The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, December 16, 2002, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, and HINDMAN were present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various department heads were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of December 2, 2002, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Loveless and a second by Mr. Coffman.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Hindman noted that R235-02 would be added under New Business. He also stated that Item B under Scheduled Public Comments had been removed. The speaker can present his comments at the end of the meeting.
The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously on a motion made by Mr. Loveless and a second by Mr. John.
(A) Chief Randy Boehm - Missouri Police Chiefs' Association Donald "Red" Loehr Outstanding Police Chief Award.
Mayor Hindman and Mr. Beck asked Chief Boehm to join them at the podium. Mayor Hindman and Mr. Beck presented him with an award and a plaque. Mr. Beck remarked that this acknowledgment is not only a great honor for Chief Boehm, but also for his department and the City. Mayor Hindman congratulated Chief Boehm on behalf of the City.
R226-02 Authorizing agreements with
local organizations to fund Human Rights Education Programs.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Marie Glaze, Chair of the Human Rights Commission, explained that the Council was provided a memo with regard to the enhancement grant for fiscal year 2003. She indicated that $5,100 had been budgeted for the education programs. Eight proposals were received and the Commission is recommending $4,825 in funding for all of the applications.
Mr. Loveless asked for an example of a culturally appropriate health care service. Ms. Glaze explained this is the first year the Latino community has submitted a proposal. The purpose of the program is to help people with language and cultural barriers to navigate through our health care system.
Comments were called for with none received.
The vote on R226-02 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
(A) Duane N. Burghard - Limerick Lake area serious car accident.
Duane Burghard, 2508 Waterside, passed out pictures taken on the day of an accident at the corner of Forum Boulevard and Katy Lane. This injury accident was a multi-car, rear end collision caused by a car slowing to make a right turn off of Forum Boulevard onto Katy Lane. Mr. Burghard spoke of his opposition to any development, single-family or otherwise, in the vicinity. He maintained that a driveway in this area would make multiple future accidents almost a certainty.
B409-02 Calling for bids for the renovations to the Health Facility.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck reported that a committee has been working with the architect to determine the design for the Health Facility.
Mr. Patterson explained that this public hearing is for the purpose of authorizing improvements which would provide office space for the City/County Health Department and the Family Health Services Agency. He said it would also authorize the calling of bids upon completion of final plans and specifications.
Mr. Patterson reported that the need for an improved health facility has been a very high priority in the community for several years. In 2001, the City and the County purchased the property at 1005 West Worley for the purpose of renovating the building and providing more modern office spaces. This is a 5.2 acre tract of land containing an approximate 50,000 square foot building. Mr. Patterson noted the City's space needs study indicated that approximately 30,000 feet would be necessary to house the City/County Health Facility. The excess space could be developed for other office spaces. Through agreements, Mr. Patterson noted that the property was subdivided into two lots, with the City purchasing Lot Two to retain as City property and Lot One being subject to a condominium agreement prepared and executed by both the City and the County. The agreement provides for developing two units within the existing building, one of which would be used for the Health Department and the other by Family Health Services. Mr. Patterson also noted that the agreement provides for the allotment of costs between the City and County based on usage, allocation of square footage and other factors.
Mr. Patterson indicated the architect, Raphael of Kansas City, was selected and as part of their scope of services they were to look at programming the building, drawing the schematic floor plans, evaluating the building, preparing final plans and specifications, and providing construction inspection services. They were also commissioned to develop a master plan for the property. Mr. Patterson pointed out that the public hearing tonight pertains to the building's renovations, but the master plan was shown on the overhead as a goal.
Mr. Patterson indicated the project itself will consist of three separate elements. The first element involves work on the outside of the building; the essential mechanical features of the building, providing for common use areas between both parties. Primarily, the exterior work will consist of removing storage structures on the north side of the building, removing an add-on structure located on the south side of the building, installing new windows, reconstructing and building new entryways into the facility, and putting in the basic mechanical, electrical and plumbing facilities necessary for the building. The work will also include any mitigation necessary for environmental concerns. Mr. Patterson noted an asbestos assessment is presently being conducted. The architect's total project construction cost for the exterior is estimated at $1,059,478 and the engineering fees are $86,812. The combined total for the exterior renovations are estimated to be $1,146,298. The City's cost for this phase amounts to $328,000 and the County's would be $730,650. Mr. Patterson reiterated that the City and County are jointly sharing the cost for renovations to benefit the Health Facility and the County is paying 100% of the cost for the Family Health Services.
Mr. Patterson indicated the second phase involves the interior renovation which will consist of building the office spaces and constructing the interior facilities and special air handling systems for any necessary mechanical offices. The Health Department floor plan has been completed and the Family Health Services facility plan is very nearly complete. He stated that staff will need approval before working on the final plans and specifications. The work has been broken out into two areas (Unit One -- Health Department and Unit Two -- Family Health Center) for cost accounting purposes. The current total cost estimate for Unit One, including engineering and architect fees, is $1,793,553. The current estimate for Unit Two is $1,179,556. The project allocation cost will bring the City's share to $1,255,413 and the County's to $2,863,986. The total project cost is $4,119,399.
Mr. Patterson spoke of his preference for bidding the project under one contract. Due to the importance of proceeding with the project as expeditiously as possible, he proposed that the bids be authorized upon completion of the final plans and specifications -- which will have to be approved and authorized by both the City and County. In addition, the funding will have to be in place before any contracts can be awarded. Mr. Patterson noted it is felt the items being proposed will provide nothing of extravagance but will provide a good environment for the employees, patients and citizens who will utilize the facility.
Mr. Beck indicated that the cost estimate for the project is greater than what had originally been proposed simply because it was based on square footage renovation without a lot of detailed work. Assuming the bids come in around the architect's estimate, Mr. Beck stated that the capital improvement contingency fund or public improvement fund could be used for the project.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. John felt it was important that staff move forward and begin work on the bid process. He noted that in past projects, the Council has asked contractors to look at ways to save costs. Mr. John thought in this case it might be a remedy for some of the cost overruns.
Mr. Janku pointed out the report mentions some other site plan improvements separate from the bid. With the new procedure the Council established for CDBG priorities, he thought some of the improvements would qualify for such future funding.
B409-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
R227-02 Amendment to the FY 2002 Action
Plan to allocate CDBG funds.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that a few weeks ago the Council authorized staff to submit a letter committing $25,500 of CDBG money to a Youthbuild housing project. A project application was submitted by Advent Enterprises on behalf of Boone Works. If the Council wishes to move forward, it will be necessary to amend the Action Plan to show the $25,500 allocation.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Ms. Crayton believed there a lot of kids missing out on this type of program. She maintained at-risk youth who are no longer in school also need to be included in projects such as this. Mr. Dudark pointed out the Youthbuild project was designed for kids between 16 and 24 years of age who have dropped out of school.
The vote on R227-02 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
(A) Construction of Green Meadows Road
from Providence Road to Route AC.
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that some time ago an extension of Green Meadows Road to connect Providence southward to Route AC was included in the master planning process. He remarked that Mr. Patterson and his staff have prepared alternatives for the street design which have been discussed within the community.
Mr. Patterson noted that the preliminary estimate for the project is $2,014,000, but depending upon the roadway standard and alternatives selected, the actual cost is expected to range from $1,380,258 to $1,876,134. Funding for the project will be a combination of Federal Surface Transportation Act funds, local capital improvement funds and tax bills against abutting properties. The tax bill for this type of street is set at an amount not to exceed $15 which is considered to be the equivalent cost of curb and guttering along the property.
Mr. Patterson displayed on the overhead the proposed alignment of the extension which would remain the same for all the alternatives. He also pointed out features that staff believes will be the same for the three alternatives. Mr. Patterson reported the proposal staff is recommending on all alternatives would call for the relocation of the north leg of the outer road back approximately 400 feet from the intersection to provide stacking room. He said it would also limit the south side of the intersection to right in/right out turning movements. Staff believes that to be essential in order to maintain proper traffic flow and access in this area.
Mr. Patterson pointed out that the Green Meadows Road extension is classified as a major collector in the 2025 Transportation Plan. The function of this collector street is to provide access to the property and provide for thru traffic. It has been estimated that approximately 12,400 vehicles will travel this road per day, and if it is properly designed, staff believes one travel lane in each direction should adequately handle the traffic. Mr. Patterson explained the need to balance access to adjacent properties with the ability to carry traffic. He explained the three alternatives arrived at as a result of informal public meetings and individual meetings with property owners. He said they were trying to achieve some sense of what is desired in the community and in the area. Mr. Patterson noted that each of the alternatives in themselves will have options the Council can consider. He reviewed the three alternatives and indicated the Council should provide direction as to the features desired. Mr. Patterson did ask the Council to give consideration to a few specific items such as right-of-way, sidewalk and bicycle provisions, access management and topography.
Mr. Loveless asked if all three cost alternatives included the roundabout. Mr. Patterson said they did not, only the one with the center grass median. Mr. Loveless asked about the additional cost of the roundabout. Mr. Patterson said it would add $50,000 to the project.
Mr. Janku wondered if all three alternatives met the automobile transportation needs of the corridor in terms of the level of service. Mr. Patterson replied staff believed this to be true, but current collector designs for anything over 12,000 would be a stretch. He noted that one travel lane in each direction can handle the projected traffic flows, but if a high volume generator were to be located in the area, the current standards would probably be inadequate. Mr. Janku asked about a median along this corridor. Mr. Patterson responded that a continuous median is not necessary - island medians would work. He compared it to the direction given on the Blue Ridge Road project wherein island medians would be installed if the center lane was wide enough. Mr. Patterson indicated the City would have to acquire access for the right in/right out requirements. Staff would certainly be looking at that if any planned development occurs in this area. He clarified that access would be based on safety issues relating to proper site distance and vehicular factors before any permits are issued. Mr. Janku asked to see the current zoning categories along the corridor.
Mr. John asked about the relocation alignment. Mr. Patterson said it would be full access because it is far enough back from the intersection. Mr. John asked if there was anything in the plan to move that portion of the outer road on the south side to the full access point. Mr. Patterson replied that the right-of-way is already being restricted in this area and added that it would be very expensive to construct. He noted that staff also believes it is important that there be a continuation of the interior road system to allow for good circulation on the south side.
Mr. Hutton inquired as to whether the City would have to pay for limited access. Mr. Patterson said if the City wishes to completely deny access, he was certain we would be required to purchase those rights of access. However, if it is not a safe or proper access, the City would have the right to deny access.
Mayor Hindman understood the 66 foot right-of-way has already been acquired. Mr. Patterson replied that a big part of it had been through dedication by platting. Under current subdivision regulations, that is all the City can require for a collector street.
Mr. Janku asked about sidewalks along this corridor. Mr. Dudark explained that the Council adopted an ordinance that requires sidewalks for collector and arterial streets for new construction. It would be controlled through the building permit process. Mr. Janku understood if the sidewalk is built in the existing right-of-way, the City would not have to pay an additional amount to have it built. Mr. Patterson said the Council could put sidewalks on both sides if they so chose to do so.
Mayor Hindman said in looking at the information provided to the Council, there appears to be a sidewalk on only one side of the road. He suggested a footnote explaining that the City would construct a walk on one side of the street, and then as development occurs it is the property owner's responsibility to install a sidewalk on the other side.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Albert Price, 107 Bingham, expanded on the information he sent earlier to the Council by both mail and e-mail. He urged the Council to vote for alternate one, the 66-foot roadway. Mr. Price explained that he and his family have given the City 125,730 square feet of land to allow the extension through his property. At present prices, this gift probably totals in excess of $400,000. Mr. Price had been under the impression that the street would be contained within the 66-foot right-of-way with two intersections -- one being at Myrtle Oak Drive and the other at Gray Oak Drive. He said now one of the alternatives shows Myrtle Oak as a right in/right out, not allowing for full access. Mr. Price indicated that he has tentatively agreed not to ask for more than two intersections in the northern area which is zoned R-1. He related that the topography would probably limit access anyway. He stated his proposal to request three more access points on the south side of the roadway for his O-1 and C-1 tracts. Mr. Price reported that would be a total of seven access points in 2,380 feet of roadway which he felt to be minimal. He noted that his engineer has suggestions in regard to the inclusion of pedways in the 66-foot roadway design.
Mr. Janku asked Mr. Price about the C-P property to the east. Mr. Price explained that it is owned by Red Oak Development.
Jay Gebhardt, an engineer with A Civil Group, 711 W. Ash, passed around a handout showing standards for collector streets with 5-foot sidewalks on both sides. Another showed a 5-foot sidewalk with an 8-foot pedway. Mr. Gebhardt pointed out that the grass strip between the back of the curb and the sidewalk could be narrowed, and the pedway could be built within 6½-feet from the edge of the roadway. He explained the 38-foot wide pavement could provide a center turn lane for some areas, or could be widened at access points to provide a 14-foot center turn lane.
Mr. Janku asked if Mr. Price had a preference as to which side of the road the pedway should be built. Mr. Price believed the south side would probably see the highest use, but he had no preference.
Mr. Loveless felt the pedway would be more useful for the residents to access the park to the east if it were put on the north side.
Craig VanMatre, an attorney with offices at 1103 E. Broadway, spoke on behalf of Red Oak Investment Company, the owner of the tract immediately east of the north/south extension. He supported Mr. Price's statements and believed his rationale to be well-founded and worthy of the Council's consideration. He added that his clients believe the median approach to be unnecessarily restrictive. In the not too distant future, Mr. VanMatre said his clients will present a plan and adjustment of zoning on the property they own in this area. Locating a pedway or a median in this location could potentially conflict with and cause serious problems with what his clients may want to do with the property.
Mr. Janku asked why a pedway in the existing 66-foot right-of-way would pose problems. Mr. VanMatre said if a pedway is constructed on the north side of the road, it comes in close proximity to his client's property. He said their traffic considerations would have an increased level of complexity.
Bob Smith, 709 Russell, explained that he is a shareholder of the Red Oak Investment Company. He said the new Grindstone Parkway cut their land into two triangles with the northernmost piece being affected by this extension. He noted nine acres on the west edge, next to Green Meadows, has already been zoned C-P. At this time, the remainder of the land is zoned A-1 and a group of planners have looked at it to see how it can best be designed and used. Mr. Smith related that if the road is widened to 66-feet, the City would be taking about one-third of the level land in this area. As a result, whoever develops the property will have to put fill dirt in which will create more environmental problems. Mr. Smith believed a median would also cause problems to any of their future development because it will affect the ingress and egress to their property. He also thought a median could increase the speed of the traffic as well.
Susan Clark, 520 Stalcup, spoke on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. She pointed out the lack of northern loops in the City. She pointed out that local traffic impacts I-70 horribly, and added that Columbia has many safety issues as well as connectivity issues. Ms. Clark relayed that the Chamber wondered if the best decisions were being made with the City dollar.
Kevin Weatherspoon, 3901 Dayflower, also spoke in favor of the previous landowners. He thought alternate one was the best plan for the money. He asked the Council to examine the safety issues related to a pedway in this location.
Larry Grossman, 3205 Westcreek Circle, spoke in support of the 66-foot current standard. He understood there to be almost no money left for road construction until 2005 because the City has used these funds on many non-road projects. Under the circumstances, Mr. Grossman commented that building a road to a standard that would cost 40% more would seem to be out of the question. He noted that the transportation capital program is severely underfunded and the 66-foot right-of-way is a very high standard. Mr. Grossman suggested the Council proceed with what already exists. He indicated that to do anything else is an insult to those waiting for improved transportation. As Columbia grows, the amount of impervious surfaces will be increased in the form of roads, pedways and sidewalks. Mr. Grossman thought a better justification was needed to increase impervious surfaces besides bike paths.
Steven Kullman, 205 S. Garth, Chairperson of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission, passed out copies of their official position. In summary, the Commission did not believe alternate one to be an accurate portrayal of the current standard for major collectors. They felt the presence of a center median and turn lane has an impact on bike/pedestrian/wheelchair traffic, but they are not supporting or opposing such a design. Mr. Kullman stated that the Commission believed it would be acceptable, but not preferable, to design a 35-foot street with two five-foot striped and signed bike lanes. The project should include an eight-foot pedway on one side to be built at the time the road is constructed, and a five-foot sidewalk on the other side to be built as development occurs. He said that would require the City to build and pay for 43-feet of paved surface which would be the same as alternate one. Mr. Kullman said there would be no additional cost in material or labor and no increase in impervious surface. The Commission's preference is for the 38-foot road width to provide for additional on-street space for cyclists and a 10-foot wide pedway. Although not equal in cost to alternate one, Mr. Kullman indicated this configuration would be justified due to the steep grades, the delay in building the five-foot sidewalk and the volume of bike and pedestrian traffic that is anticipated to use this corridor. In addition, the Commission recommended that parking be prohibited and bike lanes should be signed, striped and monolithic in material and texture without joints.
Terry Skinner, 3716 Lansing, spoke on behalf of the PedNet Coalition Board, and explained the group voted to support the position taken by the Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission. He said they support the safe passage of bicyclists, pedestrians and people in wheelchairs on the streets of Columbia.
Paul Land, 2005 Robin Terrace, was aware the vehicle counts have been forecast, but asked if there is a projected amount of bicycle or pedestrian traffic on the sidewalks. He wondered if a ten-foot pedway is installed, who would be responsible for the additional maintenance of the incremental five feet.
Kim Stonecypher-Fisher, 3305 Talent Drive, explained that she and her husband are both members of the PedNet Coalition, Columbia Track Club, Columbia Bike Club, Columbia Multi-Sport Club, and members of the Chamber of Commerce. They felt this plan needed to be consistent with that existing segment of Green Meadows, i.e., a marked bicycle route that allows for bicycle traffic and good pedestrian traffic. Their main concern was with right-of-way and its acquisition after the fact. She urged the Council to design something that is pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle friendly.
Christy Welliver, 184 W. Green Meadows, maintained that property will not be less attractive if it is located near a pedway. She believed that people appreciated being close to a pedway and that it would enhance property values.
Joann Webb, 5208 E. Tayside, was concerned about the safety issue of Green Meadows on the west side of Providence. As the Council thinks about Green Meadows to the east of Providence, she asked that they also think about improvements on the west side. She referred to the median at Nifong and Southampton.
Larry Schuster, 3109 Hill Haven, spoke about the pedway system. He thought it seemed that the City is designing a new utility that is not only part of the street design, but part of an overall transportation issue. He commented if this is not being done on a citywide basis, it should not be done in any particular area. He pointed out the terrain is extremely rugged in the Green Meadows area and will not tie into much of anything else except roads that bike riders try to avoid like Providence Road. Mr. Schuster noted that part of those issues have been met by increasing the standard sidewalk width to five feet. He maintained that a five-foot walk on both sides should be able to accommodate any increased pedestrian or pedway traffic. He indicated that if the Council determines that pedways are a community-wide need, then they need to set out how it will be funded, how it will be maintained and whether the community is in support of such an amenity. Mr. Schuster pointed out that an amenity is not a standard feature offered with a project and takes away from funding in other areas.
Bob Walters, 2704 Vale, explained that he travels on Green Meadows Road four to six times per day, every day of the year. With the exception of the Green Meadows and Providence intersection, he said the remainder of the right-of-way is very adequate. He saw no reason to change it. Mr. Walters thought it could be improved upon if the Council so chooses by putting in an eight-foot pedway and doing the offset as suggested by Jay Gebhardt. He believed the 66-foot proposal was a good choice.
Steve Wendling, 2012 Chapel Ridge, explained that he owns the property where Green Meadows crosses Providence. He asked the Council to consider how a median would affect the access to his property. He indicated if it is limited to a right in/right out, someone wanting to cross the street would have to drive well over a mile to travel what would have been 85 feet with open access. Mr. Wendling questioned the safety of a pedway in this location. In addition, this 10-foot strip would add 32,000 square feet of concrete and increase the amount of storm water run-off into the Grindstone area. Mr. Wendling was also concerned about liability with regard to someone being injured on a pedway running through his property. He reported that topography of the land would also be a problem.
Greg Ahrens, 1504 Sylvan, suggested narrowing the traffic way to slow the cars down.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Hutton asked about the bare minimum, back of curb to back of curb, in order to have two lanes and a turn lane. Mr. Patterson responded that 38-feet is the absolute minimum for the amount of traffic estimated to be traveling on this road. He said it would allow for three narrow lanes. Mr. Hutton asked about the minimum width of a lane that includes a marked bike lane. Mr. Patterson replied that the minimum recommended pavement width for a lane that will allow sharing between bikes and cars to be 14-feet. If the bike lane is marked, it would need to be 5-feet plus the 11-foot minimum lane for traffic. Mr. Hutton inquired about the minimum standard for safe distance from the back of a curb to the edge of a walk or a pedway. Mr. Patterson said 4-feet is considered to be the minimum. He noted this standard is not deviated from unless an extra wide sidewalk is constructed.
In terms of the grade issue, Mr. Janku inquired about the location of a pedway. Mr. Patterson said there are arguments either way, but his initial thought was the north side of the street. Mr. Janku noted that projected traffic volumes are significantly higher on this portion of Green Meadows. He thought the current figure was 4,000 to 6,000. Mr. Dudark agreed that staff expects this section to have a higher traffic volume than the west section.
Mr. Beck reported he had discussed with staff an additional alternative that would not increase the cost of the project significantly. His proposal was shown on the overhead. The cost of this alternative would be $120,000 more that alternate one and $250,000 less than alternate three. This alternative would not require additional right-of-way.
Mr. Janku asked about a pedway and sidewalks with this alternative. Mr. Patterson explained that the costs Mr. Beck referred to included building the entire project, the pedway and walks on both sides. He noted there would be about $50,000 more in actual centerline pavement. The rest of it would be in the pedway and the two sidewalks. The cost would go down if only one walk was built, with developers being responsible for building the other one.
Mayor Hindman suggested a pedway on one side of the road and a five-foot sidewalk on the other side, center turn lanes, all contained within the 66-foot right-of-way. He indicated staff could work with this direction and come back with one or two alternatives within those parameters.
Mr. Janku asked about the width of the pedway. Mayor Hindman thought the staff should work with the minimum of seven or eight-feet. Mr. Janku felt eight would be better than seven.
Mr. Hutton made the motion that staff be directed to proceed with the development of plans and specifications looking at going with 43-feet, back of curb to back of curb, ten feet on one side (four-feet grass and five-foot sidewalk with a one foot strip) and thirteen feet on the other side (four-feet from back of curb to the edge of the pedway, 8-foot pedway, and the extra one-foot). The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku.
Mr. John wanted to keep the street at 66-feet wide, bike lanes in the street, and a left turn lane. He said if the inlets need to be dropped from the street and into the 4½-feet, so be it. He remarked that could possibly narrow the project by a foot. Mr. John thought the motion was good and said if staff needed to modify it slightly, that would be fine. He believed that staff understood the gist of the Council's preferences and it was time to move on with the street's design.
The motion made by Mr. Hutton, seconded by Mr. Janku, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Loveless commented that he would like to know how other communities deal with the maintenance and reconstruction of wider sidewalks or pedways, and the liability question.
(B) Voluntary Annexation of property
located generally east of Maguire Boulevard and north of New Haven Road.
Item B was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck described this property as being on the east side of the city. The tract in question is 10-feet wide and 465-feet long.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mayor Hindman noted that no action was required at this time.
B404-02 Approving the final plat of Corporate Lake, Plat 13, a replat of Lots 1 and 2 of Corporate Lake, Plat 1.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained this replat will change the setback line from 50-feet on the corner lot to 15-feet.
Mr. Dudark explained that the platting to the north is a 50-foot setback along the outer roadway and then north of it is 25-feet. This plat actually meets the subdivision regulations as well as the zoning ordinance with a 15-foot setback on the east side next to the outer roadway. He indicated that the Council could not deny the plat because it complies with City requirements, but the question is whether or not this is the kind of platting pattern or setback the Council wants to see on corner lots.
Mr. Patterson remarked that staff receives many administrative plats for corner lots. He said when people build at 15-feet, sometimes staff receives complaints from adjacent property owners whose setback is at 25-feet. Mr. Patterson pointed out that this situation creates residential problems. He noted that in many cases the property owner submits an administrative plat in order to get the orientation of the lot properly changed. Mr. Patterson thought further review of the corner setback requirement would clean things up and make it easier for people who buy lots to know what to expect in the way of uniform setbacks on both sides.
Mr. John asked if staff suggests a uniform setback. Mr. Patterson replied it was a personal suggestion and the department's recommendation.
Jeff Viles, 7100 Quantrill Pass, explained that he is the property owner of this tract. He noted the existing 50-foot setback was established because the property was originally platted years ago in the County. The property was located in the City when he purchased it, and Mr. Viles indicated he was aware of City ordinances and he submitted a plat that met every regulation.
B404-02 was given third reading by the Clerk with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B407-02 Authorizing acquisition of
property for park purposes.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this property is located along Hinkson Creek in the area of Old Highway 63 South and Moon Valley Drive. The City was contacted when the property became available for purchase. The property appraised for $37,000 but the owner has agreed to sell it to the City for $16,000. He noted the City will pay the tax bill for improvements along Old 63. Mr. Beck was appreciative of the property owner's offer because the tract can be used for the greenbelt in the area.
B407-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.
B405-02 Vacating a drainage easement located within Lot 292 of Smithton Ridge Subdivision, Plat 2; accepting a grant of easement for drainage purposes.
B406-02 Approving the final plat of Capri Estates, Block 8.
B408-02 Authorizing acquisition of property for easements necessary to construct drainage improvements for Sinclair Street.
B410-02 Appropriating funds from the Designated Loan Fund for the purchase of an AS/400 computer.
B411-02 Appropriating donated funds for "Let's Talk, Columbia!" Community Study Circle Program.
R228-02 Setting a public hearing: extension and upgrade of water main along Brown School Road from Highway 763 to Clearview Road.
R229-02 Authorizing agreements with various social service agencies.
R232-02 Authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Columbia Online Information Network (COIN).
R233-02 Authorizing agreements with the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey for groundwater monitoring in the vicinity of the wetlands.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions
were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU,
HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared
enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
R230-02 Approving the elevation plans of the proposed structures to be constructed on Lots 103 and 106 of Village Square, Plat 1.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that when this development project was approved by the Council, it was conditioned that the architect's elevation drawings required further Council approval. He referred to the detailed plans the Council received.
Bruce Beckett, an attorney with offices on Cherry Street, spoke on behalf of the property owners. He reported that the Country Club Villas II Homeowners Association Board and the Architectural Committee considered and approved the plans for the buildings projected to be built on Lots 103 and 106. Mr. Beckett distributed a letter to the Council from the Board to this effect.
The vote on R230-02 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
R231-02 Approving the elevation plan
of the proposed structure to be constructed on Lot 109-B of Village Square,
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this architectural plan was also sent to the Council.
Bruce Goebel, an architect with offices at 33 E. Broadway, passed out a colored rendering of the plan. He also submitted to the Council a copy of the letter of approval from the review committee and Bob Jurgensmeyer.
The vote on R231-02 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
R234-02 Authorizing support services
for the New Year's Eve activities planned by First Night Columbia.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that each year money is budgeted for First Night, but the City also provides additional services for this large event. This legislation will formalize the City's support for the program.
The vote on R234-02 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
R235-02 Authorizing conveyance of land
from Tom Atkins.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained after the packets were sent out, he had been asked by Tom Atkins if the City would be interested in receiving a deed for property with half interest being owned by the County. Adoption of the resolution would accept such conditions. Mr. Beck explained that this was being presented in resolution form because Mr. Atkins was desirous of executing the conveyance this year.
Mr. John asked if he understood the City would be deeded an undivided one-half interest in the property and the County would be deeded the same. Mr. Beck said that was correct. Mr. John asked if the intent was for the property to be used as park land. Mr. Boeckmann responded that the City has not received an executed copy of the deed, but what was faxed indicated no limitations on the use. Mayor Hindman felt the obvious intent of Mr. Atkins was to provide space for development of recreation areas.
The vote on R235-02 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
The following bills were introduced by the Mayor unless otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:
B412-02 Amending Chapters 2 and 29 of the City Code as they relate to City Council voting and abstentions.
B413-02 Voluntary annexation of property located generally east of Maguire Boulevard and north of New Haven Road, establishing permanent M-C zoning.
B414-02 Approving the final plat of Alpine Estates, Plat 2; granting a variance to the Subdivision Regulations.
B415-02 Appropriating funds received from the SEMA Grant for police and fire equipment.
B416-02 Amending Chapter 19 of the City Code as it relates to military leave.
B417-02 Accepting a donation from Jim and Billie Silvey for the purchase of a police motorcycle and equipment for the Police Department; appropriating funds.
B418-02 Authorizing acquisition of property for storm water control purposes.
B419-02 Authorizing acquisition of property necessary for construction of the Blue Ridge Road Project.
B420-02 Authorizing acquisition of an easement necessary to construct Crescent Meadows South Lagoon Interceptor.
B421-02 Approving the engineer's final report for the Hinkson Creek Trail Phase II Project.
B422-02 Appropriating funds for Share the Light Program.
B423-02 Calling for bids for the extension and upgrade of water main along Brown School Road from Highway 763 to Clearview Road.
B424-02 Accepting easements for water
and electric purposes.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Intra-departmental transfer of funds.
(B) Street Closure Request.
Mr. Coffman made the motion that the requests be approved as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(C) Proposed Urban Conservation Overlay
District for the East Campus Neighborhood.
Mr. Beck explained that the Council requested that this proposed ordinance move forward.
Mr. Coffman made the motion that the issue be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a work session and public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(D) Residential Speed Limits.
Mr. Beck reported that the Police and Public Works departments had reviewed this issue and surveyed other cities. He referred to staff's recommendation that the program remain the same.
Mr. Patterson commented that staff did not necessarily feel the speed limit in residential areas should be 30 mph. He related that it is common practice in cities to have it set at 25 mph. However, staff is concerned that arbitrarily reducing an unposted speed limit without other commitments necessary to change driving patterns would probably create expectations in the community that could result in more difficulty than what currently exists. Under the circumstances, staff suggests it would be more effective to identify problem areas and try to correct such through the proper means. If it is appropriate to lower the speed limit, he said they could do that by ordinance. Nonetheless, Mr. Patterson maintained that modifying a street's design would be much more effective in lowering traffic speeds.
Mr. John said he was leaning towards the default on the posted speed limit being 25 mph. If a street is straight enough, wide enough and safe enough to support 30 mph, then it could be posted as such. He realized lowering the speed limit would require more enforcement, but enforcement of the zero tolerance idea would also require a lot more effort. Mr. John agreed that looking at future street designs would help, but he did not think the Council wanted to take on the task of installing traffic calming devices on all problem streets.
Mayor Hindman concurred with Mr. John and said there is a very strong statistical relationship between how badly people are hurt at 25 mph and how much worse they are hurt at 30 mph. He remarked speeding traffic also affects life in a neighborhood. Mayor Hindman believed the obvious problem was how to get people to drive 25 mph. He did not think the signs alone would do the job. He explained some options that Salt Lake City has utilized, one of which was to get the neighborhoods to take care of themselves. He distributed various information to the Council and staff. Mayor Hindman thought, combined with an ordinance reducing the speed limit to 25 mph in neighborhoods, some of these strategies might help. He would like to see the staff expand on their report and look into some of the program information he just circulated.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that staff be directed to expand their report and look at some of the programs that could be used to make the speed limits truly effective in residential areas. The motion was seconded by Mr. Coffman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. John indicated he was going to press for a lot more traffic enforcement as they move forward into the next budget year. He acknowledged it would be an expense, but one he wanted staff to explore.
(E) Federal Earned Income Tax Credit
- Missouri Circuit Breaker.
Mr. Janku realizes it is too late in the year to participate in any type of actual assistance in filling out forms, but encouraged staff to move forward with disseminating information to the media and clients of the Health Department and other such places.
Mr. Janku made the motion that the staff be directed to pursue options two through five as outlined in the report. Mayor Hindman seconded the motion.
Mr. Coffman commented that refunds from the earned income tax credit would probably be spent in Columbia and that will be good for everyone. He reported a study had found that a majority of tax credit money is used to pay for utility arrears -- which is money going directly into the City. Mr. Coffman wondered why it was too late to get the programs in place for this coming tax season. Mr. Watkins said the programs that some of the other communities used was to provide CDBG assistance to pay non-profit organizations in helping low income people file their taxes. He did not think we could complete all of the necessary paperwork and contracts in time to help people get their taxes filed by mid-February. Mr. Watkins related that staff needed to give it more thought and get people lined up in plenty of time.
The motion made by Mr. Janku, seconded by Mayor Hindman, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Upon receiving the majority vote of the Council, the following individuals were appointed to the ensuing Boards and Commissions:
COMMUNITY SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION
Camp, Amy E., 1308 Willowcreek, Ward 5 - term to expire 12/31/05
Cantin, Angela D., 3211 Wind River Circle, Ward 4 - term to expire 12/31/05
Gilmore, Stephanie, 502 West Blvd. So., Ward 4 - term to expire 12/31/05
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Giroux, Douglas S., 1409 University #3, Ward 6 - term to expire 12/31/05
Martin, Michael J., 206 S. Glenwood, Ward 4 - term to expire 12/31/05
FIREFIGHTER RETIREMENT BOARD
Harris, Richard E., 1121 Danforth, Ward 6 - term to expire 12/31/04
POLICE RETIREMENT BOARD
Harper, Milt, 1004 LaGrange, Ward 5 - term to expire 12/31/04
SPECIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Fagan, Arnold L., 6700 E. Richland, County - term to expire 1/1/06
Kruse, Karl, 2405 Lynwood, Ward 5 - term to expire 1/1/06
Wilms, Charles E., 3460 Woodrail Terrace, Ward 5 - term to expire 1/1/06
COMMENTS BY COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC
Ms. Crayton remarked that she had received a letter from a couple living near Again Street Park regarding a lighting problem. She asked the staff to look into more lighting for the area.
Mr. Janku made a motion to refer the corner lot setback issue discussed earlier to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review and recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku asked about the 5-year terms for members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. He noted that a lot of boards have three-year terms. He asked that the Commission review this issue when going over their rules and regulations. Mr. Boeckmann noted the terms could be a statutory requirement. He will check into it.
Mr. Janku related that some cities send information to
the entire community via e-mail. He asked that the advisory committee look
into this possibility. Mayor Hindman asked if the City Source was distributed
through the REA bills. Ms. Fleming did not believe they were. Mayor Hindman
said that could be one way of getting information distributed to the population.
Mr. Coffman thought there was someone on the advisory committee who was considering
doing a version of the publication.
Mr. Janku made the motion that the issue be referred to the advisory committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Coffman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Hutton asked that the Council revisit the proposed
low income development that the Housing Authority asked the Council to approve
in concept several months ago. He thought the project was significantly different
than the original proposal at the time of approval, i.e., he believed the
homes were to be built in an area that is currently undeveloped. He felt
it makes a huge difference as to whether or not the proposed area for a project
such as this is developed or undeveloped.
Mr. Hutton said he has come to the conclusion that clustering or building houses for low income residents in close proximity to each other is not a good concept. He noted there are several existing subdivisions developed years ago that fit that description, and he reported these areas have been a continuous source of problems.
In closing, Mr. Hutton believed the Council should reconsider this project because of where it is now proposed. He reported that Wyatt Acres is a nice, well-kept area consisting of homes valued around $125,000. The subdivision is only partially developed, but consists primarily of owner-occupied homes. Mr. Hutton said it did not matter where this proposed development is located in relation to other subdivisions in town, the point is that it is not fair to the people who already live and own in these areas. He did not think the City could guarantee to the homeowners in Wyatt Acres that 36 low income rental houses in their neighborhood would not affect their quality of life and their property values. Mr. Hutton thought the Council should support the concept of the project, but not the cluster-type of development. He agreed that the project had merit if the houses are built in areas so as not to be clustered, but interspersed among existing properties throughout Columbia. For these reasons Mr. Hutton felt the Council should communicate to the Missouri Housing Development Commission that the City no longer approves the concept and suggest to them that this project not be funded. He thought the vote on funding was to take place some time in January.
Mr. Hutton made a motion per his above statements.
There was a discussion as to how the Council had given their support. Mr. Dudark responded that a resolution had been adopted by the Council that authorized the City Manager to write a letter of support. Mr. Janku asked Mr. Hutton if he preferred to have the resolution reconsidered and brought back for further discussion and vote. Mr. Hutton said he would.
Mr. Hutton made the motion that the item be reconsidered at the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
In reference to Wyatt Acres, Mr. Hutton said the developer
has a punch list of issues which he has yet to complete in order for the
subdivision to meet City standards and specifications. He said Mr. Patterson
told him that staff has no means by which to force the developer to complete
the list. In addition, taking this person to court would be a long, drawn-out
Mr. Hutton made the motion that staff be directed to report back on possible ways to revise the ordinances in order to expedite the process of getting subdivisions completed to City standards. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.
As the City considers new street standards, Mr. John asked that the Council give consideration to the costs that would be incurred by implementing such. He noted the push in the Chamber for a major road construction program, but if the costs cannot be controlled even that will not be enough to help. Mr. John related that the issue may have to go back to the voters because of all the amenities that people want which can triple the cost of a project.
Mr. John noted that some corporations in major cities
have wireless Internet in their buildings to allow people with their lap
tops to come in and use. In a lot of places, fire walls have been set-up
so a person can log onto an Internet system by means of wireless connections.
Since the City has the fiber backbone, Mr. John said he would like staff
to talk perhaps to the University about setting up the downtown area. He
indicated that if the University needs access to the fiber and the City can
help them in this regard, he would like to see that happen.
Mr. Janku suggested the issue be forwarded to the Water and Light Advisory Board.
Mr. John made a motion that the issue be forwarded to the Water and Light Advisory Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman noted that the Library is receiving complaints
from patrons who park in the lot across Broadway. People have trouble crossing
Broadway because the light is not long enough. He thought a good option for
this intersection would be the use of countdown timers. Mayor Hindman reported
these timers are used in Salt Lake very successfully, and a user survey showed
huge support for them. He thought the Library intersection would be a great
place to employ such on a trial basis.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that staff be directed to look into the countdown timers with the first ones to be installed at the Library intersection. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman spoke about a pedestrian flag system that
has been implemented in Salt Lake to be used by pedestrians when crossing
the street. He noted this flag system has become extremely popular there.
Mr. Beck pointed out that after some cities tried this system, they discontinued it. He thought there were selective places where such a program might work.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that staff be directed to look into the possibility of picking an intersection or two to try the system and report back. (One suggestion was the ARC intersection.) The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
James Lark, reiterated a billing/collection incident that he spoke about at the November 18th Council meeting. Ms. Fleming restated the City's policy on the issue. After listening to his complaint, Mayor Hindman told Mr. Lark that he has a civil dispute with the City with respect to his bill and that he needed to go through the process by which civil disputes are processed. He told Mr. Lark that the Council could not get involved in the matter.
Jamie Lloyd, 1508 Sylvan, spoke on behalf of GRO (Grass Root Organizing). She again addressed the scholarship program implemented at The ARC which the group felt to be unfair and unaffordable for all citizens of Columbia. Ms. Lloyd asked that the Council begin to work immediately to include low income residents so The ARC is a center that truly represents the diversity of Columbia. She presented the Clerk with a petition containing over 800 signatures of Columbia citizens asking that all residents of the City have full access to the facility and services offered by The ARC regardless of age, ethnicity, religion, gender or income.
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
© 2016 City of Columbia