NOVEMBER 18, 2002

    The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, November 18, 2002, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS and JOHN were present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various department heads were also present.

    The minutes of the regular meeting of November 4, 2002, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Loveless and a second by Mr. John.

    Upon his request, Mr. Hutton made the motion that Mr. John be permitted to abstain from voting on B378-02 and B382-02 (later withdrawn). The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    The agenda, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously on a motion made by Mr. Janku and a second by Mr. Hutton.

Hero recognition by the Columbia Fire Department - Deon Baskett and Frank Putnam, Jr.
    Chief Markgraf invited Mr. Patterson, Mr. Beck and Mayor Hindman to join him at the podium along with the two men being recognized as heros. He relayed an unfortunate incident which occurred on October 24th, 2002, at Columbia Regency Mobile Home Park. The two refuse collectors, Deon Baskett and Frank Putnam, came upon a crying child in the Mobile Home Park who told them that his house was on fire and his dad was still inside. The men called 9-1-1 to report the fire and then Mr. Baskett went in and escorted out the father. Chief Markgraf commented that the quick actions of the two men were instrumental in preventing a possible fire death and lessening the property damage to the home. Chief Markgraf presented Mr. Putnam with the Columbia Fire Department Citizen Life Saving Award. Mayor Hindman thanked and congratulated Mr. Putnam and presented him with a Columbia, Missouri Honorary Fire Chief ball cap. Chief Markgraf presented Mr. Baskett with the Columbia Fire Department Heroism Award. Mayor Hindman, on behalf of the entire community, thanked Mr. Baskett for his true act of heroism. He also presented Mr. Baskett with an Honorary Fire Chief ball cap. Mr. Beck gave each of the men a City pin and commented that this incident was a great example of the cooperation between departments who work for the good of the Columbia community.

James Lark Complaint.
    Mr. Lark recounted a billing/collection incident which he felt to be unfair. Mayor Hindman noted that the Council received information on the incident and indicated that staff would be following up on the issue. He assured Mr. Lark that it is the intent of the Council that all City employees work with citizens on a professional basis and that they be polite, courteous and respectful.

B376-02     Voluntary annexation of property located at the northeast quadrant of the I-70/Lake of the Woods Road Interchange; establishing permanent zoning.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Dudark explained that this request involves two tracts: Tract A consists of 22.4 acres and the applicants have requested C-3 zoning, Tract B is 12.4 acres and that request is for C-P zoning to include all permitted C-1 uses. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request as presented.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B376-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B377-02     Rezoning property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Range Line/State Route 763 and Smiley Lane from M-C to C-P.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck reported that this 23 acre tract is located in north central Columbia. Both staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request subject to a number of conditions which includes a traffic study to address driveway placement, right-of-way issues pertaining to the potential widening of 763, and the financing of off-site improvements.
    Mr. Janku noted a number of permitted uses in the ordinance and he had particular concerns about the stand-alone car wash. If a plan is submitted containing such a car wash, he questioned the Council's authority to disapprove the plan if it is felt the designated location is not appropriate. Mr. Boeckmann agreed the Council could do that as long as there is a rational reason for the opposition, i.e., proximity to residential areas.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Dan Simon, an attorney with offices at 203 Executive Building, spoke on behalf of the property owner. He noted a lengthy letter he sent to the Council and offered to answer any questions. He mentioned the very favorable trade-off in uses if this rezoning is approved. He said the Council will be able to control the property by a plan which will be subject to a number of very stringent requirements. Mr. Simon viewed this as a favorable downzoning of the property and asked for Council approval.
    Mr. Janku asked Mr. Simon if he agreed with Mr. Boeckmann's opinion regarding the car wash. Mr. Simon said he did.
    Mr. Hutton asked Mr. Simon for his understanding of the definition of rental services. Mr. Simon understood it to be the rental of equipment, furniture and so forth, much like Lindsey Rentals.
    Audrie Sabel, 3800 Mint Julep, spoke of her concern regarding the development's proximity to nearby schools and heavily populated residential areas on both sides of Rangeline Road. She thought the C-P zoning was better than M-C, but she was still concerned about the types of businesses which could be built on the property.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku stated an advantage to a planned district is that the Council has an opportunity to address a lot of issues when the plan is submitted.
    B377-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B378-02     Rezoning property located on the east side of Forum Boulevard, south of the intersection of Forum Boulevard and Southampton Drive from C-1 and R-1 to C-P; approving the Painter C-P Development Plan.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Dudark explained that this is a split zoning district with the north/south boundary line extending from Southampton down through this property with R-1 to the east and C-1 to the west. The request is to change the zoning on the east portion from R-1 to C-P and the west portion from C-1 to C-P. He said this would create an approximate one acre lot with access off of Forum. He displayed a site plan on the overhead and explained the use to be for an interior design business, mainly for a home interior design center, retail sale of home furnishings, decorations and design services. Other permitted uses would be limited to business and professional offices.
    Mr. Dudark pointed out the parking areas proposed for the front and rear of the property and the location of a planned detention pond. Storm water from the parking lot and roof drains will be piped into the detention pond. There will also be an outlet that would drain into the surrounding ditches and street to the east. At the hearing, Mr. Dudark noted that questions came up as to whether this development would exacerbate the flooding problems in the area. The design engineer addressed that concern by creating the detention basin. If the tract were to be developed with its current zoning, Mr. Dudark reported that a detention basin would not be required. Another issue raised pertained to the loss of the R-1 buffer zone. He noted a restriction in that the only driveway access will be from Forum. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the rezoning and plan.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Jay Gebhardt, project engineer, spoke on behalf of Dana Painter, his client and contract purchaser of the property. Using a drawing, he explained the plan. He believed the plan to be no more impervious, probably less impervious, than what would be allowed under the C-1 zoning and the R-1 zoning which would allow the construction of two single family homes. Mr. Gebhardt referred to the dumpster location which will be screened with a six-foot tall fence. It will also be screened by upright junipers running along the south property line and halfway across the north property line. He indicated the location of a six-foot high retaining wall which will also be landscaped. Mr. Gebhardt related that the junipers will be used to break up the elevation difference. He stated that the storm water detention was added as a consideration to the people in Cedar Lake. He said the detention facility will not solve all problems in regard to storm water, but he indicated it will be no worse than it already is. Mr. Gebhardt displayed the architect's rendering of the building.
    Mayor Hindman questioned if the sides and rear of the building would have the same material as what is shown on the front. Mr. Gebhardt replied affirmatively. Mayor Hindman asked about windows.
    Dana Painter, 3002 Rodeo, replied that there will be windows all across the front and on one side, but none on the right side. She indicated there will be a garage door and a regular door on the back of the building. Ms. Painter explained that her business would primarily consist of high-end residential projects and her hours of operation being 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and from noon until 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. She believed that she had made every effort to ensure the building and landscaping will be an enhancement to both Cedar Lake and The Highlands. Ms. Painter reported that she attempted to meet with the Homeowners Association of Cedar Lake, but had not received a call back from them.
    Dick Otto, 704 Idlewood, asked about the vote count needed this evening in order to defeat this matter. Mayor Hindman said it would require a two-third's majority and only six people can vote, so the requirement would be four affirmative votes for passage.
    Mr. Otto distributed copies of a letter dated November 13. Residents wondered if more commercial property is necessary in this residential area. He pointed out that this proposal does not utilize all of the existing commercial property on the tract, and adds more commercial property to the neighborhood. Mr. Otto shared notes from materials regarding the neighborhood's relationship with The Highlands. He pointed out that Cedar Lake was annexed into the City in late 1984, and in 1985 permanent zoning was established by the Council. At that time, he said the property to the west of Lake Valley Lane was annexed into the City as R-1. Mr. Otto read from a letter dated February 17, 1987, signed by a former Planning Director which stated, "The City staff is in general concurrence with the plan which shows a realignment of Forum Boulevard to the west and a 50 foot buffer strip along Lake Valley Lane." Mr. Otto indicated the buffer referred to at that time was from Holly Glen Court south. The intent was to move Forum Boulevard over to connect with Lake Valley Lane. Mr. Otto explained that residents convinced those associated with the planning this was not a good idea because of the beach area along Cedar Lake, so the R-1 buffer was moved 50 feet to the west. He noted that residents have worked hard to establish a good relationship with The Highlands neighborhood. Mr. Otto said it is disheartening that this request has come forward for additional commercial development at the expense of R-1.
    Lou Pitchford, 428 North Cedar Lake, gave a brief history of the area and said when construction began on The Highlands, the developer wanted to set aside one area at the entrance for commercial property. He said a great deal has changed since then and there is currently a lot of commercial in the area. Mr. Pitchford stated there is no need for anymore commercial at the corner of Forum and Southampton.
    Joy Morgan, 4806 Lake Valley Lane, spoke in opposition of the request and gave more history of the area.
    Charles Sanders, 730 Idlewood, used a prop to illustrate the height of the proposed retaining wall and its proximity to the property next door. He said the people on the south side and at Cedar Lake would be looking at a 50-foot building from the back side, or at least a 50-foot structure. Mr. Sanders related that residents have been told this rezoning would be better than C-1, but they have heard nothing so far as to why this project cannot be built on the existing C-1. He noted that the plans call for raising the east side of the project nearly 8 to 10 feet, which would further bury a gravity sewer which will be located directly under the retention pond. Mr. Sanders also pointed out there is a pressure sewer line located on the edge of the berm which may be buried under a sidewalk.
    Jack Cruise, 228 N. Cedar Lake, reported on the surrounding residential properties with the exception of a church and the recreation area. He asked that the residential nature of their neighborhood be retained.
    Pam Massey, 4829 N. Cedar Lake, passed out a letter she had sent to the Council previously. She expressed concern about the proposed development's impact in regard to noise quality, and the possible degradation of the water quality in the lake. Ms. Massey was also concerned about the additional traffic in the neighborhood and the safety of the kids who walk to the recreation area.
    Annette Sanders, 730 Idlewood, believed that if the Council approves this request, that Lake Valley Lane will be turned into an access point for other commercial businesses in the area. She asked the Council to defeat the issue.
    Mary Creed, 753 N. Cedar Lake, explained that she and her husband live in the home at the corner of Cedar Lake Drive and Lake Valley Lane. She felt that development of the plan would result in significant reduction in the value of their property. Ms. Creed urged the Council to oppose the rezoning to protect the value of their home and also to maintain the character of the residential neighborhood.
    Dan Shapiro, 702 N. Cedar Lake, agreed with the statements of the previous speakers who voiced disapproval of the request. He pointed out there is no compelling reason to rezone the property to C-P. He asked the people in opposition to stand. Approximately 18 people stood.
    Jack Schweitzer, 756 Idlewood, President of the Homeowners Association, suggested that the proposed building be turned around and built on the existing commercial property. He indicated that residents do not want to lose the R-1 buffer.
    Rod Satterle, 4805 Lake Valley, explained that his house is just to the south of the subject tract. He reported that agreements have been made in the past and residents expect those agreements to be honored.
    Sharon Tracy, 579 N. Cedar Lake, spoke in opposition of the rezoning. Her house is across from the proposed entrance to the commercial parking lot. She noted a lot of pedestrian traffic in the area and the lack of sidewalks.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku noted that when zoning is placed on property, legal rights are created on which the property owner can rely. He said they have legal protection and the Council cannot remove it except in the rarest of circumstances. The adjoining property owners do not have quite the same legal protection, but they too are entitled to rely on Council decisions in terms of the investments they make. Mr. Janku indicated that zoning can be changed under appropriate circumstances to allow for the profitable and beneficial use of the property. In this situation, Mr. Janku maintained the Council has not been told of any change in circumstances. In other words, the property can be put to a profitable and beneficial use without the expansion of the commercial zoning. He saw nothing that would warrant the rezoning and added that this is not the type of neighborhood commercial the Council tries to encourage and integrate in residential neighborhoods.
    Mr. Hutton noted the property immediately south of the tract in question would be affected by any kind of development due to the slope of the land. Because of the shape of the lots, he said there will be a problem with storm water. In addition, he was not sure one tract could be developed without the other because of the valley down the middle. Mr. Hutton felt the line had been drawn many years ago when the R-1 buffer was established. He agreed in that the Council has not heard a compelling reason to rezone the property and he intended to vote against the request.
    Mayor Hindman concurred with Mr. Janku and Mr. Hutton and said the history of previous zoning decisions is particularly strong with respect to the buffer. He intended to vote against the request.
    Mr. Coffman also agreed with the previous Council comments.
    B378-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: NO ONE. VOTING NO: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. ABSTAINING: JOHN. Bill defeated.

B380-02     Approving the Custom Muffler Lot 1, Municipal Addition Block 1 C-P Development Plan.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Mr. Beck explained this small tract to be located at the northwest corner of Stadium and West Worley. The suggested waiver relates to the number of parking spaces. Mr. Beck stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request, including the variance to the parking requirements.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Brian Harrington, an engineer with Allstate Consultants, 3312 LeMone Industrial Boulevard, offered to answer any questions.
    William Woodward, 200A Unity Drive, was concerned about the number of accidents that have occurred at this location.
    Mayor Hindman understood there to be an existing entrance onto Worley from this property. Mr. Dudark said that was correct, and the applicant is entitled to utilize this entrance.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Loveless asked with this being a C-P development, whether the Council could request that the driveway be moved to the west. Mr. Dudark believed the Council could require it, but he explained because of the median on Worley the driveway is a right in/right out. He said that is something the design engineer would have to look at. In the initial review, Mr. Dudark indicated there had not been a significant concern about the drive. Mr. Loveless maintained the driveway is too close to Stadium and he would like to see it moved to the westernmost extreme possible. Mayor Hindman asked if staff looked at this issue. Mr. Dudark did not know that it had been looked at specifically. He said there would be a question about the other driveway, if there is one, to the west and how close this driveway would be to that if it were relocated.
    Mr. Janku was concerned that if the entrance is put past the median, even though it is right in/right out, some people may try to use it inappropriately.
    Mr. Harrington reported that they looked at the access for the driveway when they started the project because it had been a concern of theirs as well. He indicated that the site grade causes significant problems if the drive were to be shifted any further west. He said this drive is the only public access into the site.
    Ms. Crayton thought that two businesses have already left this location because of the congestion on the corner. Mr. Harrington could not speak to why those businesses left, but he pointed out that this is a different type of business where traffic would be spread out throughout the day. Ms. Crayton maintained this lot could be accessed through the Mall's back entrance. Mr. Harrington reported that the road through the Mall is not a public street. He related that Mall officials could remove that access without the approval of adjacent business owners. Mr. Harrington explained the applicant needs to maintain their public access along Worley. Mayor Hindman agreed that the City would not be able to deny them direct access to Worley without compensation.
    Mr. Loveless asked about standards the City adheres to regarding driveways between businesses. Mr. Dudark said there are relatively minimal standards -- perhaps 22 feet between the curb returns. He said that should be increased on arterial streets like Worley, but that is not in place right now. Mr. Dudark reported that is part of the access management issue. Mr. Loveless thought the location of this driveway has caused problems in the past, and this is the Council's opportunity to address the situation. He understood what the engineer said about the change in elevation, but he strongly believed this was their chance to improve the situation. He preferred that the plan come back with a reconfiguration of the driveway. There was discussion about tabling the issue.
    Mr. Harrington indicated the applicant did not want to table the issue. He said moving the driveway would not create a feasible entrance because the grade is too much to overcome in a parking lot situation. He said there is no added benefit of moving the drive by 30 or 40 feet which would off-set the creation of a steep driveway. Mr. Harrington believed it would slow people down coming in and off that road.
    Mr. Janku commented that he had been a proponent of a greater amount of parking, but in this case he felt the neighborhood would not be impacted because of the availability of the Mall parking lot.
    Mr. John pointed out that Golden Corral moved because they needed a bigger building. He said the next owner saw a profit in buying and selling so they sold some land. In summary, Mr. John did not think businesses were leaving this location because of bad access. He commented the accident count may or may not have anything to do with the entrance.
    Mr. Hutton stated that because staff as well as the engineers determined the drive could not be built further to the west because of the slope, he believed the plan before the Council was the best that can be done in this situation.
    B380-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, JOHN. VOTING NO: LOVELESS. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B383-02     Officially naming and renaming streets in conjunction with the new State Route AC.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Dudark explained the first option which would name the new Route AC "Nifong Boulevard" from Highway 63 west to intersect with existing Nifong Boulevard -- where the Green Meadows intersection would be opened up shortly. He said that would necessitate changing the name of existing Nifong to one of several recommendations. The other option is to leave Nifong named as is and rename the new AC some other name such as Grindstone Avenue or Parkway. He said that would require renaming part of Old 63 as well. On a 4-3 vote, Mr. Dudark said the Commission recommended Option One for the continuity of Nifong. He noted that Nifong also extends west of Providence a few miles to Vawter School Road.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Dan Atwill, an attorney with offices at 16 N. Eighth Street, spoke on behalf of William and Nancy Laurie who reside at 1500 E. Nifong, who are opposed to renaming Nifong Boulevard. He said Nifong Boulevard is named that because of Nifong Park, originally the Maplewood Home of the Nifong family which dates back many years. He said there is historical significance to the name, and he believed respect should be given to leaving the street name. If the name is changed to the north, Mr. Atwill related that the street will not abut the Nifong property any longer. He noted that renaming the street would mean more than 1,000 people would have their address changed. Mr. Atwill suggested the new road be named Nifong Parkway. He explained there would be an almost seamless transition from the Parkway to Nifong on out to Vawter School Road. Since the street name changes at Vawter School, he did not see a problem.
    Mr. Coffman asked Mr. Atwill if his clients would be opposed to Grindstone Parkway rather than Nifong Parkway. Mr. Atwill said they would not.
    Chester Edwards, 1215 E. Nifong, spoke in opposition to renaming Nifong Boulevard because of the Nifong family's tremendous contributions to this community. He supported the concept of Nifong Parkway and thought it fit well.
    Louise Eason, 6 Brittany Lane, explained that her subdivision is at the corner of Scenic Rock Quarry Road and Grindstone Avenue. Her feeling, after talking with neighbors, was that the Grindstone name should remain for the entire stretch where it joins to the current Nifong Boulevard.
    Mr. Coffman asked Ms. Eason her opinion about Option 2 which would rename Grindstone Avenue to Grindstone Parkway. Ms. Eason responded that people she spoke to would prefer Avenue, but have said they would not oppose Parkway because that would recognize the widening of the road. She believed either would be acceptable.
    Ginny Crawford, 2220 Shepard, President of the Grindstone Rock Quarry Neighborhood Association, said anyone she has spoken with in the Association has preferred Grindstone Avenue or Grindstone Parkway. She said if it is named something else, she would like to see a historic marker on the street.
    Ted Stephenson, 5 Danforth Circle, spoke in favor of leaving Nifong Boulevard as is and renaming the new section Grindstone Parkway.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Coffman spoke in support of Option #2. He did not like the idea of having two parallel roads with the same first name. He felt that because area residents have already put up with the frustrations of construction throughout the project, that their wishes should be respected as much as possible.
    At this point there was a lengthy discussion about the small section of road labeled "C". Mr. Dudark pointed out that staff had suggested naming it Southampton because it would be a continuous road on south.
    Mr. Hutton made the motion that segments "C" and "D" be named Nifong Boulevard and segments "E", "F" and "G" be named Grindstone Parkway. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman.
    Mr. John was concerned about segment "C". He asked what would happen when it was extended southward. He said some day it would continue south and the City would end up running a north/south street called Nifong, to an east/west street called Nifong, to another north/south street to another east/west street, all named Nifong.
    Mr. John made a motion to amend Mr. Hutton's motion to name segment "C" Green Meadows. The motion was seconded by Mr. Coffman and was defeated by voice vote
    The original motion to amend B383-02 made by Mr. Hutton, seconded by Mayor Hindman, to have the ordinance read as follows:

The motion was passed by voice vote.
    B383-02, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows; VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: JOHN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B384-02     Changing the uses allowed on property located on the southeast corner of Nifong Boulevard and Hyde Park Avenue.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission have submitted a list of uses they felt could be made of this property.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Craig VanMatre, an attorney with offices at 1103 E. Broadway, understood there had been concern about how the rest of the property in this area would be developed and in what phase. He said letters from the adjoining property owners had been sent and are on file. Mr. VanMatre explained that his client would like to construct a restaurant on this property.
    Tim Crockett, project engineer with Crockett Engineering Consultants, 2608 N. Stadium, understood a concern to be the realignment of the existing roadway system in the area, as well as the type and location of the buffering between the commercial and the residential. A sketch had been passed out showing the realignments, and he said all the screening would be done by landscaped berms with vegetative cover on top which will meet or exceed the current regulations.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku asked how this becomes legally significant in terms of being incorporated into some sort of City plan. Mr. Dudark said it would provide some record of an intent, but the major roadway plan would have to be amended for any major streets in the area. He said most of those have been defined as collectors or arterials, but some of the interior streets would be local streets and would not be shown on the major roadway plan. Mr. Janku inquired whether something was coming forward from the Commission that would accomplish this. Mr. Dudark responded that if there is a change that would affect the major roadway plan, it would need to go through CATSO and then to the Council.
    Mr. John noted that a fast food restaurant on this corner is going to generate quite a bit of traffic, and some of the discussion last time was about left turns coming out of Hyde Park onto AC. He asked if there had been any discussion about limitations on the intersection. Mr. Dudark replied staff talked about it and it was felt a traffic study would be important and valuable at the time the site plan is filed for the development of the tract. That would indicate what kind of traffic movements are anticipated. He noted that it goes beyond just this property because the street continues southwardly and left turns out of the development might be a problem. Mr. Dudark commented that the traffic study should look beyond just this tract, it should look at the other uses of the property. Mr. John asked if after a traffic study, whether the Council could restrict left turns from the development. Mr. Dudark suggested the Council amend the ordinance to include the traffic study with the site plan.
    Mr. John made the motion that B384-02 be amended so that the site plan include a traffic study on the area. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    B384-02, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

(A)     Reconstruction of Garth Avenue from Bear Creek north to Blueridge Road.
    Item A was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Patterson explained that this public hearing was being held to determine the necessity of the reconstruction of Garth Avenue from Bear Creek north to Blue Ridge Road. The resolution estimate for the project is approximately $831,000; however, the actual cost will be based on decisions made after the public hearing.
    Mr. Patterson described the project for this neighborhood collector street. It is anticipated that two lanes of traffic will be able to adequately handle the traffic for the design year 2020. The construction project is planned for 2004 and would be done in conjunction with the reconstruction of the bridge over Bear Creek and the connection to Thurman Street. The roadway would be constructed to a 38-foot width within a 66-foot right-of-way with five-foot sidewalks. Mr. Patterson noted that public meetings had been held during the development stage of the project, at which time it was apparent there was a high interest in connectivity with pedestrian/bicycle accommodations. As such, an alternative design has been prepared for Council consideration which includes a 33-foot wide pavement with a five-foot sidewalk along the west side and an eight-foot wide pedway on the east side. With either pavement configuration, the project would include a roundabout at the intersection of Blue Ridge Road and Garth Avenue. Both alternatives would provide for on-street bicyclists.
    In providing direction to staff, Mr. Patterson noted four issues the Council should consider as follows: Conformance with approved standards for collector streets, policy issues regarding marked or shared bicycle lanes on pavement, roundabout intersection versus less functional tee intersection at Blue Ridge Road, and cost impacts of the alternatives. Funding for this project is proposed to be from transportation sales tax, County road tax, and tax bills against adjacent properties. This would be under City policy wherein tax bills could be levied in an amount not to exceed the cost of curb and guttering or the equivalent. In this case, it would be set at a maximum of $15 per abutting foot. If assessed, approximately $35,000 would be generated toward the total project funding. Mr. Patterson noted that $15,000 of the tax bill amount would be on City-owned property.
    After receiving public input this evening and upon Council concurrence, Mr. Patterson said a motion to proceed would be in order. He stated that staff will need specific direction with regard to street width, the pedestrian and bicycle features desired, and whether the inclusion of a roundabout design is preferred.
    Mr. Janku asked about any utility relocation that might be a part of the project. Mr. Patterson said there would be some relocation, but could not say the extent of it at this time. He said a lot depended on the pavement configuration. Mr. Janku said the pedway on the east side of Garth is intended to connect with the Blue Ridge pedway on the south side. Mr. Patterson verified that south of the bridge the wider sidewalk is on the west side because of the proximity of developed structures to the street. Mr. Janku questioned if the roundabout design and the four-foot wide traffic island would accommodate landscaping. Mr. Patterson said the roundabout would, but landscaping for the traffic island would be minimal. Mr. Janku inquired if the design standards could specify continuous (seamless) pavement to the curb. Mr. Patterson thought it probably could, but it would add cost to the project. He said another way of doing it would be to specify concrete pavement like that which occurred on Grant Lane. That allowed for the joints being wider and, therefore, set farther away from the gutter section.
    In looking at the design for the roundabout, Mr. Hutton noted that Blue Ridge Road would continue on, and a sharper angle than a 90 degree turn is to be built in to the roundabout. He asked if there was any way to design it to where it would not be such a sharp curve. Mr. Patterson explained that staff has tried to work with the developer on the east side who would be impacted most by this project. He said the angle at which a vehicle would be coming out of the roundabout actually lends itself better to a northwest extension onto Blue Ridge as opposed to going straight west. Mr. Patterson acknowledged it looks sharp, but with the roundabout traffic configuration it would be a slow movement and staff believed it would be a manageable angle.
    Mr. Beck pointed out that this project is estimated to cost $512 per lineal foot, including the roundabout, without the bridge.
    Mr. John asked about the cost difference between the modified and the current collector standards. Mr. Patterson replied it is estimated to be about a $45,000 difference.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Chip Cooper, 500 Longfellow, passed out a copy of his testimony which was authorized by the Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission. He said the PedNet Coalition Board has voted to support the Commission's position and recommendation as does the Disabilities Commission. The Commissions have asked that the design include the eight-foot pedway and space for on-street bicycle use. Mr. Cooper stated the groups also recommend the modified collector street plan containing 33-foot wide streets, an eight-foot pedway, and five-foot sidewalks. Mr. Cooper listed other considerations the Commissions would like to see. The first was that the outer four-feet of pavement surface be monolith in surface, material and texture without joints. Second was that on-street parking be removed. Next was that storm water inlets be designed as setback inlets so as not to intrude past the normal face of curb. The groups also ask that the street be signed as a bike route and that pavement markings include bicycle emblems. The last was that the traffic calming island not encroach into usable pavement surface. Mr. Cooper pointed out that their recommendation would consist of 46 feet of impervious surface versus the standard collector street design of 48 feet.
    Linda Karnes, 2308 N. Garth, commented that the Bear Creek Trail has been a wonderful addition and asked that the plan include a 33-foot wide street with the eight-foot pedway and the construction of the roundabout. She believed this design would enhance the trail by creating safer access.
    Bill Pauls, 306 Whitetail, President of the Hunters Gate Neighborhood Association, said the neighborhood is very much in favor of the project and were in support of upgrading the infrastructure before further development in the area. He said the current road is very narrow and has no shoulders nor sidewalks. Mr. Pauls spoke in support of the 33-foot wide street with the five-foot sidewalk on the west, and the wider pedway on the east side with access and connection under the new bridge to the Bear Creek Trail. He commented that either plan would be an improvement over what is there now. He noted that the Association has two adopt-a-spots, one of which is where the proposed roundabout would be located. Mr. Pauls reported that residents would be happy to help take care of the landscaping on the roundabout.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Hutton asked about restricting parking regardless of the street width. Mr. Patterson replied that staff saw no reason to have parking on this section of street at either width. He thought there were two driveways accessing the section.
    Mr. Janku asked if it would be better to place the traffic island further to the north. He was concerned about people crossing at the trail. He requested that staff consider this when making their final plans.
    Mr. Janku suggested that the project be designed containing a street width of 33-feet with the pedway on the east and sidewalk on the west. He asked that the possibility of the monolith pavement be explored to see what could be done. Because parking has already been restricted along this stretch, he did not see the need to change anything at this point. Assuming the loss of trees, he also wanted to see what could be done about landscaping on the west side of Garth. He asked that the roundabout be included in the design and encouraged the moving back of the curb inlets as recommended. Mr. Janku also encouraged the bicycle route marking and emblems.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that staff be directed to proceed, taking into consideration his above comments. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman.
    Regarding the monolithic pavement, Mr. John asked if that would include the entire street, curb and gutter, or just the widened curbing. Mr. Janku said the entire street would be preferable. Mr. John noted the recommendation from the bike/pedestrian people was for the four-foot pan on the curb, allowing the middle pour to be different. He commented that may have a different cost factor to it. Mr. Janku indicated that was why he did not direct it, but encouraged it.
    Mr. John asked if he could make an amendment to the motion that staff also evaluate the four-foot pan idea to get an idea of the cost difference. Mr. Janku agreed.
    The motion made by Mr. Janku, seconded by Mayor Hindman, amended by Mr. John, was approved unanimously by voice vote.

B379-02     Approving the Limerick Lakes East PUD Site Plan; granting a variance from the Subdivision Regulations.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Dudark described the property as 4.96 acre tract located at the intersection of Forum Boulevard and Katy Lane. He stated there is a lake to the west of the property and a residential subdivision west of the lake. The property is zoned PUD with the request being for two homes with an entrance off Katy Lane. He said two home sites would be created with a very long shared driveway. The variance request is to the stem lot maximum length of 250 feet. In this case, the stem lot would be about 755 feet long.
    During the public hearing, Mr. Dudark noted that several issues were brought up; one of which was the location of the driveway on Katy Lane and its proximity to Forum Boulevard. He showed sketches of where the driveway would be and said the City's traffic engineer has looked at the question and although it is not ideal, it was determined the entrance would not be a safety hazard. He said the vehicle trips per day would be about 16 to 20. Mr. Dudark noted that a legal protest petition has been filed against this request. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 to 3 to deny the request, which means that it comes to the Council without any recommendation.
    Mr. Janku asked if Forum is widened in the future, and appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facilities are included, where the traffic lanes would be. With a 50-foot half width and another ten-feet on the east side, Mr. Dudark reported that 100-feet should be fairly close enough to provide a four lane roadway with a sidewalk or a pedway within it. He noted a problem with a fairly steep incline as one gets closer to the edge of the right-of-way. Mr. Dudark indicated there may have to be some sort of retaining wall if the sidewalk or pedway is put to the far edge of the right-of-way. If the road is constructed at four lanes, Mr. Janku asked how many feet it would be from the driveway to the edge of the pavement. Mr. Dudark estimated it would be 35-feet from the centerline to the edge of the travelway.
    Mr. John noted that the current zoning of PUD R-1 no longer exists. Under that zoning, he asked how many residential units would be permitted on the property. Mr. Dudark said that an earlier plan showed 22 dwelling units in a town home attached configuration. He said that tract might have contained more than this 4.96 acres. He thought it included some of the land to the north of this tract that is now zoned O-P. Mr. John maintained that if a plan is presented that fit the zoning, he felt the Council would have a hard time denying the request. Mr. Boeckmann reminded the Council that the access has changed since the preliminary PUD plan. He thought the access had been from the north and the original entrance was not that close to Forum Boulevard. Mr. Dudark added that it was a different piece of property than what exists today.
    Mr. Hutton asked about the width of the tract at the south property line. Mr. Dudark thought it was 134 feet. Regarding the proposed 12-foot driveways that are split into two sections, Mr. Hutton asked how the Council could justify that when there is a 20-foot wide requirement on a stem lot. He asked if staff assumed a truck could go down a short section of 12-foot. Mr. Dudark thought they were assuming that. He said it is a divided type road so they would have one-way. Mr. Hutton said a fire truck would not care if it was one-way or not. Mr. Dudark said there would be no parking in that area and it should be wide enough for a fire truck.
    Skip Walther, an attorney with offices at 700 Cherry, spoke on behalf of the contract purchasers, Mr. and Mrs. Paul Kanago. Mr. Walther said it was reasonable to put two houses on five acres, but the neighbors are here because of a history that predates his clients' purchase of this property. He said that has nothing to do with his clients and it would not be right to deny the request based on a relationship between the developer and the neighborhood. Mr. Walther presented the Council with three letters from Rich Eckles to the neighborhood in which residents were promised this land for a park. He said there was to be a park only if certain things happened and this did not occur. He said those promises were never reduced to a contract and wondered why the neighbors bought their homes without a legally enforceable agreement. Mr. Walther noted that the property has been zoned for residential use for 23 years. He said that a residential use is completely compatible with the neighborhood, the density of this development is far less than the other side of the lake, and building two attractively landscaped homes will add to the appeal of the neighborhood. He remarked that the land disturbance will be minor and well within City code.
    Mr. Walther noted that Bill Crockett, the engineer working on this project, supplied two pages of calculations that establishes the total watershed runoff from this development is less than one-quarter of one percent. In addition, Mr. Crockett's report establishes that 29.5% of the forest will be taken from lot one and 37.4% will be taken from lot two, with the City ordinances allowing for 75%. He thought it ironic that Columbia's tree ordinance was drafted because of clear cutting by a developer on the entire east side of Forum Boulevard, and that the neighbors have recruited that same developer to join their cause by protesting this plan. Mr. Walther pointed out that this tract has the last remaining stand of trees south of Chapel Hill, and most of that forest will remain after the homes are constructed.
    Mr. Walther maintained the intersection of Forum and Katy Lane will be significantly improved because some trees will be removed at the corner of those streets making visibility much better. He passed around photos depicting a clear view of the driveway for southbound vehicles. It also showed that his clients would have a clear view of Forum. Mr. Walther argued that there have not been 29 accidents at the intersection, but two. One involved a right turn off of Katy Lane onto Forum and the car was rear ended, and the other accident occurred when a car turned left off of Forum and hit a light pole. The other 27 accidents alleged by the neighbors occurred somewhere else on Forum and not at this intersection. Mr. Walther reported that the entrance to his clients' driveway is not where the neighbors have said it will be located. He related that it was not even close because the entire driveway is west, farther away from Forum than the markers placed on the property by the neighbors.
    Regarding the tier lot, Mr. Walther said if it is reasonable to put two homes on five acres, there must be a long driveway because of the access limitations for this lot. There is no choice in the matter. He remarked his clients have chosen the tier configuration, even though other configurations would technically avoid such, but the design of the driveway is not going to change. Mr. Walther stated there is no other possibility, and if ever there was a case for a variance, this is it.
    Naita Kanago, 309 W. Alhambra, said they have tried very hard to come up with compromises that would be least invasive for their neighbors. She said they too are concerned about the trees and want to keep as many as possible. Although Forum is a busy street, she said Katy Lane is not. Mrs. Kanago said they would be willing to work with the City in expanding the sidewalk along Forum so it could include a pedway for bicyclists.
    Jeff Crane, 1855 Range Line, gave a slide presentation and spoke in favor of the request. He showed which trees would be removed and explained how that would improve the site distance on Forum.
    Paul Kanago, 309 W. Alhambra, said misleading testimony was given at the Planning and Zoning hearing which set the tone for the entire hearing. The opposition's figures were that 15 million cars passed by the intersection in three years. He said there have been two accidents at this location in those three years. Mr. Kanago maintained the opposition is not about safety, it is about trees and the stem lot. He believed the neighbors do not want anything constructed on the lot.
    Duane Burkhardt, 2508 Waterside, spoke in opposition to the proposed development. According to the City of Columbia, there were 13,148 cars per day through this area in 2001, which is about five million per year. He just recently counted 133 cars in 90 minutes on Katy Lane. Mr. Burkhardt displayed a power point presentation regarding the traffic conditions on Forum and Katy Lane. He also showed slides of the property in question and the possible consequences if it were developed.
    Dave Rodert, 2404 Waterside, President of the Limerick Lakes Homeowners Association, commented that residents have three major concerns about development on this property which include safety issues the private driveway would create, loss of the neighborhood buffer, and concerns for the damage to the lake and watershed. He explained that neighborhood residents agreed to pay Mr. Eckel $25,000 to purchase the property, and while they were waiting to receive the paperwork from Mr. Eckel, Mr. Kanago made his offer. Mr. Rodert reported that he had told Mr. Kanago that the neighborhood would contest any construction besides one home. He stated that residents have made several attempts to purchase the property from Mr. Kanago, offering him twice what he paid for the property. If the neighborhood owned the property, the only intrusions would be the addition of trees and the creation of a walking trail that would connect to the MKT. Mr. Rodert asked the Council to consider the long-term best use of the property. He indicated that residents would reluctantly accept, but not prefer, one lot. He asked the people in opposition of the request to stand. Approximately 30 people stood.
    Robert Cunningham, 2504 Waterside, spoke about preserving greenspace.
    Ken Wilhelm, 2408 Waterside, spoke against the request.
    Joanne Rodert, 2404 Waterside, said there are a number of City ordinances that prohibit this type of development. She read from Chapter 25-38 pertaining to the character of land and Chapter 12A-66 and 85 referencing soil erosion control plans and storm water management plans.
    Bob Ruffner, 1815 Katy Lane, spoke in opposition to the request. His main concern was traffic at the intersection.
    Nancy Gerardi, 2408 Waterside, spoke in opposition of the plan. She believed one residential home, carefully placed, to be the best compromise.
    Kathy Turner, 2201 Misty Glenn, spoke about traffic concerns on Forum Boulevard.
    Gary Moreau, 1913 Katy Lane, reported on problems with stem lots. He felt the land was developable, but thought a stem lot would create a bad situation.
    Linda Calvert, 1809 Katy Lane, opposed the plan because of the variances requested and because of the stem lot.
    Billy Cunningham, 2504 Waterside, said any benefits this development may have would not go to the City.
    Mr. Loveless believed if this request is approved, a real safety hazard would be created. He spoke about the speed of traffic on Forum Boulevard and the visibility problems of turning onto Katy Lane. He agreed that the proposed entrance on the applicants' property will cause serious problems. Mr. Loveless stated he would be hard pressed to support even one house on the property.
    Mr. Hutton commented that if each lot was reconfigured at the south end, the tracts could meet the 60-foot minimum frontage requirement on Katy Lane. He noted each parcel would then be considered a legal lot. Mr. Dudark thought that was correct. Mr. Hutton pointed out the potential for two driveways. Mr. Dudark said there has been a drawing prepared that illustrated moving the lot line to the center of the property. Each of the lots would then have at least 60 feet of frontage on Katy Lane. Therefore, the property line would be centered on where the driveway comes out onto Katy Lane. Under that scenario, Mr. Hutton said the one tract would no longer be considered a stem lot. He wondered if the lot width has to maintain 60 feet. Mr. Dudark replied it did at the building line. He said the current proposal was a 35-foot width at the frontage of Katy Lane, but the one illustration shows the lots could be configured to have at least 60-feet of frontage. Mr. Dudark stated it would more of a conventional lot, but very long. Mayor Hindman asked why that was not done. Mr. John remarked there actually was no need to create the two 65-foot lots as the ordinance stipulates a tract must have frontage on a street. He pointed out the lots could have frontage on Forum, but with no access to it, and then an easement could be used for access across the other lot.
    Mr. Dudark displayed the current proposal on the overhead and said he thought the reason the engineer designed the property as shown was so the lot line would follow the driveway, and then the easement could be centered on either side of the property line. He said it did not have to be done that way, but it would make it more convenient to describe it that way. Mr. Hutton said the entrance onto Katy would essentially stay in the same spot in either scenario. Mr. Dudark agreed and said probably the driveway as well.
    Mayor Hindman asked about the objections to stem lots. Mr. Dudark replied the main objection to be the distance for an emergency vehicle to get back to a house. Typically, one would have a narrow driveway with a vehicle parked in it or some other obstacle, so the 250-foot distance is what the ordinance gives as a maximum. Mr. John commented the stem lot ordinance was created so that there could be a front and back tier of lots.
    In reviewing the deed, Mr. John noted the current owners did not buy the property from Limerick lakes Association or Rich Eckel, but some trustee in California. Mr. Walther said that was Mr. Eckel's trust. Mr. John thought the plan seemed reasonable and would have a relatively low intensity with two houses on five acres.
    Mr. Hutton understood the concerns and the safety issue, but he stated the plan meets City requirements for location. According to the engineer, very few trees will be removed and storm water should not really be an issue because the development would only increase the runoff by a small percentage. Mr. Hutton indicated that two lots on five acres is certainly not unreasonable and the stem issue is really a non-issue because there is another design that could be implemented. With the driveway being on the far east side of the property, all the trees from the road to the lake will remain. Mr. Hutton believed the bottom line is whether the property should be developed as one or two lots.
    Mayor Hindman also recognized the issue in regard to the stem lot. He understood that the alternate configuration would remove the need for such. In reference to the safety issue, Mayor Hindman commented the plan meets City standards and there is no question that there could be one house with a driveway in this location. He was skeptical that the addition of one house would cause a significant safety hazard.
    Mr. Dudark commented that if the road were widened, the black dashed line would be the new edge of the pavement and the property line would be moved about 10-feet west. He said that would not change the standard because it is measured from the right-of-way line, not the pavement line. Mayor Hindman noted the applicant had mentioned willingness to give extra right-of-way for a pedway. He asked if this would affect the applicant's rights with respect to the driveway. Mr. Dudark was not sure what they meant by that, but said maybe they intended to have the pedway built inside the right-of-way that is shown to be dedicated. If this additional right-of-way is dedicated, it would make it 55-feet less, but still within the 20.
    Mr. Patterson pointed out that the standards on City specifications are considered minimum. He said there are different requirements depending on the types of streets the entrances come in on. When looking at this one, he said the applicants probably would have been very reluctant to approve 20-feet, but they felt 55-feet was not unreasonable. Although, any entrance on a street creates a potential accident location. On residential streets, Mr. Patterson noted that it is not uncommon for an entrance to be fairly close to an intersection.
    Mayor Hindman asked if the property owners would have to back out of the driveway. Mr. Patterson said that would not be the case at this location. Regarding the stem lot issue, Mr. Patterson explained that several of the lots in The Colonies subdivision stem out to the right-of-way on Forum. However, none of those lots have access on Forum, the internal private street system is used. Technically, Mr. Patterson reported a variance is not necessary in this case with regard to the lot itself. It has frontage on Forum with a long driveway for access. He thought the concern was the length of the driveway, not necessarily the legal definition of a stem lot.
    B379-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HINDMAN, JANKU, HUTTON, JOHN. VOTING NO: COFFMAN, CRAYTON, LOVELESS. Bill defeated (super majority required).

B381-02     Vacating street right-of-way for Hospital Drive; accepting an easement for emergency access and utilities.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained the request to vacate this section of roadway.
    Mr. Janku asked about Monk Drive. Mr. Dudark replied that it is a private street. He stated that Hitt Street is the only other public street in addition to Rollins.
    Tim Reed, Engineering Surveys and Services, offered to answer any questions.
    Mr. Janku said as these street closures come forward, he thought the applicant should include the issue relating to access. He reported they may want to consider some control over automobile access.
    B381-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B382-02     Approving the final plat of The Highlands, Plat 18, a replat of Lot 1703 of The Highlands, Plat 17.
    Mayor Hindman noted that this bill was withdrawn due to the defeat of B378-02.

B391-02     Appropriating funds for the Share the Light Program.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this would appropriate $4,500 towards the City's Youth Scholarship and Crime Prevention Program.
    B391-02 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B393-02     Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code as it relates to City commissions.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that B393-02 be tabled to the December 2, 2002, meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

    The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.

B385-02     Authorizing acquisition of property necessary for maintenance of a sewer system serving the Westwinds Court area.

B386-02     Authorizing acquisition of easements in connection with the Blue Ridge Road Improvement Project.

B387-02     Calling for bids for construction of the Vintage Drive Drainage Improvement Project.

B388-02     Accepting easements and quit claim deeds for drainage, electric, sewer, road, sidewalk and street purposes.

B389-02     Accepting easements for water and electric purposes.

B390-02     Appropriating SEMA and FEMA funds for repair of damages to the constructed wetlands.

B392-02     Amending Chapter 18 of the City Code as it relates to Police Pension Plan.

R214-02     Setting a public hearing: Construction of Green Meadows Road from Providence Road to Route AC.

R215-02     Setting a public hearing: Water main relocation along Donnelly Avenue, Independence Street, Florence Avenue, Clayton Street and Hardin Street.

R216-02     Authorizing adopt-a-spot agreements with Patricia Hancock and Little Dixie Kiwanis Club.

    The bills were given third reading and the resolutions were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:

R217-02     Adopting the Youth Enrichment Services guidelines.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Hood explained that the Parks and Recreation staff has been working on guidelines and have informally reviewed these with the Council. The information has been put in resolution form and is ready for adoption.
    Mary Hussman, 5306 Rice Road, explained that she works for Grass Roots Organizing, a not-for-profit organization with most members being of low income. She further explained that the group works to pursue economic justice and human rights of individuals and communities. Ms. Hussman believed it would be helpful to know who was consulted in order to give the proposed financial assistance recommendations to the Council. She indicated the plan was a step in the right direction, but it was not nearly adequate and unclear if it actually comes close to fulfilling the 1999 pre-vote promise of affordability and accessability to all Columbians. She maintained the fees are still too high for low income residents, in part because passes would have to be bought in block chunk amounts. Ms. Hussman suggested a daily fee that would be easily understood to provide accessability to all areas of the Center and would not be embarrassing to apply for. She said the plan should not just include low income fees for children, but graduated fees for all poor and single residents as well as couples. Ms. Hussman thought the City should enact a policy of not allowing any donations to be given by groups that require some form of "sweat labor".
    In reference to fees for memberships and daily passes, Mr. Hutton asked if the numbers used prior to the election were similar, if not exactly the same, as those being proposed today. Mr. Hood replied the daily fees are exactly the same as those talked about earlier, and he believed the 20 admission pass fees to be the same also. The annual membership fees are just slightly higher to include the capital improvement fee that was added in addition to the operational fee. Mr. Hood thought those fees are about $10-$15 higher than the rates discussed earlier.
    With regard to the low income assistance, Mr. Coffman commented that there have been some general statements about no one being denied access and that there would be some attempt to provide assistance. He said those contentions are rather vague, but he thought what has been done is a good first step. Mr. Coffman is hopeful the financial assistance structure could be re-evaluated in the future.
    Mayor Hindman pointed out the $1 daily fee for after school activities through Spring Break. He said that would give staff the opportunity to find out how this program would work. He commented the fees will revert back to the $3 and $5 if the Council took no further action. Mayor Hindman realized $10 or $20 is sometimes difficult for a family to scrape together, and it is something the staff will have to watch.
    The vote on R217-02 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

PR218-02     Establishing revised Community Development Block Grant funding guidelines.
    The policy resolution was given first reading by the Clerk.
    Since the Council's work session, Mr. Beck said the Community Development Block Grant Commission further discussed the guidelines that had been forwarded to the Council.
    Mayor Hindman noted that because this is a policy resolution, it will be held over for vote until the next meeting.
    Regarding the step-by-step information in the report, Mr. Hutton thought it was not ready to incorporate at the next meeting. Mr. Janku supported that this information be included as an amendment to the bill at the next meeting to reflect the process.

    The following bills were introduced by the Mayor unless otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:

B394-02     Approving the final plat of Bluff Creek Office Park, Plat 3-I.

B395-02     Authorizing a right of use permit with LPBW Development Company, LLC to allow work within portions of the Port Orchard Drive, Cascades Drive and Chelan Circle rights-of-way.

B396-02     Authorizing a right of use permit with Show Me Central Habitat for Humanity to allow work within portions of the Thomas Drive right-of-way.

B397-02     Authorizing a right of use permit with Digital Teleport, Inc. to install fiber optic cable within city right-of-way.

B398-02     Accepting a deed of dedication; authorizing payment of differential costs for water main serving Stonecrest, Plat 4; approving the engineer's final report.

B399-02     Accepting a deed of dedication; authorizing payment of differential costs for water main serving Vanderveen Crossing, Plat 7; approving the engineer's final report.

B400-02     Accepting a deed of dedication; authorizing payment of differential costs for water main serving Springdale Estates, Plat 7; approving the engineer's final report.

B401-02     Authorizing water main relocation along Donnelly Avenue, Independence Street, Florence Avenue, Clayton Street and Hardin Street.

B402-02     Authorizing an easement agreement with American Spectrum Realty Properties, Inc. to allow the installation of underground electric conductors in conduits across the parking lot of Parkade Center.

B403-02     Accepting a deed of dedication for water main purposes.

(A)     Intra-Departmental Transfer of Funds.
    Report accepted.

(B)     Donnelly Avenue Reconstruction from West Boulevard to Hardin Street and from Ridgeway Avenue to Cook Avenue.
    Mr. Patterson explained that in development of this project, it became obvious that a significant sidewalk gap would be left between two sections of street. It will cost approximately $35,000 to rectify the gap. In the public input meetings, Mr. Patterson said staff did not receive full consensus on street widths, although the recommendation was 32-feet. However, the street width was reduced to 28-feet from Hirth to Cook. Mr. Patterson needed Council direction on whether this sidewalk connection should be included as part of the overall project. If the Council approves that direction, he asked whether it would be appropriate to use a portion of the $50,000 funding established for First Ward sidewalks. If not, he noted there is no funding source identified for the expenditure of the connection.
    Mr. John asked why a narrower street width could not be used for the entire project. Mr. Patterson replied that it is believed that on-street parking is a necessity in this area.
    Mr. Hutton asked if the right-of-way is available for a 32-foot street and the sidewalk. Mr. Patterson replied affirmatively.
    Mr. Hutton made the motion that staff be directed to schedule a public hearing with their recommendation being followed as a guideline, including the sidewalk.
    Mr. Hutton indicated the Council could consider funding sources for the additional sidewalk connection at the public hearing, and perhaps have it bid as an alternate.
    The motion made by Mr. Hutton was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C)     Worley-Again east drainage project - purchase of property at 1107 Again Street.
    Mr. Patterson explained the Again Street storm drainage improvement project involved work on both the east and west sides. He said staff proceeded with work on the west side, but construction on the east side was deferred until a residential dwelling identified for purchase became available. Mr. Patterson reported this structure has since been placed on the market and contacts with the property owner have been made. The report includes general suggestions on how staff might proceed. At this time, Council direction is being sought specifically as to the purchase of this building. The property was independently appraised at $81,000.
    Mr. Loveless made the motion that the staff be directed to proceed as suggested. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(D)     Discrimination based on gender identity.
    Mr. Loveless motioned that the report be accepted. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved by voice vote.
    Mr. Coffman felt more consideration was needed in reference to this issue, and he will initiate discussions at a later date.

(E)     City Council Input on Annual CDBG Budget.
    Mr. Janku motioned that the recommended approach be incorporated into the pending policy resolution, perhaps as an amendment at the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton.
    Mr. Hutton thought the approach was a good idea, but advocated that step two should be step one. He commented that one step every year could be for the Council to consider funding priorities as a percentage of the total.
    Mr. John spoke of the discussion at the work session in regard to staff incorporating the policy review as CDBG needs are brought together. Mr. Janku clarified he had meant as one integrated document.
    Mr. Beck thought the idea was to adopt this as a guideline, look at the report that has the step by step process providing for Council input, incorporate some language that the Council would look at, and then make a waiver of one of the guidelines for some specific project. He said that would be sent to the Commission with the knowledge that the Council was going to work on a certain project that year.
    Mr. Hutton suggested at some point the Council review what staff is going to recommend to the Commission as far as City projects, before it goes to the Commission. He said that was why he thought the second step should be the first one.
    Mr. Janku saw the advantage of step one as being the public hearing. He thought it would be helpful to have an open public hearing with citizens coming forward stating their priorities. The Council could later deliberate on those suggestions and prioritize them.
    Mr. Hutton asked who makes the presentation to the Commission on City staff priorities. Mr. Dudark replied that each department with a request makes the presentation. Mr. Hutton wondered if this is done in an open forum at a public hearing. Mr. Dudark responded that is correct, City staff has to follow the same policies as outside agencies.
    Mr. Janku spoke about the need for specifying non-City projects.
    Mr. Dudark thought the suggestion is for some initial Council direction before the list is finalized and submitted. The Council agreed.
    Mr. Dudark noted that step one was the open public hearing. He said there are also public hearings when the applications are submitted later on. Mr. Dudark reported that the first step is to obtain citizen input.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that the information within this report be integrated into the pending policy resolution (a substitute resolution). The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(F)     Parking Enforcement Mechanisms.
    Mr. Dudark noted that no action was required, but said if the Council wanted to have the ordinance amended, it would be appropriate to refer the issue to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
    Mr. John made the motion that the report be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Sales Tax Refund Applications
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that staff be authorized to prepare the necessary sales tax refund applications.
    Mr. Janku reported he would like it as a resolution and asked that staff look into establishing policies that might minimize their work load, either requiring the applications be filed within a certain time frame or require that the request must exceed "x" number of dollars. Mayor Hindman felt the staff would be able to include such things, and they should prepare a cost benefit analysis of whether or not it is worth it to process the applications.
    The motion made by Mayor Hindman was seconded by Mr. John and approved by voice vote.

    Upon receiving the majority vote of the Council, the following individuals were appointed to the subsequent Commissions:

King, Barbara J., 1402 Court Street - Ward 3 - term to expire 7/31/03

Greene, Ken L., 6005 Gregory Drive, Ward 3 - term to expire 4/1/03

    Mayor Hindman made the motion that the Council hold a closed meeting on Monday, November 25, at 6:00 p.m. in the Fourth Floor conference Room of the Daniel Boone Building to discuss personnel matters and that the meeting be closed in accordance with the authority of Section 610.021 RSMo. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku with the vote recorded as follows; VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Motion passed.

    Mr. Coffman made the motion that staff be directed to prepare a report involving the policies for utility service, both disconnection and connection, and the grounds for denial of service. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

    At the last meeting, Mr. Coffman noted that the Council approved amended building codes and a suggestion had been made that they look at other model codes that involve the renovation of older homes, maybe with exceptions for historic or older homes.
    Mr. Coffman made the motion that staff be directed to prepare a report on the above so the Council could refer it to the proper committees for establishment of exceptions in ways other jurisdictions have. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

    Mr. Coffman noted that several suggestions had been sent to the Council from the Energy and Environment Commission pertaining to the tree ordinance. He asked if a report would be forthcoming as he thought the Council should discuss the issue. Mayor Hindman was not sure a report would be prepared because the Council had not requested the information. After some discussion, it was agreed that the various Boards and Commission should seek Council approval before proceeding with special projects that involve City staff time.
    Mr. Coffman made the motion that staff report back on the recommendations made in the letter dated October 28th, 2002. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved by voice vote.

    Mr. Janku commented that he had been contacted about the intersection of Crocodile and Rain Forest Parkway.. An accident had occurred there and the constituent was asking for a stop sign.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that staff report back after evaluating the situation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Coffman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

    Mr. Janku was hopeful the Council could review the parking utility situation. He referred to a report last year about potential parking improvements north of Broadway. Given the low interest rates, he thought it might be time to move forward.

    Based upon earlier comments regarding a utility customer's complaint, Mr. Hutton pointed out that only one side of the story was heard, and that there was a 99% chance that the speaker was not completely truthful about some of his earlier dealings with the staff.

    Carrie Gartner, 11 S. Tenth, passed around survey data the Special Business District compiled from the Twilight Festival showing the positive impact that the Tourism Development Fund has had, not just on the Twilight Festival, but for Columbia in general. Before the fund was established, she said the Twilight Festival had an average attendance of about 12,000 people per year with the income generated at $200,000 per year. Since establishment of the fund in the year 2000, she noted that the attendance has jumped to about 48,000 people per year with the income generated to be about $1 million per year. She reminded the Council that was $1 million for local hotels, restaurants and stores, as well as about $78,000 in sales tax revenue. The other festivals have all seen this type of increase. Ms. Gartner explained that the Convention and Visitors Advisory Board is seriously considering eliminating funding for festivals. She felt that would reduce the overall impact and quality of the festivals. She pointed out the ballot language where it outlines the City's intent to fund festivals with a portion of the tax. She urged the council to keep a close eye on the situation and to amend the ordinance in a way to better reflect the ballot language, thus protecting the festivals and the tourism it generates.

    The meeting adjourned at 12:50 a.m.

                                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                        Penny St. Romaine
                                                                                        City Clerk