. Mr. Coffman asked that the staff look into the
situation to make sure it is being cleaned up and in compliance.
Mr. Janku said the Council
had received information from the Mayor of Hallsville regarding the COLT
Railroad and pedestrian access. He passed it on to staff and asked
that it be handled administratively if possible.
Mr. Janku commented that
he had been contacted by some representatives of the Pedestrian Commission
and the Disability Commission. He said they would like to have representatives
of the Public Works staff meet with them prior to the public hearing on the
Hinkson/Paris Road intersection improvements that will be discussed at the
next meeting. Mayor Hindman thought that would be an ideal place for
a roundabout. He observed it is one of the few east/west streets through
Columbia and nobody can use it.
Mr. Janku said it came to
his attention that another community sponsors a lot of senior recreation
activities, not only for retirees, but also for older adults. He did
not think enough of that kind of thing is being done in Columbia through
the Parks and Recreation Department. With the City's interest in attracting
retirees, Mr. Janku thought the staff may want to take a look at what type
of sport activities seniors might enjoy. He said retirees would probably
be able to use some facilities at off-peak times. Mr. Janku reported
there are a lot of sports older people still enjoy but they do not play at
the same level as a younger person would.
Mr. Janku asked for a staff
report on the issue. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved
unanimously by voice vote.
The meeting adjourned at
12:30 a.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Penny
St. Romaine
City
Clerk
© 2024 City of Columbia