JULY 21, 2003

    The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, July 21, 2003, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members LOVELESS, HUTTON, JOHN, ASH, CRAYTON and JANKU were present. MAYOR HINDMAN was absent. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department Heads were also present.

    The minutes of the regular meeting of July 7, 2003, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. John and a second by Mr. Hutton.

    Mayor Pro tem Loveless noted that B239-03 would be taken off the agenda and B221-03 would be moved to Old Business from the Consent Agenda. Mr. John noted that a request had been received to withdraw B213-03, the Spring Creek C-P development plan.
    The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Janku and a second by Mr. Ash.


    Mayor Pro tem Loveless updated everyone on Mayor Hindman's progress saying that he was convalescing at the home of a friend and is doing well.


B138-03 Rezoning property located on the south side of Aspen Drive, approximately 275 feet west of West Boulevard; approving the C-P Development Plan of University Chrysler, Phase 2.
    The bill was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Dudark explained the request and displayed the plan on the overhead. He reviewed the previous concerns relating to the existing facility and several zoning violations. Mr. Dudark indicated a plan for this portion of the property has officially been submitted and reviewed by staff. All items identified as being in violation have been corrected. Mr. Dudark reported the applicant plans to keep the existing concrete driveway that connects one side of the facility to the other. On the previous plan it had been shown as a landscaped area.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless opened the public hearing.
    Randy Owings, an attorney with offices at 1103 E. Broadway, spoke on behalf of the property owners as well as for University Chrysler. He explained that the rezoning is necessary because his clients have entered into a lease which is contingent upon University Chrysler obtaining approval of the rezoning and the C-P plan. Mr. Owings noted the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this rezoning request and the C-P plan subject to resolving the issues associated with the previous plan. Since that time, he said University Chrysler has filed a bond with the City in the amount of $9,700 to assure that landscaping requirements will be met. Mr. Owings commented that his clients have worked closely with the neighborhood association to resolve other issues of concern. He handed the Clerk a letter from David Gaffney, President of the Neighborhood Association, withdrawing resident's objections to the current request before the Council. He stated that an application modifying the existing C-P plan was filed on July 15th and City staff has not identified any issues of concern. Mr. Owings reported that approval of this request will alleviate traffic problems on Aspen Drive.
    Mr. Janku asked how traffic problems will be alleviated on Aspen Drive. Mr. Owings explained that currently many of the University Chrysler employees park on Aspen Drive. The C-P plan before the Council this evening identifies an area for employee parking.
    Tim Crockett, Crockett Engineering, 2608 N. Stadium, noted that the parking lot would contain 67 additional parking spaces for the dealership. He clarified that there will not be another entrance onto Aspen Drive with the modification of the original C-P plan. The driveway connection simply connects the two locations without providing access to Aspen Drive.
    Tom Nick, General Manager of University Chrysler, 1306 Park de Ville, apologized for mistakenly creating the impression they had been trying to ignore City requirements earlier in the process. He commented they take pride in being a locally owned business and they try to be a good corporate citizen. Mr. Nick pointed out that they have done their best to work with the neighbors. He assured the Council they would meticulously comply with the plan for the new area if approved.
    Mr. Janku noted that once University Chrysler employees are provided parking within the lot, workers from the adjacent businesses might start parking on Aspen as well. He asked Mr. Nick if he thought parking should be restricted along Aspen if a problem is noted. Mr. Nick thought if parking is restricted to one side of the street, that might alleviate the problem.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Ash asked if he understood the plan has been updated but not entirely implemented. Mr. Dudark said that was correct, and that is the reason for the bond. Mr. Ash asked if staff felt comfortable about the plan being finished. Mr. Dudark replied affirmatively.
    B138-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, HUTTON, JOHN, ASH, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B209-03 Voluntary annexation of property located on the north side of St. Charles Road, approximately 100 feet east of Upland Creek Road; establishing permanent zoning.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that a protest petition had been received which means that a two-thirds majority of the Council (5 out of 7) will be required for passage.
    Mr. Dudark displayed the two tracts on the overhead explaining that Tract A contains 1.3 acres and the applicant is requesting R-1 permanent zoning, and Tract B contains 3.98 acres and the request is for PUD-8 (eight dwelling units per acre). The planned development would consist of duplexes and four-plexes. The Planning and Zoning Commission's vote was 4-2 in favor of the request. Mr. Dudark reviewed concerns expressed at the hearing relating to traffic conditions on St. Charles Road, and the compatibility of the proposed duplexes and four-plexes with the Eastland Hills Subdivision which primarily contains single family homes. The last concern was whether PUD-8 was the appropriate density for this location. Mr. Dudark noted that City staff also recommended approval of the request.
    Mr. Hutton asked if staff's original recommendation for the density of the planned unit development had been five or six. Mr. Dudark replied that it had been PUD-6. However, once the street right-of-way is subtracted, the dwelling unit count per acre is reduced so the net density is not that different from the six.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless opened the public hearing.
    David Rogers, an attorney with offices at 813 E. Walnut, noted that if the entire tract is zoned PUD-6, the applicant could come in with exactly the same plan that is being presented tonight. He said there could still be the five single family dwellings, three four-plexes and seven duplexes. Mr. Rogers explained that the PUD-8 zoning is preferable because then the neighboring residents will be guaranteed the R-1 development directly across from their subdivision. He purported that PUD-6 would not necessarily guarantee that. Because City staff and the neighbors thought the original plan was too dense, Mr. Rogers indicated the developer came up with this proposal. He stated that his client met with the neighbors and agreed that the five single family dwellings would have the same subdivision restrictions as the existing single family dwellings located across the street. Mr. Rogers pointed out that the nearest multi-family dwelling located on the applicant's property to the subdivision across the street is more than 300 feet away. He noted there are many closer duplexes to that subdivision under the existing land use in the area than there would be as a result of this development. Mr. Rogers asked the Council to approve the plan.
    In order for the property to be developed exactly as is if it was zoned PUD-6, Mr. Hutton pointed out that what Mr. Rogers meant was that this could be done if the entire 5.3 acres was zoned such.
    Mr. Janku asked how the Council could be assured that the five single family homes would be developed to the same standards as those in the existing subdivision. Mr. Rogers replied it would be done by recorded subdivision restrictions. Mr. Janku pointed out the City cannot enforce restrictive covenants. Mr. Rogers assured the Council that if this rezoning passes, the applicant will enact the same subdivision restrictions that exist across the street.
    Fred Overton, 2712 Chapel Wood View, contract purchaser, spoke of his plans for the property after annexation. Currently, there is a number of mobile homes and abandoned vehicles that will be removed. In addition, the existing lagoon will be eliminated as a connection will be made to the City's sewer system. Mr. Overton reiterated there will be a 300 foot buffer from their closest duplex to the property line of Eastland Hills. He said the buffer would be left natural because of the terrain, except for where they have to take the sewer and cross into the PUD area. Although the neighbors asked that the four-plexes be removed from the plan, he felt these structures offer a better transition from the mobile home court and commercial area. Mr. Overton noted that all of the duplex traffic would be on the east side as he plans to construct a street at this location. He stated this development will not have direct access to Eastland Hills. Regarding storm water concerns, Mr. Overton commented that the City staff will make him address any problems if they arose.
    Mr. Janku asked if Mr. Overton was considering selling off the duplex lots individually. Mr. Overton said he was not, it would be one package and one person would purchase the entire PUD package. Mr. Janku asked about the language in the Statement of Intent, item g, "tract may be divided into individual lots....with each lot having a minimum of 10,000 square feet." Mr. Rogers thought this language is necessary so each building is on a salable lot.
    Doug Eckhoff, 608 Adens Woods Court, spoke in opposition on behalf of the Eastland Hills Homeowners Association. He turned in a petition containing signatures from 92 residents in the Eastland Hills Subdivision who are opposed to this request. In addition, he noted a valid protest petition has been filed. He related that the neighborhood is concerned about safety, density, and storm water runoff. Mr. Eckhoff pointed out that a great deal of development has been approved in this area with each proposal being considered individually rather than as a whole. He compared this area to Clark Lane. Mr. Eckhoff was fearful that if the PUD-8 zoning is approved, it will create a precedent.
    Barb Howard, 601 Wild Rose Place, voiced concern about Upland Creek having two exit/entrances for an enormous amount of traffic. She commented that the subdivision has become a speed trap, and anytime there is congestion on St. Charles Road due to the brick and block companies, traffic increases through their subdivision.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku questioned the location of any additional entrance points to the property to the north. Mr. Dudark noted an A-1 tract which is unplatted. He said there would be a driveway into the property, but no streets. Mr. Janku asked if there was an additional entrance point, other than what might be stubbed in from Tract B. Mr. Dudark replied that will be a public street and he expects it will continue into this tract when it is developed. Mr. Janku inquired about the size of the tract. Mr. Dudark guessed it contained ten or twelve acres.
    Mr. Hutton asked about the enforcement of the covenants. Mr. Boeckmann had no reason to doubt these would not be filed, but if it does not occur, the City cannot do anything about it. The covenants would still be enforceable only by someone filing suit. In reference to storm water, Mr. Hutton noted a fairly large pond on the tract currently serving as a form of detention facility. He asked if it will be eliminated as part of the development. Mr. Patterson reported that applicant will be required to do a before and after analysis of runoff which will determine whether or not there is an increase in discharge downstream. If there is a negative impact downstream, he said detention may very well be required on the site.
    Mr. Hutton was primarily concerned with the density of this proposed development. He agreed with the comment that if the Council approves this request, it will set a precedent for the area. He also recognized there are a lot of similarities between this and the Clark Lane area. Mr. Hutton believed a PUD-8 zone is too dense for this tract, and he thought the Council should control density to a greater extent and the five or six units the Planning Department originally suggested would be more appropriate.
    Mr. John recalled sitting on the Planning and Zoning Commission when Eastland Hills was platted with all of its duplexes, C-1 and C-3 areas. He noted at that time, people in the adjacent neighborhoods expressed concern about this subdivision's density and they were opposed to its development. Mr. John remarked now the residents in Eastland Hills are opposed to the same thing. He believed the tract should be zoned PUD-8 because it is over five acres and overall it is a PUD-6. He pointed out the developer has done what was requested of him -- the existing single family was buffered with single family, the duplexes and four-plexes were moved across the gully away from Eastland Hills Subdivision, and the applicant is not building a road to connect to the subdivision. Mr. John said the four-plex area is across from commercial and beyond that are tracts zoned R-S in the County.
    In regard to this development setting a precedent, Mr. John remarked the Council recently approved open R-2 zoning in this area which basically consists of nine dwelling units per acre. Because of the Council, he stated that Grace Lane will be extended to Richland Road to provide extra access. When Eastland Hills was built, Mr. John noted that developer had to dedicate extra right-of-way to allow for the future widening of St. Charles Road, and when each subsequent tract along this stretch is platted, those developers will also have to dedicate the same amount of right-of-way. He said no piece sets a precedent for any other piece. Mr. John thought the applicant has done an excellent job of developing a plan that meets the needs of the City and that of the neighbors, and provides for a workable development.
    Mr. Ash noted that it looked like the pond was remaining after reading the Planning and Zoning minutes. It was ascertained that the pond will be removed when this property is developed. Mr. Ash agreed a lot of work has been done to make the uses compatible. He understood residents' concerns about adding to the problems in their neighborhood, but a future request for this tract might not be any more to their liking.
    Mr. Janku commented that he brought up the issue of the adjoining tract and the access points because he did not know how this property will develop if the initial access is through this particular development. He thought the significant part of it would have to be a duplex development or some type of multi-family because he doubted that anyone would bring in an R-1 subdivision immediately adjacent to R-2. Mr. Janku maintained there is no clear transition established by this plan for the adjoining property. To some extent, he believed residents benefit from the cul-de-sac being created as there is no requirement that there be a cul-de-sac at that point. A future plan could have a thru street adjoining with St. Charles Road.
    Ms. Crayton thought a PUD-8 zone is too dense for this area.
    Mr. Loveless believed the developer came up with this plan based on the philosophies that previous Councils have set - buffering R-1 with duplexes and then move to multi-family. He said the plan is a small one and he thought it worked as well as others.
    Mr. Hutton pointed out the reason the R-1 area is in place is because City staff basically insisted upon it. The reduced density is also there because of staff insistence.
    B209-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: HUTTON, JANKU. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill defeated.

B213-03 Approving the C-P Development Plan of Spring Creek; approving less stringent screening requirements.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless noted the applicant sent a request to withdraw this bill.

B216-03 Rezoning property located on the east side of North Eighth Street, approximately 60 feet north of Wilkes Boulevard from R-3 to R-2.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck stated that both staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this request.
    Mr. Dudark said this request to downzone is for the purpose of meeting the definition of a lot. The owner intends to redevelop the property.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless opened the public hearing.
    Linda Rootes, 811 N. Eighth, vice-president of the North Central Columbia Neighborhood Association, spoke in total support of the rezoning request. She said the neighborhood was delighted to learn that Mr. Ziv was going to convert the brick building into his personal residence. Ms. Rootes was given a tour of the structure and she thought it would be a very nice asset to the neighborhood.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless closed the public hearing.
    B216-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, HUTTON, JOHN, ASH, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B218-03 Authorizing relocation of water main along the Conley Road/US 63 Interchange.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained this would relocate about 1,260 feet of twelve-inch and 120 feet of six-inch water main. The estimated cost is $175,000 to be paid from Water and Light funds.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Pro tem Loveless closed the public hearing.
    B218-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, HUTTON, JOHN, ASH, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B219-03 Authorizing construction of an eight-inch water main serving Thornbrook, Plat 10; providing for payment of differential costs.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this fairly small project, 240-feet in length, will have a differential cost of $1,188 which will be paid from Water and Light funds.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Pro tem Loveless closed the public hearing.
    B219-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, HUTTON, JOHN, ASH, CRAYTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

(A) Voluntary annexation of property located southwest of Durham Chase at the terminus of Worcester Lane.
    Item A was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck described this seven acre tract. The owner wants to connect to the City's sewer system and is, therefore, requesting annexation into the City.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless opened the public hearing.
    Roy Rogers, 1614 Whitburn, president of the Corporation owning the property, explained this seven acres will complete Heritage Estates. He noted another area they intend to annex in the near future. Mr. Rogers reported they have asked for permanent A-1 zoning as there is no development plan for the plat at this present time.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless closed the public hearing and stated a related bill will be introduced this evening.

PR149-03 Establishing a policy on cooperative planning of the urban fringe area by the City Planning and Zoning Commission and the Boone County Planning and Zoning Commission.
    The policy resolution was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted the Council asked for a resolution outlining the charge of the two commissions.
    Mr. John commented on the reiteration of the "whereas" clauses. Mr. Janku said Section 1 was more important and will authorize implementation of the program.
    Mr. Janku thought when the Council discussed this earlier, they wanted to avoid the issue that would plan land use of specific properties. Referring to item d in Section 1 which pertains to the identification of prevalent and pertinent issues of mutual concern, he wondered if the Commissions would report these to the Council and the County Commission for future direction. Mr. Loveless responded that was his thinking as to how it work; the groups would identify issues they thought were a concern and submit these to the Council, and then the Council would authorize the direction if necessary. He thought the procedure would be the same for the County Commission.
    Mr. Ash pointed out that it does say "identify".
    Mr. John noted that Section 2 calls for the Commission to submit a report on items c and d in Section 1 to the Council for direction, but it does not include item e.
    Mr. Loveless asked if the Council wished to give the Commission direction on how they communicate with the County Planning and Zoning Commission and vice versa. Mr. John did not think the Council should dictate when the groups should meet and what they should discuss, but because of the different structures in these governmental entities, there are different abilities to do things and adopt standards. He believed they needed to be very careful that the joint meetings do not take on a "let's do this" attitude which could develop new incompatibilities. Mr. Loveless presumed one Commission would be able to advise the other and neither would have the authority to take any action. Mr. John pointed out then this cooperative planning process could possibly require a more significant level of staff participation.
    Mr. Loveless related that he reviewed the five points set out in the policy resolution, and he believed the Commissions would be able to identify common goals and growth areas, but the groups would have to seek further direction from their authoritative entities before they begin devoting significant effort to attacking any particular issue. He supported this concept. Mr. Loveless noted this policy resolution could be amended at a later date to refine the responsibilities of the groups.
    Mr. Janku made the motion to amend PR149-03 by changing the language of Section 1b by deleting the words "develop ways" and substitute "identify strategies," and Section 2 by including item b and deleting the word "further" and adding the word "significant." The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    The vote on PR149-03, as amended, was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, HUTTON, JOHN, ASH, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Policy Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

B220-03 Appropriating funds for electric utility purposes.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained the Council received a detailed memo referring to the additional expenditures in the electric utility this year. He spoke of the City's purchase of additional outside electricity and the sale of more electricity than what had been initially projected. The additional revenues are more than the expenditures, so the Council is being asked to approve the appropriation.
    B220-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, HUTTON, JOHN, ASH, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B221-03 Accepting easements for utility purposes.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless explained that this bill was pulled from the Consent Agenda because an easement was being removed.
    Mr. Hutton made the motion that B221-03 be amended by deleting the DeMarco easement. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    B221-03, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: LOVELESS, HUTTON, JOHN, ASH, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

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

B210-03     Changing the street name of "Texaco Drive" to "Freedom Drive."
B211-03     Vacating utility easements located within Valley View Park.
B212-03     Vacating a portion of a utility easement across Lot 175 of The Village of Cherry Hill Subdivision, Plat 1.
B214-03     Approving the final plat of Judah, Plat 1.
B215-03     Approving the final plat of The Village of Cherry Hill, Plat 6, a replat of parts of The Village of Cherry Hill, Plats 1 and 3.
B217-03     Accepting easements for drainage, road, sewer, sidewalk and utility purposes.
B222-03     Appropriating funds from the Columbia Values Diversity Celebration for future celebration programs.
R150-03     Setting a public hearing: construction of improvements to Stearman Street.
R151-03     Authorizing an assignment agreement with Planned Parenthood of Eastern Kansas and Mid-Missouri, Inc. and Community Playground of Columbia, Inc.
R152-03     Amending an agreement with Central Missouri Food Bank Network, Inc.
R153-03     Authorizing a lease agreement with Scott and Cheryl Orr for property located at 1204 Bowling Street.

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

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

B223-03     Authorizing the First Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Cooperative Agreement with CenterState Transportation Development District.
B224-03     Authorizing an agreement with CenterState Properties, L.L.C. relating to construction of the Vandiver/US 63 Interchange Project, Phase 1; appropriating funds.
B225-03     Calling for an election to be held on November 4, 2003 for sewer revenue bonds.
B226-03     Calling for an election to be held on November 4, 2003 for water and electric revenue bonds.
B227-03     Accepting a deed of dedication; authorizing payment of differential costs for water main serving West Lawn, Plat 1; approving the engineer's final report.
B228-03     Authorizing payment of differential costs for construction of water main serving Head Motor Company; approving the engineer's final report.
B229-03     Accepting easements for utility purposes.
B230-03     Appropriating funds for Share the Light Program.
B231-03     Appropriating funds for the Memorial Tree and Bench Program.
B232-03     Authorizing application and agreement with the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission for transit operating assistance grants for FY 04.
B233-03     Authorizing a development agreement with Virtual Realty, LLC regarding Chapel Hill Extension Project.
B234-03     Accepting a right of use permit with LPBW Development Company, LLC allowing the City to operate and maintain a roadway located in The Cascades Subdivision.
B235-03     Authorizing a grant agreement with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources for the purchase of a glass crusher; appropriating funds.
B236-03     Confirming the contract of Lehman Construction, LLC for the construction of a sidewalk along the south side of Business Loop 70 from Route B to the west side of Old 63.
B237-03     Rezoning property located on the west side of Forum Boulevard, approximately 140 feet north of Chapel Hill Road from O-P to C-P; approving the Limerick Heights Commercial Subdivision C-P Development Plan.
B238-03     Vacating a sewer easement located north of Arcadia Subdivision.
B240-03     Voluntary annexation of property located southwest of Durham Chase at the terminus of Worcester Lane; establishing permanent R-1 zoning.
B241-03     Authorizing a development agreement with Forum Development Group, LLC in connection with The Broadway Shops development.
B242-03     Approving the final plat of The Broadway Shops.
B243-03     Approving the final plat of Stonecrest, Plat 5.
B244-03     Approving the final plat of Stonecrest, Plat 6.
B245-03     Vacating a portion of a street right-of-way and utility easement on East Broadway.

(A)     Inter-departmental Transfer of Funds.
    Report accepted.

(B)     Special Business District (SBD) request for downtown levy increase.
    Mr. Beck explained the Special Business District (SBD) has proposed changing their tax structure with a six cent increase (from 43 to 49 cents) in their property tax rates within the SBD geographical area. The increase is being requested in order to implement the Downtown Beautification Plan. Mr. Beck noted that the increase would amount to approximately $12,000 annually.
    Mr. Loveless pointed out that this would increase the property taxes of downtown business owners in order to beautify the downtown area to the benefit of the community.
    Mr. John made the motion that staff be directed to prepare the necessary legislation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C)     Possible Pre-annexation Agreement - a Portion of Rock Bridge State Park.
    Mr. Beck reported DNR has proposed a pre-annexation agreement for a small portion of Rock Bridge State Park in order to allow certain park facilities (maintenance facility, ranger's house and a new visitor's center) to connect to City sewers. He pointed out that DNR does not want to annex the entire park due to statutory provisions that would eliminate its recreational use liability protection. Mr. Beck related that DNR and staff believes this to be one of the best alternatives for the Council to review.
    Beyond the insurance question, Mr. John commented that DNR's reasons for not wanting to annex the entire park area seems to be mostly conflicts between park management practices and City policies. He understood, because DNR is a state entity, they are not subject to the direct oversight/rules, regulations, zoning ordinances, etc., of the City. Mr. John stated while this request seems to be reasonable today, it would in fact establish another two mile blockade of land to the south. He compared it to Range Line through the fairgrounds to the north where five years ago it was not the problem it is today. Mr. John spoke of his preference that some route be created thru the property so as to allow contiguity.
    Mr. Ash understood that DNR pays no taxes for park property, but he assumed if they were connected to the sewer system they would pay sewer fees. Mr. Beck confirmed this assumption. Even though they will not be paying taxes, Mr. Ash did not believe they will require any other City services. He thought it to be a fair trade-off. In reference to the blockade, Mr. Ash asked about whether annexing a small sliver, both on the north and south sides of the property, would solve the problem.
    Mr. John suggested some sort of 200-foot wide strip along rights-of-ways within the property be included in the pre-annexation agreement. He said that would include 163 as it touches the property, both as it goes through the south edges and some of the roads along the east side that are also part of the property.
    Mr. Watkins reported that in conversations with the DNR folks, they were not particularly interested in annexing any of the park property. In some of the correspondence, they had initially asked for a waiver. After further discussions, Mr. Watkins indicated that DNR finally decided to pursue the annexation of the service territory.
    Mr. Loveless asked if DNR might be amenable to a strip around the edge, be it however wide, that would have City boundaries go around the park so tracts around it would be contiguous. Mr. Watkins thought representatives would be open to discussion, but they have very serious concerns about the insurance and liability situation because of a park in another city that was annexed.
    Mr. Hutton asked how their liability insurance would be affected by being in the City. Mr. Boeckmann responded that besides having sovereign immunity, state parks also have something under the statutes called recreational use immunity, which is better than sovereign immunity. He said their point is legitimate because this statute only applies to property outside of incorporated areas. If the park is annexed into the City, they lose that statutory immunity. Mr. Hutton asked if he understood the legislature had a chance to change that and refused. Mr. Watkins said that was his understanding from the DNR folks. Mr. Loveless inquired if this statute would apply even if the corporate City limits completely surrounded Rock Bridge State Park. Mr. Boeckmann said that was correct, it would still apply.
    Mr. Loveless preferred that people owning property around the park being given an opportunity to annex. He asked if Mr. Watkins could go back and ask DNR to consider a narrow strip along 163 and west on Route N, heading toward Easley. Mr. Watkins questioned if the Council is looking for a path essentially down the west side and then potentially through the middle. Mr. Loveless said his inclination was to make it a "T" going down 163 and then "T" west on Route N and east, roughly, along their south border. Mr. John agreed with that description. Mr. Loveless wanted Mr. Watkins to convey that the Council agrees with what they are doing, but wanted DNR to consider some of the challenges the City is facing as well. Mr. Watkins said he could do that.
    Mr. John noted several small subdivisions in the area that were developed before the park was established. He indicated these homes have septic systems or lagoons that run from the uphill side of 163 south of the Devil's Ice Box out towards 63. In reference to pollution and the cave, he was sure a lot of it came from these on-site systems. The ability to have these properties connected to City sewers would be a major environmental benefit to the cave and entire area. Mr. Loveless believed the folks that manage the cave would look at that prospect very favorably.
    Mr. Hutton asked if the City would have any expense in extending sewer to the site. Mr. Patterson believed the system they would be pumping to goes into one maintained by the City and becomes part of the Boone County Sewer District and comes back into ours -- it is a combined area.
    Mr. John made the motion that staff be directed to review the issue with DNR again and come back with a further report at the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(D)     Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Restoration.
    Mr. Beck reported on private fund-raising efforts to fund the restoration of the memorial. He indicated that $47,500 has been raised so far. He commented the New Century Fund has done a great job in raising funds for the project. In addition, staff is checking into any grant funds that might be available for the project. Mr. Beck explained the City has set aside $10,000 that can also be used for this purpose. The hope is to have some of the work completed before the winter months.
    Mr. John made the motion that staff be directed to contract with Russell-Marti Conservation Services for phases one and two of the project. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(E)     Downzoning of Certain Large Vacant R-3 Sites.
    Mr. Dudark explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission looked at 20 different sites around town that have been zoned R-3 for upwards of 40 years. The list was narrowed down to five properties, and at a public meeting, the Commission voted to recommend that Council initiate the rezoning process on four of the tracts. A summary is included on each of the sites.
    Mr. Loveless noted in the meeting minutes that the City cannot initiate a PUD zoning. Mr. Dudark explained that the PUD ordinance requires a statement of intent which must come from the applicant.
    Mr. Loveless commented that the Council received a letter from Greg Bartels, one of the property owners, regarding a tract on Chapel Hill. He said Mr. Bartels has already invested considerable time and money on his proposed project to develop a retirement community containing upscale apartments. Mr. Loveless stated the difference with this property is that the entrance and exit from the development would connect directly to Chapel Hill as opposed to coming through an R-1, previously established neighborhood. He thought the Council may want to consider this point.
    Mr. John asked if the owners of the subject properties had been contacted about the Planning and Zoning meeting. Mr. Dudark said there had been no contact as it was not a public hearing.
    Mr. Ash noted his perception had been that rather than these being truly incompatibility issues with the surrounding neighborhoods, it is more that the four tracts have potential traffic and safety problems if developed. Rather than downzoning, he questioned whether or not the City could request off-site or other improvements that might address traffic and safety concerns. It was ascertained that R-3 zoned properties are not held to the same restrictions as planned unit developments. Mr. Ash asked about the necessity for multiple entrances into these developments. Mr. John explained that one entrance/exit is required per 100 units. With a PUD, the rules are pretty much negotiable. Mr. Loveless added that the PUD gives the City, as well as the developer, the opportunity to cluster developments to favor the tract's terrain.
    Mr. Ash observed that it seems property owners are being penalized for not developing their property quickly enough. As development has occurred around these tracts, the R-3 use is now incompatible. Mr. Ash indicated the properties in question have not changed, but the area around them has.
    Regarding the third property which was removed from the list, Mr. Janku asked about the reasoning behind that decision. Mr. Dudark explained this property is zoned PUD and a development plan was approved earlier for a portion of the property. It was considered to be further along in the development process as traffic studies have been done on the site and an application has been filed.
    Mr. John spoke of his concerns with Council-initiated downzonings. He pointed out that if the properties are involuntarily downzoned, each of the owners could make the argument that the City has removed value from their property, which be believes is a taking. He had no problem with downzoning if the Council is willing to accept the fact that this constitutes a taking and the City will probably have to compensate the property owners for such. Mr. John thought this might lead to something in which the Council probably would not want to see the end result.
    Mr. Loveless was not getting a strong sense from the Council that they want to proceed with this matter.
    Mr. Loveless made the motion that the issue be added to the work session list. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(F)     Report on Using CDBG and HOME Funds in Indian Hills outside the City Eligibility Area.
    Mr. Hutton made the motion that staff be directed to prepare a resolution for consideration that would amend the City's CDBG and HOME housing and other direct benefit programs to include the Indian Hills Neighborhood.
    Before directing the staff to administer the income survey, Mr. Hutton thought perhaps the Council should know the cost associated with such and how labor intensive it could be.
    The motion made by Mr. Hutton was seconded by Mr. Janku.
    Mr. Ash thought the first four items identified in the report seem fairly inexpensive and painless. However, the survey process could become cumbersome and/or expensive. He suggested proceeding with the first four options and hold off on the house-to-house survey until Indian Hills falls within the census survey.
    Mr. Hutton proposed following his motion and at the same time ask staff to report back on the potential costs, timeliness and so forth of such a survey. Mr. Loveless asked if the survey is necessary before this area could be qualified to meet CDBG eligibility standards. Mr. Dudark replied that the survey would be required for area-wide improvements like streets, parks, drainage -- anything that would benefit a general area. He noted it is not required if the benefit is to individual households.
    Mr. Janku asked how broad the area would have to be in order for these funds to be used to construct/reconstruct a collector-type street. Mr. Dudark replied that a collector street is a little different than a local street. He said it is questionable to use CDBG funds for construction of collector streets because these do not just serve the adjacent property owners, they serve a wider area within the community, thus, there would have to be an area-wide survey. The more the survey is focused down, the more staff could determine whether half or more of the recipients or beneficiaries are low to moderate income. Mr. Janku asked if CDBG funds could be used to offset tax bills without the survey. Mr. Dudark replied the area would first have to be verified as low to moderate income.
    The motion made by Mr. Hutton, seconded by Mr. Janku, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
    It was decided staff would report back on the cost and timeliness of a survey as noted in bullet five.

(G)     Juvenile Justice Title II Grants - CARE Program.
    Mr. Beck explained that the City currently budgets about $350,000 annually for the C.A.R.E. Program. He noted staff has been looking at obtaining outside funding to assist the general fund in paying for this expanded program. Under Title II, he said the federal law could possibly allow the City to apply for money to expand the program.
    Mr. Hutton pointed out that the grant would not last forever and when it expires, the City would be expected to take over or cut the program back. He asked if the grant would be available on an annual basis. Mr. Hood replied that it is an annual grant and staff plans to apply for a one year program with an option to renew it for up to three years. It will be necessary to reapply for the grant each year. Mr. Hutton inquired as to how the grant cycle corresponds with the City's budget cycle. Mr. Hood thought the time frame appeared to match pretty well with our fiscal year.
    Ms. Crayton questioned whether staff looked into other sources of federal grants. Mr. Hood replied that he only evaluated the juvenile justice program and how it could be applied to the C.A.R.E. Program. Ms. Crayton commented that the Labor Department has a program for under-skilled workers. She thought some of these kids would fit into that type of program.
    Ms. Crayton made the motion that the staff be directed to pursue other federal grants which might be applicable to the City's youth program. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. John made the motion that staff be directed to prepare and submit a grant application by August 1. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(H)     Authorizing a Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Grant Application to the Missouri Department of Public Safety to Address the Needs of At-Risk Youth.
    Mr. Steinhaus explained that a Title V grant is a much broader community collaboration which requires a number of agencies to work together to address the needs of at-risk youth. He reported that he was approached several weeks ago by the Columbia Housing Authority to pursue this grant because only units of local government are eligible to apply for such. He spoke of his willingness to help shepherd the grant and sponsor it through the City of Columbia, provided CHA did the majority of the work on the grant writing. Mr. Steinhaus indicated this type of grant requires a 50/50 match, which can consist of in-kind services or cash. He stated the applicant/agencies who will be sub-grantees have agreed to provide the required matching funds.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that the City Manager be authorized to sign and submit the Title V grant application. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(I)     Dog Days Sidewalk Sale.
    Mr. John made the motion that the request be approved as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ash and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(J)     Cable Television Franchisees and Public Access.
    Mr. Boeckmann explained that responses have been received from both cable companies to the City's request for a public access channel. Again, they are asking for a time extension.
    Mr. Ash believed the way this issue has been handled up until now has been poor. He was troubled by the manner in which the City has been treated. He asked what would happen if the Council decides not to renew a franchise. He was told that company would not longer be allowed to offer cable services within the City. Mr. Boeckmann indicated that was one possibility. As the City works to renew the franchises, Mr. John suggested the Council consider imposing some sort of penalty when a company does not meet the terms of the agreement. Mr. Boeckmann commented that his staff is looking into that now - conducting a survey to determine what, if anything, other cities do, short of revoking a franchise. He reported that years ago provisions were offered for public access to studio space, but then there was a total lack of interest in such until a couple of years ago.
    Mr. Janku noted that Mediacom has asked for additional input from the City of Columbia in connection with what type of studio facilities, production equipment and necessary technical personnel are needed to provide the level of local origination of public access programming. He said the group working on this issue, CAMERA, has already supplied this information. Mr. Janku wondered if Mediacom is looking for an official statement from the Council that verifies the proposal they were given is supported by the Council. As the Council cannot personally interact with either cable company, Mr. Janku asked if the Council should designate someone to do that, perhaps another group or individual from CAMERA. Mr. Loveless inquired whether the Council should get the detailed list of specs from the CAMERA group and draft a letter to both companies telling them what is expected and put it under the Mayor's signature. He said then it would be official. Mr. Janku said they could also adopt a resolution at the next Council meeting designating it as the Council's official request. Although, he thought they had already made it official enough.
    Mr. Janku noted the City will be moving forward with the franchise agreement and the question is, in the public process, should the Council establish an entity to be involved in some of the discussions. If not, he said it will be a constant issue for the Council. He pointed out that the Council Cable Television Committee meets infrequently. He stated that a number of cities have cable television commissions and groups that meet once and twice a month. Mr. Janku thought they may want to consider an official body.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that staff be directed to draft guidelines for setting-up a cable television commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Loveless asked if the Council should direct staff to prepare a resolution that specifically lists the items CAMERA proposed as far as their needs for production studios and technical assistance. Mr. Boeckmann suggested that staff be directed to work with CAMERA. He said the list is somewhat dated now and he thought they should make sure that is still what they are looking for. Mr. Boeckmann indicated that could be presented as the City's proposal.
    Mr. Hutton wondered if Mediacom would argue the appropriateness of the list. He was concerned that the list might contain more than what is absolutely needed. Mr. Boeckmann pointed out that those costs can be passed along to customers and will be identified on the bill as such.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that staff be authorized to communicate, using the latest information they can get about the request, and then bring back a resolution on the next Council agenda to deal with the issue. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(K)     City Office Space Addition/Renovation.
    Mr. Beck explained that a work session had been held on four major items: water, wastewater, City offices and street needs. He noted that two ordinances relating to water and wastewater were introduced tonight calling for an election in November. Some time ago, the Council asked to have a finance plan put together for downtown City offices which would not involve raising any tax levels. At some point in time, possibly September or October, Mr. Beck suggested that staff hold informational meetings regarding downtown City offices. He said the informational meetings would be followed by public hearings. The next step would be for the Council to authorize the preparation of detailed plans and specifications. Because a great deal of money is spent on plans, the public hearings should be held first. After the hearings, Mr. Beck related the Council could decide whether or not the expansion of City Hall should be put on the ballot. Before the informational meetings, he said staff would be responsive to any requests for presentations on what was introduced by the architect as well as the finance plan.
    Mr. Janku was concerned the building informational meetings would detract from the informational meetings on the water and wastewater ballot issues. He thought it might be a bit ambitious to conduct these meetings in September or October.
    Mr. John was also concerned about the staff setting up informational meetings on both the ballot issues through November and the Council working on the budget through September. He stated the Council will have a backlog of work to get done and he thought the City Hall issue should wait until December and January. Mr. Beck suggested leaving the months out of it and see how everything goes.
    Mr. John made the motion the staff be directed, working with the Council committee, to provide for City-sponsored informational needs on the issue of City office space/renovation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

    Upon receiving the majority vote of the Council, the following individuals were appointed to the ensuing boards and commissions:

Carlson, Kas, 204 Peach Way, Ward 5 - term to expire 8/1/06
Lichty, Curtis A., 501 W. Hickam, County - term to expire 8/1/06
Naugle, Gary E., 1700 Dozier Station, County - term to expire 8/1/06
Page, John W., 2701 Woodberry Ct., Ward 5 - term to expire 8/1/06
Reichlin, Stephen J., 4208 Fall River, Ward 5 - term to expire 8/1/06
Thomas, Robert J., 3911 Foxcreek Way, Ward 5 - term to expire 8/1/06

Glass, Mike, 128 N. Cedar Lake Dr. W., Ward 5 - term to expire 5/31/05
Knox, Herbert, 1117 County Road 2695, Clark, MO - term to expire 5/31/04

    Mr. John reported the C-P plan violations that were associated with the University Chrysler dealership case brought up the fact that more and more storage bin//trailers or freight boxes are being set-up on commercial sites to be used for storage of inventory.
    Mr. John made the motion that staff be directed to check into the issue to see if there is legislation to address this problem. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

    Regarding C-P plans that have not been adhered to, Mr. John commented that he did not expect staff to go out and monitor every site for continual compliance, but asked if the City has a complaint-driven mechanism to force the businesses in planned districts to reinstate their plans. Mr. Patterson replied noncompliance with C-P plans becomes a zoning violation which can be enforced with legislative action.

    Mr. John explained that the cable franchises pay fees for the rights to use City streets. He questioned whether either company had been audited recently. If not, he asked about the procedure to audit them. Mr. Boeckmann thought the companies had not been audited recently, and possibly never.
    Mr. John made the motion that staff be directed to report back on what it would take to audit the cable franchise operators. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

    Ms. Crayton reminded everyone about the National Night Out event scheduled on August 5th.

    Ms. Crayton noted that as permits are no longer required for garage sales, she has seen more instances of people coming from other areas of town into her ward with trailers and setting up yard sales on properties they own. She thought if these people were going to run a business, they needed to acquire a business license.
    Ms. Crayton made the motion that staff be directed to report back on how the current ordinance limiting garage sales could be amended to address this issue. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

    Mr. Janku reported a concern by a resident of the Kitty Hawk Apartments regarding the possibility of installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Parker and Vandiver. He said the area is not completely developed yet, but he wanted to know at what point a light could be put in. Mr. Patterson responded a light could be installed subject to traffic warrants. Right now, he thought it would be highly unlikely that the warrants would justify such, but staff could do some preliminary traffic checking if that is Mr. Janku's desire. Mr. Janku asked if there was some way to estimate traffic counts based on the number of platted lots. Mr. Patterson indicated that if traffic studies were done as part of the development, then those trip generations would be included in the study. Mr. Janku stated there have not been any traffic studies in this area because it is open zoning, but when reviewing the plat, he was hopeful a rough estimate could be given. Mr. Patterson replied that staff could estimate trip generated traffic, but assumed the Council would not want to put up a signal until the actual warrants were there. Mr. Janku was hoping to get a sense as to when that might occur. Mr. Patterson said he would look into the issue.

    Mr. Janku reported that he had been asked by a resident who lives on Holly about possible street improvements and a rough estimate of the associated costs and impacts on adjoining home owners. Mr. Patterson related that he would be happy to respond to the request.

    Mr. Loveless received a call from a resident upset about deer eating her flowers and those of her neighbor's. She asked if the City could do something about it. Mr. Loveless commented that the Conservation Department is prepared to make a presentation at a work session on the issue.

    Otto Traschel, 3702 Wayside Drive, reported that several Adopt-A-Spot locations are in need of attention. He also commented on commercial lots having required landscaped areas close to the entrances of the businesses. Mr. Traschel thought landscaping should be located to the back of the lots.

    Beth Federici, 13 Thistledown, Board President for the Columbia Media Resource Alliance, thanked the Council and supported them in their decision earlier this evening regarding the public access channel. She said they are looking forward to working with staff to put together the figures. However, the group is very upset and insulted by the media company saying they did not have enough information to present even a quasi-plan. In their opinion, this was definitely a stall tactic and she was glad to see the City was going to take some strong action. Regarding the proposed audit, Ms. Federici reported that since 2000, the majority of cities who had their cable companies audited have found they were shorted for as long as they were allowed to go back and audit. In one city, this amounted to $10 per subscriber. With approximately 20,000 subscribers, she said that could be $200,000 a year in shortfall for Columbia. Ms. Federici commented that CAMERA would be happy to provide the Council with information on consulting firms that specifically deal with telecommunications and cable company audits. They were hopeful to see the process expedited.

    Greg Bartels, 1600 Castle Rock Court, thanked the Council for taking time to read the literature he sent today in reference to the possible downzoning of his property that was discussed earlier in the evening. He explained that he has been working on his project for approximately five years. He reported there is an international expert who has developed senior projects all through Europe and is now consulting in the U.S. on projects. Mr. Bartels indicated that he had all kinds of paperwork on the issue and he would be happy to provide this information to the Council for their work session.
    The meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m.

                                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                                        Penny St. Romaine
                                                        City Clerk