M I N U T E S
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - COLUMBIA, MISSOURI
JUNE 16, 2003
 

INTRODUCTORY
    The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, June 16, 2003, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, L0VELESS, JOHN and ASH were present. MAYOR HINDMAN was absent. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department Heads were also present.
 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
    The minutes of the regular meeting of June 2, 2003, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Janku and a second by Mr. John.
 

APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless noted that requests had been received to table B177-03 and R134-03 to the July 7th, 2003 meeting.
    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. John.
 

SPECIAL ITEMS
    None.
 

SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
Beth Federici - Mediacom and Charter Communications - Violations to the cable ordinance regarding public access cable television.
    Ms. Federici reported that the Council adopted a resolution in March regarding both cable companies lack of compliance with Chapter 10. She indicated that staff sent out letters giving them 90 days to report back with a plan to bring them into compliance. She noted that a letter requesting a 30 day extension had been received today from both companies. Ms. Federici noted that both businesses had also been given 120 days to begin implementation of the plan. She asked that if the Council saw fit to grant the 30 day extension, that the 120 day limit be kept. Ms. Federici said they would like to see the channel running by the end of summer. She requested that another letter be sent to both companies stipulating, very specifically, what has been decided.
 

PUBLIC HEARINGS
B180-03     Rezoning property located on the northeast corner of Richland Road and Grace Lane from R-1 to C-P and R-2.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Dudark explained that Tract A contains 2.4 acres and the request is to rezone it from R-1 to C-P. He said Tract B contains17.8 acres and the request is to rezone it to R-2. The Commission recommended approval based on some changes to the list of uses and that prior to approval of the C-P plan, the street improvements be completed.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless opened the public hearing.
    Tom Mendenhall, offices at 2909 Falling Leaf Lane, explained that they have been working on this tract for about two and one-half years. After meeting with the neighborhood association, he said they promised residents they would open Grace Lane.
    Mr. Janku asked Mr. Mendenhall about the owner of the R-1 tract. Mr. Mendenhall responded that they own this property and it is part of the project. He explained that this tract is being set aside as a buffer for the neighborhood and there are no plans to rezone it.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless closed the public hearing.
    B180-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
 

B182-03     Officially renaming a portion of Nifong Boulevard to "Nifong Connector."
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck stated that after a public hearing both staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommend approval of renaming the section to Nifong Connector.
    Mr. Ash wondered about the reason for renaming this small segment. Mr. Janku agreed Nifong made more sense than Nifong Connector. He also pointed out that Southampton does not exist yet. Mr. John reported that the street does not currently exist, but in the future it will form a T intersection with Nifong Boulevard. In a sense, he said it would be creating a turn at a T intersection with multiple stop signs from one street to the next, being the same street. Mr. John said that something could happen to Southampton so that it does not become a north south street. In that case, he said the whole thing may become Green Meadows or some other name. He said it could be changed again, but because no one lives there, it would not matter. Mr. Beck indicated that in the past when streets changed direction, there was a street name change. He said it was particularly important for the numbering of buildings along streets. In this particular case, if left as is, the street would run both east/west and north/south.
    Mr. Dudark noted a driveway on the west side of this segment that was poured as part of the street construction project. He guessed there could be a building there.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Pro tem Loveless closed the public hearing.
    There was a discussion about Nifong Connector versus Nifong Boulevard.
    B182-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B188-03     Authorizing construction of a water main along Scott Boulevard between the MKT Trail and Vawter School Road.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck described the location of this 12-inch water main to be in southwest Columbia. The estimated cost of the project is $57,750 which would be paid from the Water and Electric funds.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Pro-tem Loveless closed the public hearing.
    B188-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
 

(A)     Voluntary annexation of property located at the north terminus of Shamrock Drive, north of Kelsey Drive.
    Item A was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this 21 acre tract is located in northeast Columbia.
    Mr. Dudark noted that the public hearing was only for annexation, an ordinance will be introduced this evening regarding the zoning. The request is for R-1 on Tract A and R-2 on Tract B.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Pro tem Loveless closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Hutton referred to his previous comments about not approving any additional R-2 zoning in this area of Columbia. He also thought the amount of R-2 being proposed in this case was too much.
 

(B)     Construction of sanitary sewer improvements at the Columbia Regional Airport.
    Item B was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the City generally acts as a subdivider at the Airport in that we provide things like utilities and road improvements and then charge it out as part of the land lease costs. This project involves the extension of a pressure main to serve the Boone County Fire Protection District site. The Fire District will pay one-third of the total $40,000 project cost. As the City will be able to utilize the sewer line for other property in the area, the cost is being pro-rated. Mr. Beck indicated the City's funding will come out of the general improvement fund for the Airport.
    Mr. Patterson noted that construction of the sewer line will coincide with construction of the new Fire Station in this area.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Pro tem Loveless closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Hutton made the motion that staff be directed to proceed with the sewer extension. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
 

(C)     Acquisition of residential structure at 505 Mary Street.
    Item C was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Patterson explained that this has been a site of frequent flooding over the years. He reported that one of the goals of the sewer utility had been to eliminate house flooding with the realization that there may be occasions where it would be more cost effective to remove a structure from the flooded area than to try to build accommodations to prevent the flooding. Mr. Patterson indicated this would be the fifth or sixth piece of property the City has purchased with storm water utility funds. Removal of the house will provide an opportunity for some green area in the neighborhood and prevent future flooding.
    Mr. Ash asked if any grading work would be done. Mr. Patterson responded that if the structure is sound, staff attempts to have the property owner move the home to another location. If the house has to be demolished, there are the considerations of asbestos abatement. He recalled in one case the lot was turned into a community neighborhood garden.
    Ms. Crayton asked if any other houses in the area are still affected by flooding. Mr. Patterson replied this is the only structure where there had been a series of flooding. Staff thought the elimination of the structure will reduce the probability of any future flooding.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Pro tem Loveless closed the public hearing.
    Ms. Crayton made the motion that staff be directed to proceed with the purchase of the structure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
 

(D)     Construction of sidewalk ramps at the intersection of Fifth Street and Cherry Street.
    Item D was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that a plan had been developed to meet ADA standards throughout the downtown area. He said this project involves removing stairs and replacing them with ramps. Mr. Beck pointed out one issue for Council consideration involves the installation of brick pedestrian crosswalks. He noted the cost for such would cost an additional $20,000.
    Mr. Patterson commented that staff recommends brick crosswalks being installed to make the crossings more consistent with the standards in the downtown area. He said that was also the desire of the Special Business District and area residents. Mr. Patterson reported funding for the project would come from CDBG money earmarked for handicap accessibility at downtown intersections. If needed, he said $85,000 was available.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless opened the public hearing.
    Carrie Gartner, 11 S. Tenth, spoke on behalf of the Special Business District. She said this portion of sidewalk is actually part of SBD's larger beautification plan. She related there is approximately $1 million of sidewalks that need to be reconstructed downtown, but projects had to be prioritized in phases. Ms. Gartner explained that SBD decided that increasing accessibility, particularly on Fifth and Cherry, should be the top priority. She noted that Cherry goes all the way across downtown from Hitt into Flat Branch Park. She said they would like to turn this street into a pedestrian, biking, wheeling corridor in the pedway plan which is very important to their overall downtown plan. Ms. Gartner spoke of her preference for brick crosswalks. She also noted that some of the curbs on the planter bulb-outs are painted yellow, and some are not painted at all. She stated it is SBD's preference that the curbs not be painted.
    Mr. Janku asked if the SBD was going to address the sidewalk connection down to Flat Branch Park. He said there is no walk on the south side of Cherry, between Fourth and Fifth. Ms. Gartner replied that Parks and Recreation is putting together a larger plan for the Fourth Street area. She noted the narrowness of the sidewalks on Cherry Street.
    Steve Smith, Premiere Bank, 15 S. Fifth, said there was no question that work is needed on the southwest corner. With the completion of the Park, he said there is currently a lot more pedestrian traffic. Mr. Smith also favored brick pavers for consistency and said they would appreciate a speed bump as plans proceed.
    Bob Gerding, 20 S. Fifth, property owner at the southwest corner and the northeast corner, spoke in support of the project. He was appreciative of the City's interest in investing in this part of Columbia. He said the accessibility issue is key and noted that people have struggled with that corner for some time. Mr. Gerding felt strongly that the brick pavers added a lot to the consistency of the entire downtown appearance. He said it is also very helpful for people with vision impairments to be able to feel where the change in the street occurs. It was Mr. Gerding's intention to work with staff on the southwest corner and possibly eliminate the steps at this location. He indicated that he is not opposed to helping pay for such a project. He was hopeful the utility pole could be removed from the corner.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that staff be directed to proceed with the improvement project, with brick pavers. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
 

(E)     2003 annual sidewalk construction.
    Item E was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Patterson explained this to be the City's typical annual program which results in construction of sidewalks that are tax billed if they are considered to be development responsibilities. In most cases, the project would address gaps in the system. He listed the sections involved which totals approximately 8,960 feet of sidewalk. All of the walks being proposed would be subject, under current City policy, to tax bills against the property owners.
    Mr. Patterson explained that staff tries to give more than one notice to property owners throughout the course of the fall and early spring in order to give them every opportunity to construct a sidewalk that is considered to be development responsibility. It was brought to his attention today that the property owner who resides at 16 N. Tenth Street had not been given what he would consider to be proper notification of this public hearing. For that reason, Mr. Patterson requested that this section of sidewalk be removed from the list. He indicated that staff would work with the property owner and try to address it in the future.
    Mr. Patterson reported the total project estimate is approximately $280,000 with the majority of the cost being assessed as tax bills against the adjacent property owner. He pointed out a short section on Creasy Springs Road which would be a City responsibility. Another City responsibility would be in front of the Fire Station on Chapel Hill Road. He said the Fire Department was notified earlier this year that this tax bill would be about $4,400. Mr. Patterson reported that staff received notice that several sections of walk identified as part of this project will be constructed privately prior to the actual letting of a contract.
    Mr. Ash asked how staff came up with the project list. Mr. Patterson explained that most are the result of persons calling staff about gaps in the sidewalk network, or someone bringing it to the attention of a Council member. Frequently, when staff follows up on one inquiry, other gaps are noticed in the neighborhood. They then try to complete a pedestrian system where possible. Mr. Patterson indicated that priority is given to pedestrian generators like schools and parks.
    Mr. John asked about the sidewalks on Silvey Street and whether the backs of the properties are adjacent to undeveloped lots. Mr. Patterson responded this is an area that will likely be changed by the time staff comes back with the bid call ordinance because of changes being made in the platting. He said some are because of lack of development on the lot where there has not been a permit after three years of the platting.
    Regarding Southampton, Mr. John remarked those are the back sides of houses which were actually built and occupancy permits were issued without the back sidewalk being built. He believed these walks should have been built by the developer who had the performance contract and also should have been built before an occupancy permit was given. Mr. John pointed out that now an unsuspecting homeowner will get stuck with a tax bill for something that should have been done by other people. Mr. Patterson concurred. He noted that certificates of occupancy should not have been issued in such cases, but until this summer when software was installed to track these kinds of things, the initial owner was able to go to the City's utility office and transfer temporary power to permanent power without any cross check with the Protective Inspection Division on the final inspections on the homes. Mr. John asked if there were others among these tonight that are basically the double lot situation. Mr. Patterson said there maybe a few as those are usually the ones that slip by the easiest.
    Mr. Hutton inquired about the difference in the square footage costs. Mr. Patterson responded at this point in the project, staff is sent out to get preliminary assessments to determine if there are special conditions such as retaining walls or cuts or fills that would be needed which increases square footage costs. Mr. Hutton pointed out that the Patricia's Grocery Store on Keene Street has only owned their property for a few months, and this owner has not been given much of an opportunity to build a sidewalk privately. Mr. Patterson acknowledged this is one of the tracts that changed hands during the process and staff would work with the current owners. He noted that also happens with residential properties.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless opened the public hearing.
    Jerry Edwards, 1901 Oakcliff, stated that he and his wife purchased their property in the spring of 1991. He said the property does not have enough foot traffic to warrant a sidewalk. Mr. Edwards wondered why it took twelve years to be informed about R93-91A. He indicated that had he know about this resolution twelve years ago, Mr. Edwards said his cost would have been substantially less at that point in time. He questioned the need for a five-foot sidewalk when everything else up and down Chapel Hill is four-feet in width, with the exception of the walk in front of the recently constructed St. Jude's Dream Home. Mr. Edwards noted that it will cost him an additional 20% to build a five-foot walk and it would have special ramifications at the end where it connects to the other four-foot sidewalk.
    Mr. Loveless stated that the current City sidewalk standard on a street such as Chapel Hill is five-feet. Mr. Edwards wondered when five-foot sidewalks would be constructed on the rest of Chapel Hill.
    Ruth Wittenberger, 3216 Chapel Hill, explained that she and her husband built their home in 1983. She reported that the street was widened with curbs and guttering two years later. Ms. Wittenberger had asked specifically at that time if they would be required to construct a sidewalk, and they were not required to do so. She related there is a walk on the Rainwood side of their home because of the children coming up to catch the school bus. If they are required to put in a sidewalk, Ms. Wittenberger explained they would have to remove a couple of well-established trees and would have trouble putting in landscaping due to the slope in this area of their yard. She said they received bids on sidewalk costs, one was for $2,700 for 166 feet and the other had been for $2,200 if they used a lesser grade of concrete. Mrs. Wittenberger was also concerned about putting in a five-foot walk when the others in the area are four-feet.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Loveless agreed with Mr. Edwards in that there was little sense in making one lot a five-foot sidewalk when everything else is four-feet. He asked when staff comes back with plans for this project, that this section be shown as four-feet. On the other hand, the walk proposed in front of the Wittenberg property would also connect to the Fire Station and the Methodist Church, which could be five-feet along the entire stretch.
    Mr. Ash agreed with Mr. Loveless. He understood the frustration, but he would be less inclined to force residents to build a sidewalk if Chapel Hill was not such a busy road. Because it is so busy, Mr. Ash thought sidewalks are needed.
    Mr. John reiterated his concern about the sidewalks where the builder dropped the ball and the responsibility has been passed onto the property owner. He was concerned that the original responsible party was not being held accountable. Mr. Janku recalled a discussion about these being non-assignable responsibilities. Mr. Boeckmann explained that at the time the final plat is approved, the Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a performance contract with the subdivider. He said it is the subdivider's responsibility to complete all the improvements such as streets, sidewalks and so forth. He indicated that cannot be assigned without consent of the Council. Assuming the developer is in existence at this point, Mr. Janku asked if the City could make an effort to try to collect the costs for constructing the walks from them. Mr. Boeckmann thought staff could check into it to determine the situation. Mr. Janku said he would like to see that done.
    Mr. Loveless made the motion that staff be directed to proceed, including a four-foot sidewalk on the one section of Chapel Hill (Edwards property), and to pursue the responsibility of sidewalk construction when a performance contract was executed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Patterson noted another situation similar to the Edwards property, and asked if this property should be treated the same. Mr. Loveless replied affirmatively.
 

OLD BUSINESS
B177-03     Approving the replat of a portion of F. C. Bradford's Subdivision.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless noted the request to table.
    Mr. John made the motion that B177-03 be tabled to the July 7, 2003, meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
 

B181-03     Granting a variance to Section 25-48 of the Subdivision Regulations regarding sidewalk construction along Scott Boulevard, adjacent to Lots 109 - 112 of The Village of Cherry Hill Subdivision, Plat 1.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck reported that both staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission supported the waiver.
    Mr. Dudark noted the recommendation was subject to payment in lieu of the sidewalk's construction.
    Dan Kliethermes, property owner, offered to answer any questions. He stated there is a good possibility that most of this area will have to be torn out when the street is constructed.
    B181-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
 

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

B175-03     Approving the final plat of Wellington Manor, Plat 3.
B176-03     Approving the final plat of Auburn Hills, Plat 5.
B178-03     Amending Ordinance No. 017627 which established the East Campus Urban Conservation Overlay District.
B183-03     Authorizing the acquisition of property necessary to construct the Donnelly Avenue Street Improvement Project.
B184-03     Calling for bids to construct a sidewalk along the south side of Business Loop 70 from Route B to the west side of Old 63.
B185-03     Authorizing a right of use permit with Thornbrook Development, Inc.
B186-03     Authorizing a right of use permit with LPBW Development Company, LLC.
B187-03     Accepting easements for utility purposes.
B189-03     Accepting donated funds from Rick and Sally McDowell to purchase police equipment; appropriating funds.
R124-03     Setting a public hearing: construction of water main serving North Hampton Woods, Plat 1.
R125-03     Setting a public hearing: amendment to FY 2002 CDBG Action Plan.
R126-03     Setting a public hearing: construction of Brown School/Oakland Gravel Road/Roger Wilson Drive Intersection.
R127-03     Setting a public hearing: repairs to Blind Boone Home.
R128-03     Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for the Mosquito Surveillance Start Up Program.
R129-03     Authorizing Supplement No. 10 to the agreement with the Department of Transportation, FAA to provide improvements to the automated flight service station.
R130-03     Authorizing application to the Missouri Division of Highway Safety for a traffic enforcement grant.
R131-03     Authorizing the City Manager to accept an emergency shelter grant from the State of Missouri and to enter into agreements with various emergency shelter providers.
R132-03     Authorizing an agreement with Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for the 2003 Summer Food Program.

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

NEW BUSINESS
R133-03     Authorizing an agreement with DNR for placement of an informational depot at the junction of MKT and KATY Trails.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the City has been working on a display shelter at the junction of the MKT and Katy trails. The architect believed it would be less expensive to build the deport at a location which involves the state portion of the Trail Plan. Mr. Beck outlined this agreement provides for a 100 year lease at $1.00 per year. The City has agreed to maintain the facility on DNR's property.
    Mr. Loveless asked if the depot would be located at Hindman Junction. Mr. Beck replied that it was. Mr. Loveless commented in previous discussions, he had mentioned it be beneficial to bring drinking water to this location. If it is cost prohibitive to run a water line to the depot, he would like to see a line run to the Katy Trail parking lot. Mr. Loveless noted installing a water fountain in this location should not be nearly as expensive because the parking lot and the drinking water plant are on the same side of the creek. Mr. Beck will supply a report to the Council with estimates of such a project.
    The vote on R133-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
 

R134-03     Approving the preliminary plat of Woodland Springs.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mayor Pro tem Loveless noted the request to table.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that R134-03 be tabled to the July 7, 2003, Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
 

R135-03     Authorizing an agreement with Count Booty, LLC for lease of office space for the Police Department.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained this would continue our present lease until 2006 at a cost of $1,943 per month with the provision of a 90-day buy-out.
    The vote on R135-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
 

R136-03     Authorizing acceptance of FY 2003 Missouri State Homeland Security grant.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck voiced appreciation to the state and federal offices that have been working with the City's committee on Homeland Security.
    Mr. McNabb explained this to be the third in a series of grants the City has received. This grant is in the amount of $251,000, which brings our total receipts to date close to $750,000. He related the grant monies will be used to help supply and support first responder equipment for Homeland Security purposes.
    Mr. Janku asked if specific items would be identified later. Mr. Beck replied that was his understanding.
    The vote on R136-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: HINDMAN. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
 

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

B190-03     Voluntary annexation of property located at the north terminus of Shamrock Drive and north of Kelsey Drive; establishing permanent zoning.
B191-03     Abrogating the final plat of Smithton Ridge, Plat 3; approving the final plat of Smithton Ridge, Plat 5.
B192-03     Approving the final plat of Smithton Ridge, Plat 6.
B193-03     Approving the final plat of Wyatt Lane Acres, Plat 7.
B194-03     Vacating a portion of right-of-way for Watson Place; authorizing an agreement with Marco Investments, Inc.
B195-03     Authorizing an access easement agreement with Harry Ewing & Ewing Investments, LLC.
B196-03     Approving the C-P Development Plan of Lot 1, Hyde Park, Block 2 (Burger King).
B197-03     Authorizing acquisition of easements: construction of Brown School/Oakland Gravel Road/Roger Wilson Drive intersection.
B198-03     Establishing Sanitary sewer District No. 158 in the Old Plank Subdivision.
B199-03     Confirming the contract of Emery Sapp & Sons, Inc. for construction of Forum Boulevard from Dunbar Drive to Old Plank Road; appropriating funds.
B200-03     Confirming the contract of N-J Wilson Contracting, Inc. for the construction of Heather Lane.
B201-03     Accepting easements for water and electric utility purposes.
B202-03     Authorizing construction of water main serving North Hampton Woods, Plat 1; authorizing payment of differential costs.
B203-03     Confirming the contract of Garney Companies, Inc. for the construction of water main along Liddell Lane and Mt. Hope Road.
B204-03     Calling for bids: construction of Brown School/Oakland Gravel Road/Roger Wilson Drive intersection.
B205-03     Calling for bids construction of Sixth Street from Wilkes Boulevard to Hickman Avenue.
B206-03     Calling for bids: repairs on the Blind Boone Home.
B207-03     Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code relating to parking restrictions on Vandiver Drive.
B208-03     Amending the 2003 classification plan and pay plan in connection with Horticulturist and Forester positions.
 

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

(B)     Street Closure Requests.
    Mr. Beck reviewed the street closure requests.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that the requests be granted as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
 

(C)     Potential Amendment to the Definition of a "Lot".
    Mr. Beck pointed out that this definition is significant from the standpoint of what can and cannot be done on lots that were surveyed prior to annexation. Any change in the language should be considered carefully as it can impact other properties.
    Mr. Dudark explained that staff tried to identify a couple of options for the Council to consider. One option would be to extend the definition of a lot to small R-3 tracts. Another possibility would be to target tracts that have been previously platted without a recorded survey. He indicated this survey could be recorded subject to a certification that no right-of-way or easements were needed for the property.
    Mr. Ash noted this issue seems to be somewhat prevalent in the East Campus area. He reported that property owners are replatting their tracts because they are not considered legal lots. He thought if the Council proceeded with option one to add R-3 tracts to the definition, he did not think property owners would need to go through the replatting process. Mr. Dudark said that was correct, unless the homeowner wanted to do it for some other reason like changing an easement or a setback which would then require a replat. Mr. Ash asked if there would be a downside to this option. Mr. Dudark responded one downside is the potential for removing a structure and constructing a new building with a different use without having to replat the lot.
    Under the first option, regarding the issue that came before them and was withdrawn (Wilson Avenue), Mr. Loveless said if that house had been torn down, the property owner still would have had to rebuild the house at the median setback because it now fit the definition of a lot. Mr. Dudark said that was correct, in the absence of a platted setback line then the median would apply in terms of building a new structure or adding onto the existing structure. If a setback line is platted, it then takes the place of the median setback.
    Mr. Ash believed some residents in the East Campus neighborhood want to avoid allowing someone to move a setback by replatting, but on the other side, he thought if R-3 is added to the definition, although some of the requirements have been removed, the property owner would be losing something. Mr. Dudark explained that platting is more following rules that are set by the Council. If the owners follow those rules, then their plat should be approved. He noted that when a replat comes forward that meets the rules, the Council does not have much discretion to deny it. He felt the question was, what is the gain of having to come before the Council with a replat if they do not have much discretion anyway. In that case, Mr. Ash thought it might make more sense to add R-3 to the definition. For small tracts, Mr. Dudark agreed. He said they could also include the stipulation that it be developed property. He said it could be redeveloped, but would not necessarily be vacant. He added that vacant property is a little different from developed property. He said it depends on how it is written. Mr. Ash asked if he was thinking if it was already developed, it may not have to be redeveloped, but if it is vacant, it might have to be replatted.
    Mr. John believed option two to be more concise. He pointed out the main reason to require a replat was to get easements and dedications of right-of-way. If this would go through it would say one could do that, but Public Works would review it and have to verify there is no need for dedications of right-of-way or easements and, therefore, the old survey could serve as a plat. Mr. John commented that option two reviews those needs instead of just saying on a small lot. He suggested the Council forward this issue to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review.
    Mr. John made the motion that this issue be sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
 

(D)     City/County Urban Fringe Area Planning.
    Mr. Beck noted that in earlier Council discussions relating to joint planning, they had some concern as to what the goal of the joint meetings would be and asked that the Commissions spell out more specifically what this would entail.
    Mr. Loveless thought it was an excellent idea to get the Commissions to work together. He asked that as a first issue, the two Commissions work on developing a watershed plan for the Little Bonne Femme area.
    Mr. Janku asked about the definition of urban fringe. Mr. Hutton noted they used the word "contiguous", which he did not feel was sufficient. Mr. Dudark commented that there is a Metro Planning Area and an Urban Area within that. He said there is a number of different ways they could look at it, but it would probably follow census blocks which are based on roads, creeks, etc. Mr. Janku spoke of his preference for the Commissions to identify potential issues of concern and areas of growth, and then the Council could authorize which ones the group should focus on.
    In reading the goals and objectives, Mr. Hutton said they do not go into doing any planning work, land-use wise. He thought the Council should approve the ground rules and then have the groups move forward.
    Mr. John had no problem with the City and County Commissions working together to find out what compatibility there is of standards and regulations, then identify common goals for the Council to review and direct to be resolved.
    Mr. Janku suggested a resolution. Mr. Hutton wondered if they should ask the Planning staff to look at this and more clearly identify the goals and objectives as they see them for the Council to react to and put these in resolution form. Mr. Loveless asked if the staff has had any input to this stage. Mr. Dudark replied that it has been to the two Commissions; they jointly appointed a subcommittee (two individuals from each Commission), and this group drafted the proposal. He thought the way it is drafted reads like they want to identify mutual goals. Mr. Dudark reported those cannot be drafted by staff because the two sides need to meet and draft a list of goals to be approved by the Council and County Commission.
    Mr. Ash asked if there were concerns about approving the joint planning process. Mr. John believed there are two; the Council is the policy making body and the Commission is the recommendation body. He related the Council does not want to give the impression the Commission is making policy. The other is that the City Council and County Commission are elected bodies that have to approve anything the Commissions would recommend, and there are different nuances to both governmental entities.
    Mr. Janku made a motion that staff be directed to draft a policy resolution for Council consideration. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Loveless asked if they should also send communication to the Planning and Zoning Commission telling them their letter is not being ignored, but rather the Council is moving forward with a resolution. The Council felt a letter should be sent. Mr. Beck said he would take care of it.
 

(E)     Russell Property Master Plan.
    Mr. Beck explained that the Planning Department coordinated with the other departments in putting together this report. The suggestion is that both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission bring back recommendations regarding this issue. The report itself would be made available to both Commissions.
    Mr. Loveless asked whether the Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed the three drafts. Mr. Hood replied they have not held a formal review. He said they were invited to the initial public meetings and saw the preliminary draft plans.
    Mr. Janku noted the huge amount of public comment and asked if young people had been involved at all. Other than the young people that came to the public meetings, of which there were a few, Mr. Hood said staff has not made a specific effort to go into the schools on this particular plan. As this moves forward, Mr. Janku was hopeful there would be an opportunity to get youth input.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that this issue be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission for public hearings and their consideration, and that staff get further input, particularly from the young people (in a school if possible).
    Mr. Ash said although he does care what kids think, he is more concerned about what the people think who pay taxes and live next door to the park. Mr. Hutton did not think Mr. Janku wanted to preclude those, but wanted to include the other. Mr. John said the skateboard park turned out to be a great thing and it was driven by youth in the community. He believed that young people might come up with something extraordinary. Mr. John suggested that staff meet with the kids at Fairview and Smithton Middle School, and maybe some sort of a class project would be applicable. He noted the kids could come back with some information the adults have not thought about. Mr. John's concern was that the park neighbors would get what they want and the general community as a whole would be left out of the decision. He did not believe the park should be designed solely for people living within 185 feet of it. Mr. Ash withdrew his opposition.
    The motion made by Mr. Janku was seconded by Mr. Ash and approved unanimously by voice vote.
 

(F)     Fire Station Sites.
    Mr. Beck indicated this topic was discussed at the Council retreat. He suggested that the City pursue at least two of the sites, one in north central Columbia and the other in east Columbia. He suggested monitoring the situation at I-70/Stadium because of future roadway work in the area.
    Mr. Janku asked if funds would still be available for a site in northwest Columbia if one were to be identified. Mr. Beck responded staff would first determine how much the other two sites will cost and then there would be an opportunity to review the money budgeted for safety. He thought funds would be available for all three. Mr. Janku spoke of his preference of making the northwest site the top priority if something becomes available.
    Mr. Hutton made the motion that staff be directed to pursue the two sites, and that they bring back any information on a northwest site when available. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
 

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

BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION
Kullman, Steven J., 205 S. Garth, Ward 4 - term to expire 7/31/06
Mace, Steven C., 818 Greenwood Ct., Ward 4 - term to expire 7/31/06
Murphy, Thomas P., 4016 Bent Oak Dr., Ward 5 - term to expire 7/31/06
Pope, Fran E., 2407 Lynnwood Dr., Ward 5 - term to expire 7/31/06

C.A.R.E. ADVISORY BOARD
Dean, Damian A., 103 N. Stadium, Ward 2 - term to expire 3/1/05

CONVENTION & VISITORS ADVISORY BOARD
Gilbert, Linda K., 2607 Pine Dr., Ward 3 - term to expire 9/30/03

DISABILITIES COMMISSION
Benfield, Judy A., 5509 Arrowwood Dr., Ward 3 - term to expire 6/15/06 (disabled)
Falls, Rita F., 1800 McKee, Ward 3 - term to expire 6/15/06 (disabled)
Graham, Andrew H., Sr., 1006 Queen Ann, Ward 6

BOARD OF MECHANICAL EXAMINERS
Boyd, Scott S., 102 Dayspring Dr., Ward 4 - term to expire 6/17/06
Brunner, William A., 1500 Johnmeyer Ln., County - term to expire 6/17/06

BOARD OF PLUMBING EXAMINERS
Matz, Scott T., 406 N. Tenth, Ward 1 - term to expire 5/31/04

WATER & LIGHT ADVISORY BOARD
Baumgardner, Thomas E., 6009 Dornagh Ct., Ward 5 - term to expire 6/30/07
Gaeth, Ernie K., 1106 Willowcreek Ln., Ward 5 - term to expire 6/30/07
 

COMMENTS BY COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC
    Ms. Crayton asked that something be done about a tree causing a sight problem at the corner of Alexander and Worley.

    Mr. Janku made the motion that staff be directed to authorize a 30-day extension to the cable television providers, both to the response to develop a plan and to the implementation of that plan, and further that staff report back on the issue of the franchise renewal. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

    Mr. Janku explained that a constituent had asked about adopting a trash can, much like the adopt-a-spots. If the City was willing to set out a trash can on public right-of-way, she was willing to ensure it was properly emptied. Mr. Janku requested feedback on the issue and said he would send information to staff regarding a suggested location.

    Mr. Janku reiterated the recurring problem with the car repair lot on 763. This business continues to park their vehicles on the public right-of-way. He noted a new building has been constructed on the adjoining property, and the sidewalk to such is being obstructed. The only way the property owner can keep the car lot from putting vehicles on the sidewalk and in front of the new building is to put orange cones up to block the sidewalk and the right-of-way. Mr. Janku asked that something be figured out so that the offending cars are removed immediately when parked illegally. He suggested that signs be placed in such a way to make it physically impossible to park cars in that location.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that enforcement be stepped up. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

    Mr. John passed a letter to the City Manager from the Thornbrook Homeowners Association regarding fire protection in the areas that are designated for protection by the volunteer Boone County Fire Protection District. He asked that a response be prepared. Mr. Loveless asked that the entire Council receive copy of the letter Mr. John is referring to along with the response.

    Regarding an earlier discussion about water to the Trail, Mr. Ash commented that it could actually help attract people to the new shelter the City plans to build at this location. Mr. Loveless noted that the Perche Creek lies between the City's water plant and the site being built, making it difficult to pipe water. He said DNR's parking lot and the kiosk lies on the same site, probably not 100 yards from the water plant. Mr. Loveless reported the parking lot also does not have access to water, and he was hopeful something could be worked out.

    In reference to the Russell Park plan, Mr. Ash pointed out it appears the possibility of having an access off of Fairview was not included in any of the options given to the Council. Mr. Hood responded this option was suggested by the Planning Department as a result of the review of the various departments. He said it was not one of the formal options the Parks Department developed. Mr. Hood stated that if this is the Council's preference, it could be a fourth option. Mr. Ash wanted to make sure it was reviewed as an alternative.
    Mr. Ash requested that the access off of Fairview be added as option four and that the two Commissions be at liberty to make other suggestions as well.
    Mr. Janku asked how much communication there has been with the school about how it could benefit from an access off of Fairview and tying into some of the parking available at this location. Mr. Hood responded that staff visited with the school early in the process as there had been some discussion about running a road off of Fairview down the property line between the school and the existing Fairview Park. He noted some concern about creating a road in this area with the kids moving back and forth from the school playground into the Park. For that reason, staff backed off that option from any further consideration. Mr. Hood indicated that staff could approach the school again to review the different options. Mr. Janku thought, in particular, the different parking options should be discussed for their input. He pointed out the School may want to have access to some of the parking at certain times. Mr. Janku suggested pathways to the school from the parking area.
    Mr. Ash understood residents in this area would prefer to limit access off of Fairview because this would prevent people from accessing the park through their neighborhood.

    Mr. Ash asked about any negative consequences to the cable companies for not fulfilling their agreement and whether there are any fines involved. Mr. Boeckmann explained that both franchises are coming up and whether or not the cable companies are meeting their franchise obligations would be something that could be considered at that time. He reported there are no provisions for fines. Mr. Boeckmann indicated that a public access channel has not been an issue for the term of their franchise, it is a recent development. He noted at one point TCI had a studio, but nobody was using it and when they sold out it went away.

    In reference to the business on 763 that parks vehicles on the sidewalk, Mr. Ash wondered if the cars in violation could be towed without a citation. Chief Boehm indicated that his department has some trouble getting wrecker services to tow even off of a private lot without a summons being on the vehicle, but there are a few exceptions. He said there are some lots where that arrangement has been made. Chief Boehm did not think that would be possible off of the state right-of-way.

    On behalf of Mayor Hindman, Mr. Loveless asked staff to report back on what it would cost to install countdown lights and pedestrian flags at the crosswalk at the Forum Shopping Center into the neighborhood to the west (Mills Drive). There are lights there, but no pedestrian accommodations.

    Sara Lange, 1012 Westport Drive, spoke on behalf of the Fairview Neighborhood Association as well as a large number of constituents living around the Russell Park property in the Rothwell, Broadway Farms and University Park areas. She reiterated there is substantial opposition to extending Cunningham through the Russell Park property. As neighbors of the tract, she said they have realistic concerns regarding the traffic this park will generate. Ms. Lange reported the neighborhood supports the option showing primary access off of Fairview as a means of reducing non-residential traffic. She stated that area residents fail to see how the extension of Cunningham would serve any function other than to bisect a parcel of property that is more valuable and functional as a whole. She remarked the neighborhood is aware this will be a community park and not a neighborhood park -- which is all the more reason to leave it as whole as possible so that the rest of Columbia can come and appreciate what they as neighbors of the property have enjoyed for years. Regarding input by youth in the community, Ms. Lange said one of the things that interests her about the property is the possibility of outdoor classroom opportunities as it pertains to the naturalness of the area. She asked that the options either be labeled by number or by letter, not both. Mr. Loveless replied that staff would ensure the options are consistently labeled from this point forward.

    Ruth Walters, 2611 Spruce Drive, asked if any decision had been made regarding the storm water situation in her yard. She noted that she never gave the City, or anybody else, permission to dump storm water and trash into her yard.
    Mr. Hutton reported that he spoke with Mr. Patterson about this issue and was told information had recently been sent to the City Manager. He said it would probably appear on the next agenda as a report to Council. Mr. Hutton explained the Council would probably ask for some kind of action to come forward after reviewing the report, but the problem will take some time to fix.
    Mr. Loveless reiterated to Ms. Walters that her problem was being worked on and that she had not been forgotten.

    The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.

                                                                                            Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                            Penny St. Romaine
                                                                                            City Clerk