M I N U T E S
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - COLUMBIA, MISSOURI
JUNE 7, 2004
The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, June 7, 2004, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON and JANKU were present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department Heads were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of May 17, 2004, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Loveless and a second by Mr. Ash.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA
The agenda, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mayor Hindman and a second by Mr. Loveless.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
B92-04 Amending Chapter 25 of the City Code relating to street design standards.
The bill was read by the Clerk.
Because a public hearing had previously been held on this issue, Mayor Hindman explained that the Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission, who acted as the facilitator of the Street Standards Committee, would make introductory comments and then answer questions from members of the Council.
Mr. Beck noted that some Staff provided input to the subcommittees. In addition, he recently received more Staff information from Department Heads, which he forwarded to the Council due to some of the questions raised. He pointed out that the 32 foot standard had been around before 1960 and before he came to Columbia. Looking at the broader picture, he felt the issues of safety, affordability, and the functionality of the streets to be important.
Jerry Wade, 1221 Bradshaw, explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission received a request from the City Council in the Summer of 2002 to review street standards and asked that they recommend changes deemed appropriate. The Commission used a stakeholder process in which they identified many different perspectives on street standards and invited them to participate in the work group. He named the participants of the planning group that actually started work in the Fall of 2002. He said the group discovered streets were not as simple as they appeared. They provided transportation for cars, pedestrians, and for people in other kinds of conveyances including bicycles, wheelchairs, etc. In addition, they provided transportation for utilities, both public and private, and framed and structured the community. Mr. Wade noted they created the image and the way in which our community was organized. The group realized they were talking about the standards for the organization and design of the public right-of-way. They worked on issues of safety, economic efficiency, the image of the community, and the ability to move people safely from one place to another. They worked on topics to the point where most, if not all, of the people in the working group could either live with or strongly support the issue. The major topic of discussion had to do with sidewalks and sidewalk widths at all levels. They were able to find some common ground, which was represented in their recommendations.
On behalf of the Council, Mayor Hindman voiced appreciation for the hard work undertaken by the Committee and thanked them for their efforts in getting the recommendations to the Council.
Mayor Hindman asked if only residential streets would be narrowed. Mr. Wade replied it was mainly residential, but added that there was some adjustment in the others, just not a major decreasing of street widths. Mayor Hindman asked if the driving widths in arterials and collectors would be approximately the same. Mr. Wade said they are close, but have some narrowing. He also thought there was some increasing of widths on arterials. Mayor Hindman asked if they checked with other cities regarding their experiences with narrower residential streets. Mr. Wade replied, yes, and added they drew heavily from a 2001 joint publication by the Urban Land Institute, the National Association of Home Builders, the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Institute for Transportation Engineers on residential streets. The publication recommended that residential streets be primarily a 24 to 28 foot width. He pointed out there was now enough experience in many communities around the country with those widths that they were very comfortable with the recommendations. It was the group's professional opinion that the narrower residential streets actually performed several functions; they were less expensive, they had a better design for safety, and they were better designed for community senses within neighborhoods. The Committee also recommended changing the location of sidewalks within the street design. They suggested moving it toward the outside of the public right-of-way about one foot from the utility easement to increase the buffer between the sidewalks and the street to allow better opportunities for building treescapes along the streets.
Mr. Ash asked for the Committee's opinion on the ripple effect caused by four foot sidewalks going to five feet. He asked why they decided on four feet. Mr. Wade replied that this was probably the most contentious decision the group had to make. The working group thought, on the residential streets, when talking about the function of sidewalks for carrying people, the four foot would effectively function in terms of the level of traffic that would be demanded. As they moved above the residential streets, the recommendation went to five feet, and at the arterials, in some cases, it went to six feet. He noted that treescapes take a wider buffer between the sidewalk and the street. Although they understood the advantages of the five foot sidewalk, one of the trade-offs was that you could reduce the buffer and reduce the opportunities for a nice treescape. Also, the wider buffer reduced stormwater runoff into the street and, in most instances, they were advocating sidewalks on both sides of the street.
When this issue was last discussed, Mr. Ash noted a PUD was presented showing cul-de-sacs with the new street standard bulb widths. He said the Council was concerned they would be too narrow and impact Public Works. He asked what the Committee's thoughts were as to why those widths would work. Mr. Wade felt the sense was that they may not be ideal, but could be made to work. He noted a small difference between the challenges for emergency vehicles versus the challenges for service vehicles, like trash trucks. They understood there might be some costs associated with service vehicles since they might need to do a little more jockeying, which would reduce efficiency. They also thought they would work and be better in the long run. Mr. Ash asked if the same kind of data collected on street widths had been collected on narrower cul-de-sac bulbs. Mr. Wade did not know.
Mr. Janku noted that enclave streets were the narrowest streets being proposed. He explained they were only in places where there was access by another street that was obviously wider and more accessible for larger delivery vehicles. He asked what the current buffer widths were between sidewalks and streets. Mr. Wade replied that it was four feet in residential areas. He said they tried to get it to six feet to allow for larger trees. The wider sidewalk, Mr. Janku noted, would make it five feet. Mr. Wade said that was true, unless they increased the right-of-way by two feet. Mr. Wade pointed out that there were solutions for everything, but added it would end up being trade-offs.
Mr. Ash asked if the group had considered intersections. Mr. Wade replied that intersections require major consideration because of all the issues involved with them. He said it would have taken them another year and the working group felt if the Council wanted to consider intersections they would probably need to bring in outside expertise. Mr. Ash asked if it was alright to approve this without considering intersections. Mr. Wade replied the working group thought that was a separate set of issues requiring knowledge they did not have access to.
Mr. Janku noted there was nothing in the recommendation regarding design standards for streets that would affect speed. Mr. Wade disagreed and said they had given a great deal of attention to questions of speed and safety. Within the frame of the street standards, he said, they dealt with the question of the width of the street. What would now become critical was how those streets ended up being designed in the developments. He noted that they encouraged, within the street standards, designs that would not create long straightaways. He said they wanted to see different kinds of street layouts, but, at the same time, they wanted to maintain connectivity.
Mr. John asked about the genesis of the enclave street. Mr. Walters explained it was a unique name because they had a series of names that were misnomers and were similar to one another. Mr. John was concerned that we would be allowing a private street that would not have access to a public street. Bob Walters, 2704 Vale, thought they could be built to public standards as well. Mr. John said it appeared they were creating a public standard for a street within a PUD. Mr. Walters thought the reason to allow them was for isolated instances where you had low density streets or streets with extended frontages, like estates where there might be 150 feet of frontage, where a low volume of traffic was anticipated, and/or where there was a sensitivity to the natural environment and you were trying to minimize the damage to trees. They thought that would be an appropriate use for an enclave type street. Mr. Patterson said it was shown as private and he thought the question was a private street with public standards. Mr. Wade said they wanted to create the option for more flexibility, especially in residential areas. One of the reasons it entered into discussion was that it increased the flexibility in a particular set of circumstances for developers. Mr. John pointed out there were six requirements for this private or enclave street. His main concern was that it would be considered the access street and issues surrounding private streets not being maintained and individual property owners not being able to get them maintained without the City taking them over. He wanted to make sure there was a mechanism in place where the City could tax bill the maintenance, if they were not properly maintained. Mr. Wade said they had created options and those could be used when specific criteria was met. He reiterated that this allowed developers options, without having to go through a great number of hoops for variances when circumstances existed in which those designs were appropriate in terms of that development. Mr. Ash did not think the City minded private streets when there was single ownership, but was concerned when there were several different homeowners sharing a private street.
Mr. John thought he had been told that non-residential streets had not been narrowed. Mr. Wade replied that the neighborhood collector was one of those "in between" streets which met very specific criteria. He added that they were looking for street standards which would meet a particular function in a particular instance. On the neighborhood collector, they dealt very directly with issues of parking and driveway access. Regarding travel lanes on the neighborhood collector, Mr. John noted there were 13 foot lanes and 15 foot lanes. On a major collectors, he pointed out, there were 12 foot travel lanes and 16 foot lanes. Arterials were mostly 12 foot travel lanes, but there were some 14 foot travel lanes. At certain speeds, on certain types of streets, he thought there should be a standard size travel lane. Mr. Wade directed their attention to major collectors and said the issue that had become critical was what was designed into them in terms of bike lanes. He pointed out the wider travel lanes were those without bike lanes and added that the major collector option A did not have bike lanes. One of the questions they were confronted with was how you provide dan option while still meeting the legal right of bicyclists to travel those roads. One of the ways was to go to wider travel lanes. In some cases, they felt option A would be a better choice and they did not want to prevent that. With the 3500 to 8500 cars per day traveling on these travel lanes, Mr. John felt a standard for the street width would have been one of the things that would have been locked down and then other things would have moved around that. If 12 foot lanes were okay, he asked why 16 foot lanes would be needed on the next one, and visa versa. Mr. Wade explained they used a different organization of the right-of-way space, with the key difference being that one had marked bike lanes and the other did not. He added that it became a question of what kind of travel capabilities one would want to organize within the right-of-way. It was the group's sense that both were possible options for meeting the needs of a car, bicycle, pedestrian, and other modes of transportation.
As a road was being developed through an area, Mr. Hutton felt there was the potential for more than one option being preferred, which could result in a street being both option A and option B. Mr. Wade replied that one would hope that the street planning process of the City, the Planning and Development process of review, the Planning and Zoning process for recommendation, and the final approval by the Council would take care of that. Mr. Hutton asked how the right-of-way width had changed from the current standard to the proposed standard when looking at neighborhood collectors on up. Mr. Bondra explained that presently the collector right-of-way was 66 feet and the proposal for a major collector and major collector option A was 66 feet with option B being 76 feet. The neighborhood collector would be reduced to 60 feet of right-of-way and option B would also be 60 feet. Right now, arterials ranged from 80 to 106 feet and under the new proposal minor and major arterials would range from 84 to 110 feet.
Mr. Hutton was concerned about the cul-de-sac width. He understood the bulb diameter would stay the same even though the street would go to 28 feet. The current ordinance was 76 feet. Mr. Hutton pointed out the proposed ordinance stated it shall be 76 feet, but then also stated the turnaround of a local residential access street may be 68 feet. Mr. John thought that would allow a smaller cul-de-sac on smaller streets. Mr. Wade interjected that this was directly related to the number of houses served off the street. Even though the residential standard would go to 28 feet for the street itself, Mr. Hutton understood the bulb would remain the same. Mr. Wade stated that was correct, except on an access street. Mr. Hutton noted the access street was a 24 foot street and the bulb would be reduced to 68 with the potential for an island.
Mr. Hutton understood the argument for wider buffer strips being primarily a landscaping issue. Mr. Wade said it was the kind of streetscape that could be created. Mr. Hutton asked if it would be possible to keep the cul-de-sac bulb size the same on the 24 foot street. Mr. Patterson noted it would technically be possible. Mr. Hutton asked what it would look like with the street getting narrower and the bulb staying the same. Mr. Patterson thought there would be some disproportionate ratio compared to what we have now, but that bulb could be the same size. Mr. Hutton asked if a 20 foot island and a 76 foot bulb would be a major problem. Mr. Patterson responded that the islands probably created more of an operational problem. Even with a 76 foot diameter cul-de-sac, if there was a vehicle parked in it, they would have to go to a two to three point turnaround to get back out. They could do that if the center of the cul-de-sac was open. If an island was in the center, it would prohibit that movement and would require strictly a backing operation all of the way. If the islands were made of some decorative drive over planter, that problem would be eliminated, but it would not allow for landscaping.
In regards to street crossings of streams, Mr. John was worried by the sentence stating that no more than one roadway crossing per subdivision would be allowed. Whether it was a five acre subdivision or a 500 acre subdivision, they would only allow one crossing. Mr. John felt that would invite small subdivisions, individually submitted, if it laid out better to have more crossings. He felt having a large area to work with in a larger, more complete manner was better. He suggested they leave the sentence out and stop at the word network. If it made sense to have two crossing, they would see two subdivision plats. Mr. Wade added they could also see a request for a variance. No one in the group recalled the discussion on this issue.
Mr. Janku noted at the pre-council work session, Mr. Wade indicated he thought that no terminal streets in industrial areas had been left in by mistake. Mr. Wade concurred. Mr. Janku also noted that Mr. Wade thought the connectivity index issue was something worth considering, but that it could be revisited to try to improve connectivity, but not necessarily with this language. Mr. Wade concurred and added that there should be some rational way to address the question of connectivity that created an equality for developers. He pointed out connectivity was absolutely critical, both in terms of what we were like as a community and also in terms of issues, such as emergency vehicles and safety.
Mayor Hindman understood that the working group looked at other cities having streets as narrow or considerably narrower than what was being talked about here. Mr. Wade replied that they had and noted he had a list of at least 20 communities to include Omaha, Springfield, Champaign/Urbana, and Boulder. He said it was a trend that had been going on for a number of years. The narrower streets were a question of efficiency, neighborliness, and safety. Mr. Wade felt it just made sense in terms of residential development. The reduced streets in residential would be offset by upgrading the design standards at the collector and arterial because of the different functions the streets played within a community. Mr. Ash pointed out that the City would pay for the bigger streets and the developer would pay for the streets that were getting smaller. Mr. Wade understood that and said everyone needed to understand that. Although there had been some disagreement, Mr. Wade said they felt what they had was economically neutral. It would shift the cost of the streets from the residential to the collector and arterial, and it was their feeling that was justified in terms of the contribution it made to the quality of the community as we continued to grow. The challenge might be to find a way in which those costs were fairly paid for by all of the different elements involved in the growth of our community. They felt this would pay dividends in the long run because it would help maintain and build ourselves as the kind of community we wanted.
Mayor Hindman asked for comments from anyone not speaking previously or with something not already discussed.
Monica Prestape, 101 Cedar Lake, asked for wider sidewalks for wheelchair users.
Bob Walters, 2704 Vale, a Committee member, referred to Mr. Hutton's question regarding different developments on the same street and how one would determine which option was best. He explained the baseline example to be Forum Boulevard and noted that if Forum was in a commercial zone near Chapel Hill. A person developing in that area with commercial zoning might have a wider right-of-way than one would at Forum Boulevard and the Highlands. He pointed out that there was criteria that stated if it was planned as a future collector or arterial street in unbuilt territory and it was built incrementally, it had to be consistent. The consistency was more related to the adjacent uses. That was only one reason why the right-of-way might change on the same street. The question about street widths and cul-de-sacs, in regards to how common it was becoming to narrow them, he thought was a good one. When typing in narrow width streets on-line, you would get hundreds of communities that were looking at these issues. He noted that cul-de-sacs were not as common. Mr. Walters said the EPA's Phase 2 regulations, which we were now trying to meet and accommodate, had placed a much greater emphasis on reducing impervious surfaces. He was certain a lot of communities would start looking at street widths and cul-de-sac widths as a means to do this. As someone who worked in residential development, Mr. Walters said he was very much in support of the 28 foot standard, however, it was implied at the last meeting that we might also change the depth of the streets. If that was the case, he did not think anybody would be in favor of it. He thought that was an important point to talk about. Regarding the City building bigger streets, not the developer, Mr. Walters felt that was only in theory. A lot of times, he pointed out, there were agreements where the City was supposed to contribute certain amounts of money, but the City did not have money to contribute.
Rebecca Gingrich, asked that sidewalks be made wider to accommodate wheelchairs.
Karl Skala, 5201 Gasconade, a member of the Committee, commented on the stream crossings. He noted that their discussion boiled down to a couple of things - to provide some protection for sensitive areas and to consider the reduction in cost in terms of streams crossings. They really did not anticipate what Mr. John suggested in regards to a problem in the planning process that would drive people to circumvent that particular standard. Regarding the width of travel lanes on some of the arterials and why they might be different, he indicated the travel lanes on I-70 were 12 feet wide, as were the ones in the recommendations they made. The wider lane on the outside was the shared use lane and that had to do, primarily, with bicycle traffic.
Harold Smith, 405 Rothwell, remarked that a 32 foot street was not too wide if cars were parked on both sides. In addition, he was concerned about trees buckling up and damaging sidewalks. He was not in favor of narrower residential streets or the tree planting buffer area in the right-of-way.
John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, a member of the Committee, commented on the buffer strips and said he liked the idea of providing a safety zone between vehicles and pedestrians. He encouraged the Council to read page four saying the reasons were much more than just the tree buffer. Regarding the intersection design process, Mr. Clark indicated he had tried to get the issue included now because he felt this could not be successful if we did not follow this up by hiring outside expertise. He was hopeful the Council would do that immediately. Without it we would get a certain amount out of this, but not nearly enough. He felt the intersection design process to be absolutely crucial to all the goals enumerated. Regarding the stream crossing, he suggested the recommendation be interpreted as to develop and incorporate a set of guidelines, not necessarily exactly the guidelines on exhibit 8. In addition, he did not think anyone would suggest we stick with 32 feet wide residential streets as a standard because they get paid for by the developer and have a narrower 80 foot right-of-way for arterials at a great sacrifice to safety just because the public would have to pay for it. Mr. Ash explained that it was stated this was cost neutral because they would be made more narrow and the others bigger. Maybe in the grand scheme of everyone's dollar that was true, but his point was that developers typically built residential streets, which were getting cheaper, and the City typically built the other streets, which were getting bigger. Mr. Clark said their conclusion and the core of their basis for compromise was that this would help contain the cost on some other kinds of things.
Larry Schuster, 3109 Hill Haven, revisited how the City began purchasing the MKT Trail and its buffer. At that time, he noted, it was identified as a very important resource for the City and a big issue had been how to pay for this community priority. They clearly identified the price of the trail and paid for it along with every piece of buffer property identified. They also identified where they would come up with the money to pay for it. If these street standards were adopted without a clearly identified source of funding for the acknowledged greater cost, he felt it would be a great departure from the way the City of Columbia did business. He also noted that maintenance funding had not been identified for the pedways and larger areas.
Greg Ahrens, 1504 Sylvan, understood that trees were prohibited in buffer strips. He suggested the City Forester designate certain species that would be allowed in these strips.
Don Stamper, 1304 Sedona Villas, commented that the Central Missouri Development Council was supportive of the Council and their work. They felt that quality communities would lead to greater quality of life and greater business and commerce. However, he pointed out, these streets would not be cheaper. At best, in some cases, they would be revenue neutral. If one were to look at the miles of collector and arterial streets the City of Columbia built this last year and compared it to the number of miles that were built by developers, he felt they would be astonished at the volume. Mr. Stamper stated this was their choice, but the idea that they were automatically cheaper was counter intuitive. On the surface, it made sense, but when you delved into the details there were lots of unforeseen conditions and concerns. Just because you narrow a street, he pointed out, did not make it cheaper to construct. In some cases they believe 32 foot streets would be cheaper than 24 feet streets when getting into stormwater, drainage, and etc. If the network was to be truly successful, there were hundreds of miles of sidewalks, streets, and configurations that would have to be addressed. He felt this should be approached with a degree of caution based upon the idea that only 20 to 25 communities out of thousands of communities in this country that were addressing these issues with their streets were utilizing this approach. Mr. Stamper suggested we go into this carefully and determine the incremental costs associated.
Mr. Ash was still not convinced that a wider sidewalk in a residential neighborhood was going to get people out as much as a pretty neighborhood walk with trees would. He was not convinced the cost of the extra foot would be better spent on the sidewalk versus the buffer stip between the street and the sidewalk.
Mr. Janku noted that the City currently allowed plantings in the four foot buffer, although they had to be certain types of plantings. Mr. Patterson stated that was correct, and added it required a permit to be issued and there were standards as to what type of shrubs and trees could be planted. The real requirement for the permit was to make sure there were no sight obstructions or conflicts with utilities that might be buried in that specific location.
Mayor Hindman reiterated that many cities had the five foot sidewalk recommendation. He noted that the Society for Civil Engineers recommended them for residential areas. Mayor Hindman felt that disabled people in wheelchairs needed five foot sidewalks in order to pass or be comfortably accompanied by someone. He noted that Mr. Patterson indicated that under the ADA Guidelines you could have a four foot sidewalk providing that, from time to time, you had a place that was five feet wide in order for the person in the wheelchair to turn around. He felt that put them in the position of being second class citizens and that sidewalks should be built for everyone. These were public rights-of-way that needed to be developed to take care of the needs of people as much as possible. It was also a way of providing for people to get out in their neighborhood and walk and enjoy each other. He noted the latest issue of Time Magazine where Columbia was written up in connection with our efforts in trying to make this a community where people could become active and where we encouraged activity. Regarding the treescape, he pointed out that our present standard was four feet between the sidewalk and the curb. If we were to make a five foot sidewalk instead of a four foot sidewalk, we would still end up with a five foot buffer between the sidewalk and the curb.
Ms. Crayton supported the five foot sidewalk, but voiced concern about the safety of school buses and emergency vehicles going down narrow corridors. She wondered about replacing sidewalks or bringing older areas into new ones. Mayor Hindman said when it came to replacement they would have to look at the situation and see how it would work. We could not impose these standards completely into an older neighborhood as there could be practical limitations on what they would be able to do. In many cases, he felt, a five foot sidewalk would fit.
Mr. Janku thought we had a much more active community among those with various disabilities getting out and he thought this would continue. He noted that we also had an aging society and that one of the big things in homes today was building the master bedroom on the first floor so people could stay in their homes longer. He thought this tied into looking to the future in the sense that we wanted a community where people could stay in their homes and be active in their community. He saw this as a small incremental change that would blend into the community down the road.
At this point there was a discussion about the five foot sidewalk amendment put on the table at the May 3rd meeting. That motion was left on the table and Mr. Loveless made a new motion.
Mr. Loveless made the motion to amend B92-04 by amending 25-48.1 (a) by deleting everything after the first sentence down to the underlined portion, leaving the underlined portion in, but striking the word "other" in the last sentence.
Mr. John noted that "other" could be left in because they were not required along a residential access street. Mr. Loveless agreed.
Mr. John felt that the difference between four and five feet to be a minor issue. His concern about the whole treescape idea and five foot sidewalks was that as they would put more trees and bushes by them, they would grow over to where nobody could use the sidewalks. He did not see the good in building them. He said the standard was fine, but it was the very beginning of a process that was long overdue and backwards in coming.
It was pointed out that the appendix would also need to be amended to conform with the five foot sidewalks. Also the diagrams would have to be changed from four feet to five feet. Mr. Boeckmann said they would actually be adopting the appendix as well as the ordinance language. Mr. Ash pointed out that they would need to change the buffer strip from six to five. Mr. John clarified that on page 3, bullets 5 and 7 of the appendix would need to be changed. When asked if they could make a blanket motion asking that the appendix be amended accordingly, Mr. Boeckmann indicated they needed to clarify the specific changes in the appendix as well since it was being adopted as part of the ordinance language. Mr. Loveless added to his motion that in appendix A on the top of page 3, item 5 be changed to 5 feet versus 4 feet and item 7 be changed to 5 feet versus 6 feet. He also added that the drawing of a residential street in appendix A on an unnumbered page be changed to reflect five feet sidewalks and five feet buffers on both sides of the street. Mr. Loveless' motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Loveless made the motion to amend B92-04 by striking 25-47 (c) regarding terminal streets in industrial areas from the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Ash thought appendix A included discussion regarding terminal streets, but could not locate the specific page. It was felt that if the Council overlooked some detail, they could come back later with a technical amendment to the ordinance at the next meeting.
Mr. John made the motion to strike the last sentence under 25-42 (2) (a) on page 3 of the ordinance regarding the street connectivity index. Mr. Ash seconded the motion. Mr. Janku agreed it should be struck, but asked that the Committee provide a report on it. The Mayor agreed. The motion made by Mr. John and seconded by Mr. Ash was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Loveless made the motion that the last sentence of 25-55 (d) regarding stream crossings be removed. Mr. Ash thought only half of that sentence need to be removed. Mr. John suggested placing the period after "network" and removing the rest of the sentence. Mr. Loveless agreed. It was decided this was another issue that should be referred back to the committee for a report. Mr. Loveless' motion was seconded by Mr. Ash and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Hutton stated that he wanted to make a motion regarding the cul-de-sac situation due to the issue of the ability of trucks to turn around in the narrower cul-de-sacs. He felt it would be a major mistake on their part to allow terminal streets to be built where the City's own vehicles could not turn around.
Mr. Hutton made the motion that they strike everything added, in this case, everything underlined in 25-47 (b) on page 5 of the ordinance. Mr. Hutton stated he would love to see islands in the center of cul-de-sacs, but felt, from a practical standpoint, they did not make sense. As part of the motion, the last sentence of the first paragraph numbered 3 on page 3 of appendix A, "an island of 20 feet in diameter may be placed in the turnaround," would need to be deleted. Also, the motion should include changing 84 and 68 back to 94 and 76 at the bottom of page three under turnarounds. Mr. Hutton also noted the terminal street prohibition in industrial areas was discussed on page 5 of the appendix. He stated his motion could include deleting that. The motion made by Mr. Hutton was seconded by Ms. Crayton.
Mayor Hindman asked if Mr. Hutton was changing the size. Mr. Hutton stated his proposal was to keep the cul-de-sac sizes as they were today, no matter the width of the street. In other words, even on the streets that were going to 24, which was the only place the 68 foot cul-de-sac could take effect, that would be removed as an opportunity. Mr. Hindman could understand this change, if it unduly interfered with service vehicles, however, he wondered if they really knew that this would cause interference. Mr. Hutton replied that both Mr. Beck and Mr. Patterson had been fairly adamant in their discussions. Mayor Hindman thought that was only if a car was parked in the cul-de-sac. Mr. Hutton pointed out it would also occur with the island in place. Mr. Hutton stated that he thought Mr. Patterson indicated that if there was a car parked in the cul-de-sac, then the truck was probably not going to get through or at least not without quite a bit of maneuvering back and forth. If there was an island, they felt they could make it if it was a 76 foot bulb. If it was a 68, there was no way to make it. Mr. Patterson added that they probably could not make it unless they were able to drive up on it in some way. Mr. Hutton felt that would defeat the purpose of the island because they were primarily intended to be landscaped islands as opposed to brick. Mr. Ash explained that all Mr. Hutton was doing as part of his motion was getting rid of all the islands in the middle of the cul-de-sacs and changing the cul-de-sac size back to normal on the access street, since it was the only one proposed to have the smaller cul-de-sac. Mayor Hindman hated to make it a blanket rule that you could not have an island or you could not landscape it. He preferred to leave the language as it was and add some kind of clause indicating islands be allowed, but designed in such a way that people agree to no parking in the cul-de-sac. Mr. Ash thought the committee showed broad support for narrower streets, but not as much for narrower cul-de-sacs. He felt we could either allow them if they were drivable or not allow them with the opportunity to request a variance. Mr. John suggested they also send this issue back to the group, along with the streams and connectivity issues. Mr. Janku agreed.
Mr. Hutton's motion, which was seconded by Ms. Crayton, was approved by voice vote.
Mr. John had a concern about private streets and read the new definition stated in the ordinance. He felt they either needed to take the standards out, say it was private, and indicate the City would have nothing to do with it, or require them to be built to standards, be maintained, provide a method for the City to maintain them if they were not being maintained, and provide a mechanism making the property owners responsible for the cost through a lien against the property. Mr. John felt they could amend this issue out and request a report. Mr. Janku liked that idea.
Mr. John made the motion to remove standards relating to private streets because he wanted to make sure the City had the authority to ensure private streets would be maintained.
Mr. Janku asked if this would affect the enclave streets also. Mr. Johns stated his motion would include removing all references to private and enclave street design standards. He noted this would include the design standards on page 4 and the last schematic on the first unnumbered page of the appendix, as well as, the discussion of private streets on page 3 of the ordinance.
The motion, made by Mr. John, was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Boeckmann stated the amendment sheet provided clarification that for two months after the ordinance was passed, either the new standards or the old standards could be followed.
Mr. Ash made the motion to amend the ordinance per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Ash commented that it was very helpful having the Chairman answer questions. He liked the ordinance much better than he did when they started, however, he was still concerned about costs due of conflicting information and the fact that intersections have not been addressed. He felt intersections were a critical part, which they had not covered yet. He asked if these issues should be sent to a consultant for better figures on cost and work on intersections. He noted he was very supportive of the concept in general, but scared of voting on something that had not been thought all of the way through.
Mayor Hindman was ready to vote. In regards to the extra cost, he felt we would be buying something we should have been buying long ago. In his opinion, the City needed to find the best utilization for these public rights-of-way and that all of these features needed to be provided in order to properly and responsibly use the public right-of-way. If there was an extra cost, his feeling was that we should accept it. If we did not have these standards in place, he did not think we would be providing for the interconnectivity that was needed. He agreed that intersections, for both bicyclists and pedestrians, were very critical.
Mr. Janku pointed out this would give them all of the factors they needed to consider and basically reflected what they had been doing for years - building streets at different widths with various amenities added. Regarding cost, he noted that most of our collectors included pedways or sidewalks on both sides. When a street was built in any of their wards, they all wanted a high quality street with pedestrian facilities and landscaping.
Mr. Ash agreed that this was better than what was currently being done because it would be more organized, but added that his point was that it could maybe be even better, if they thought it through thoroughly.
Mr. John noted the criteria for the 28 foot street was up to 750 cars per day. That meant about one-half a mile of roadway, on average for approximately 75 homes on each side having an 80 foot front, behind it where all the streets would be at 28 feet in width. He felt that was a little too high. He preferred the number to be around 500 cars per day making it 50 houses. That would run well under one-half mile worth of streets behind it. He said the idea was that they would be weaving in and out because if cars were parked on both sides you could not get two cars through. Someone would have to wait. Mr. John thought the only change needed would be in the design standards for residential streets in the appendix. Mr. Loveless noted that they had not asked the Committee why the 750 foot figure was used. Mr. Wade thought it was the Committee's feeling that the street would handle that amount of traffic quite adequately and there would not be any major problems. He pointed out that it was not out of line with what other communities with narrower standards had in terms of daily expected traffic.
Mr. Janku noted the City's experience, on any limitation, had been that people want to extend them. He pointed out that, in many cases, if they were very reasonable, variances were given. If they shorten the original standard, it would be likely it would tend to move, in practice, toward the 750. If they started at 750, he thought it could move upward.
Mr. John made the motion that they change the 750 to 500 on page 3 of the design standards for residential feeder criteria in the appendix. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku.
Mayor Hindman felt the 750 feet would be okay and said in order for it not to work there would have to be solid parking up and down both sides. He did not see that happening. Mr. John replied he was not worried about solid parking, but about traffic weaving in and out. He was concerned about crunch times in the morning and evening. The motion made by Mr. John, seconded by Mr. Janku, was approved by voice vote.
Mr. Ash felt they still needed to do more work on the ordinance and said he could not vote in favor of it for that reason.
B92-04, as amended, was read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: ASH. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B146-04 Rezoning property located on the north side of Proctor Drive, approximately 170 feet east of Creasy Springs Road, from R-1 to PUD-9.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck pointed out that the Planning and Zoning Commission had no recommendation because of a tie vote.
Mr. Bondra described Proctor Drive as an unimproved local residential street a short distance to the east of Creasy Springs Road. The applicants had originally asked for a PUD-10, but had now lowered their request to a PUD-9. One of the major issues was placing that kind of density on an unimproved street. The applicants contended that because of the salvage yard down the road, it would be hard to market single family homes at this location.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Bruce Beckett, an attorney, spoke on behalf of Samuel Construction Company and its principal owner, Keith Samuel. He noted that the Staff Report stated they would support a PUD-7. Mr. Beckett explained the three issues essential to this application were whether this kind of multi-family zoning was appropriate for the area, what kind of density should be there, and what kind of contribution to improvements for Proctor Drive should be required of the developer. He explained the location to be about 175 feet east of the intersection of Creasy Springs and Proctor. Mr. Beckett contended that this type of zoning was proper and appropriate to the area. He noted the salvage yard to the east, which was a rather large piece of property, and stated that while he was sure it was a well run business, it did not do much for the aesthetics of the area and was not the kind of neighboring property one would want for a single family residential development. He also pointed out the rock quarry off of Creasy Springs to the west. He noted there was an R-1 subdivision south of Proctor Drive, but felt Proctor Drive formed a natural barrier. He noted that none of the residents in Parkade North accessed onto Proctor Drive and that the traffic on Proctor Drive would not affect the residents of Parkade North in the slightest. Mr. Beckett felt the very few units they would put on the property would not overwhelm Creasy Springs Road. The street was 22 feet wide with ditches on both sides. He did not feel 18 to 20 units would have any significant impact on traffic on Proctor Drive. The school, he noted, was about a mile off to the east down Proctor Drive and most of the residents would be exiting on to Creasy Springs Road. While they already reduced their request to PUD-9, they wanted to be flexible and to try to accommodate all interests involved. Mr. Beckett stated they would be willing to reduce their request to a PUD-8, if the Council wished to approve it at that density. In regards to providing a contribution to the improvement of Proctor Drive, Mr. Beckett indicated that Staff recommended that Mr. Samuel pay for completely rebuilding Proctor Drive from Creasy Springs all the way to the eastern boundary of his two acre tract of ground. Their justification was that they could not assess people in Parkade North because a new Proctor Drive would not benefit them. Although that was probably true, Mr. Beckett noted that meant that Mr. Samuel would be paying for past mistakes. He did not believe that to be fair. Mr. Beckett stated that Mr. Samuel was willing to pay his share of the cost to upgrade Proctor Drive, whether it be done by special assessment when built or by requiring him to make a contribution to the City as part of the PUD approval, similar to what other developers have had to do. According to the Engineering Staff, he understood that figure to be about $25.47 per foot along the front of the property. Mr. Beckett stated there was 208 feet of frontage on Proctor Drive and added that he did not feel they should be burdened with the entire cost of it.
Mr. Ash stated that because of the size of the property, he did not see an issue with the property being PUD-9, 8 or 7. He felt the problem of going with a higher density in this location was due to the domino effect and the possibility of setting a precedent regarding the property to the north. Mr. Beckett explained that his family owned an interest in the property lying to the north of the subject tract and that when the Master Plan was adopted, he told the Council that he did not think that piece of property was R-1 property and felt it should be multi-family. He also did not think PUD-8 was reasonable for the 50 acres to the north because it was too dense, but pointed out that there was a natural barrier to the north of this property because his family gave the City ten acres along Bear Creek for a trail. He absolutely thought the property should be multi-family and stated there would be a request for that in the future. Mr. Ash still felt it would create a hardship for future Councils.
Mr. Ash noted that they were being asked to pay more because of the depth of the lot and because they were close to the intersection. Mr. Beckett stated those arguments were never made when the other developers were asked to pay $25.47. He noted that Vintage Falls went substantially back from Silvey, further than this property went. He felt it would set a bad precedent, telling people they should never develop a piece of ground a bit down an unimproved road, because they might have to build everything out to the intersection. He felt it was not fair nor would it set a good precedent.
Shahnawaz Khan, 907 Thames Court, explained that his yard backed up to Proctor Drive and said they were immediately affected by this proposal. He was concerned about it affecting their peace and quiet. Mr. Khan also was concerned that part of his back yard would be taken away for improvements to Proctor Drive. Other concerns he stated were increased traffic and property depreciation. Mr. Khan asked that the area remain single family.
Brian Lee, 316 Proctor Drive, commented that the traffic was already bad without adding more apartments. He added that there were 26 houses on Proctor Drive and every one of the residents was against this rezoning.
Alexi Pearson, 905 Thames Court, explained that the apartment complex would basically be across the street from their back yard. While the salvage yard was not something someone would normally want to live next to, she said it had not been an issue. Clearly, the entire area across the street and nearby was single family residential homes that were selling. She was not sure why the applicant thought it would not market well. She noted that Proctor Park was just down the street and that many people walked, biked, and walked their dogs on the street, which had no sidewalk. She added that there was no shoulder and when they moved into their home people were using their back yard to turn around when there was a lot of construction going on. She was afraid that could happen again. Ms. Pearson noted the amount of rental property up and down Creasy Springs and stated that their home was burglarized last September. She did not want to feel any less safer in her home than she already did by having more strangers living across the street that may transition in and out every year.
Katherine Ward, 606 Proctor Drive, resided across from the salvage yard. She explained that she had 5 ½ acres and raised horses on her property that was grandfathered in. She passed around pictures of Proctor Drive showing that it was a very hilly, narrow country road without shoulders. She said Mr. Hendren was a hard working man and did a lot of recycling for the City of Columbia. She noted that new homes had been built next to her property with Norwalk Drive ending at her property. The houses were selling and she did not buy the argument about R-1 not selling across from the salvage yard because there were houses there currently. She was also concerned about her property values. Ms. Ward pointed out that Proctor Drive had a lot of flooding as a consequence of the new construction as well as a lot of traffic. She said those people take Proctor Drive, not Creasy Springs. She was concerned about the kids living in the proposed complex because they would have to walk to school since they lived too close for bus service. She felt kids should not be on that road.
Gene Basinger, 19335 S. Route A, Hartsburg, spoke on behalf of his mother-in law, Ruth Elkin, a resident of 339 Proctor. Mrs. Elkin resides in the second house from the Park on the east side, on the improved portion of the road. He noted approximately 40 acres of undeveloped land in the area which would be developed some day. He did not see this development as a problem, but did see future development in the area as a problem. He felt that would add a tremendous amount of traffic on to the road.
Fred Gelmann, 900 Thames Court, said he knew the open field across from his house would some day develop, but he did not want to see an apartment complex. He noted that he already had water in his back yard when it rained and asked what would happen if apartments went in along with their parking lot. Mr. Gelmann noted that at least 10 children lived on Creasy Springs between Proctor and the roundabout and stated he has had to slam on his brakes on more than one occasion to keep from hitting one of them. Although the posted speed limit was 30, the average speed was about 40. He was concerned about what would happen when increasing the traffic flow by 20 to 30 cars.
Mr. Ash pointed out that if everything in this area were to develop as R-1, nothing would be improved. One way to get things improved was to get PUD developments because there would be things like stormwater control and road improvements.
Jim Corrigan, 2311 Winchester, spoke against the rezoning request and gave population density statistics. He noted a correlation between the crime index and density. Mr. Corrigan did not think the salvage yard should be considered a reason to change zoning in the area. He noted they had also learned to live with the quarry and the trucks.
Rachel Winiger, 2609 Creasy Springs, stated that she and her husband have lived in their home for 34 years and have watched plenty of single family homes built and lived in nearby. She said the quarry and the salvage yard had not kept people from moving to the area. She and her husband were opposed to the density.
Billy Hendren, 605 N. Proctor, explained that when he sold the property he understood they were going to put two houses on it. With this proposal he was concerned about the added traffic. He noted that his family owned a lot of property in the area and he was also concerned about large tax bills for any improvements made to Proctor Drive.
Jay Gebhardt, a civil engineer with A Civil Group, explained the plan saying he thought there was quite a bit of confusion. He described the property as a long, narrow piece of property zoned R-1 and what he considered to be infill development. To try to develop the property as a conventional R-1 with a street, he said, would be very difficult because it was not wide enough. His plan showed 20 single family attached units. He stated this was not apartments, but condominiums. He stressed the units would be for sale and would provide affordable housing. He felt this was a good location for the higher density units such as this. He said it was very close to Creasy Springs and not in the middle of the road where the people would be affecting traffic. He pointed out they were talking about 16 two bedroom units geared to young people who would not generate the typical 10 car trips per day you would see with a single family household. He agreed that Proctor Drive needed to have some work done on it and added that Mr. Samuel was willing to do his fair share, but not more than that. He noted that Mr. Samuel had agreed to a five foot sidewalk on Proctor Drive and would extend it in the right-of-way all the way up to Creasy Springs in addition to his fair share of the street.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Janku agreed that adjoining properties had been able to develop as R-1 and he thought it could continue in that manner. They were moderately priced homes and the type of homes we wanted built in our community. He agreed this would set a precedent and would block out the type of affordable housing we wanted. He said there were appropriate places for dense zoning, but felt that was where infrastructure was already in place or would be in place. He added that Mr. Patterson had given him a report today about the expected cost of upgrading the street and he thought if this were to be approved, we would see immediate development there that would move the street up on the priority list. Even if the developer made a reasonable contribution of $25,000 and the abutting neighbors paid a significant amount also, there would still be a significant six figure gap between what we would receive from those payments and what the City would have to fund. He thought they should allow the continued residential development that was occurring on the R-1 property to the south to extend across Proctor Drive. He felt it would continue gradually as it had in Parkade North over the last ten years.
Mr. Loveless agreed with Mr. Janku in that the area would develop in R-1. He saw no reason to put in an intense development at this location. He thought it would be out of character and badly placed.
Mr. Ash did not think this was infill development and felt they could not have it both ways by asking for a higher density, but being resistive to road improvements.
B146-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: NO ONE. VOTING NO: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. Bill defeated.
B147-04 Rezoning property located on the northeast side of Bear Creek and at the west terminus of Big Bear Boulevard from R-1 to A-1 and M-R.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Bondra stated that this came to the Council with an unanimous recommendation for approval from the Commission. He explained that tract A was property containing the Bear Creek Trail and the property owner was requesting to rezone it from R-1 to A-1 so he would not have to mow it. He thought that made sense since it was a greenbelt trail area. Tract B was requested for M-R with the proposed uses being all M-C uses with a few exceptions. Originally, it came in as a request for M-1 zoning, but the property owner amended it at the request of the Staff. He noted that the applicant had worked with the neighbors and had been very cooperative.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Tom Bass, 909 Westover, explained he was one of the owners of the property under consideration. Since he started this process, he had met with the neighborhood association and followed up with a personal letter as well as a personal phone call. He felt he had alleviated most of their concerns. The reason the property had never been developed was because Providence Road had never been extended. The approximate cost of the part of the road abutting Providence Road was about $250,000 and he felt it was not feasible to have a cost like that up front before the property was developed. He heard that the City might have a bond issue in the near future for street improvements which might include the extension of Providence Road. He did not think this was the place for industrial and envisioned an office retail warehousing type of operation. The perfect type of user might be Phillips Electric or Ribacks and a perfect example of what he envisioned was something like Blueridge Industrial out by Civic Recycling, which was developed by Tom McNab and Randy Coil. He passed out pictures of the development. He read the purpose of the M-R district and stated he thought this would be a good fit for the property and would blend in well with the M-1 property to the east and the property to the west. He pointed out that there would be quite a bit of buffer between the residential property to the west and the property here, which was potentially developable.
Mr. Ash asked Mr. Bass if he was saying he would like the higher density, but had no intention of doing anything on Providence Road until the City paid for it. Mr. Bass explained there were only about six potentially developable acres. He noted 10 acres were included in the zoning request, but a part of that was actually in the floodway, which could not be develop. He stated some storage could be done, but that he was not sure he could do that under this proposal because of all the various landscaping requirements that might not be allowed in the floodway. He also stated that the reason the road had not been extended was because an expensive bridge would need to be built. He expected to be tax billed for his share when the road went through. Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Janku noted that Mr. Bass had done a good job of meeting with the neighbors and refining and scaling back the uses to meet their concerns. As he indicated, this zoning was intended and designed to be compatible with nearby residential zoning.
Mayor Hindman asked if plans would have to be submitted. Mr. Bondra said they would. Mayor Hindman asked if off-site improvements could be sought at that time. Mr. Bondra said that had been done to some extent in planned districts. He said he would have to show the right-of-way on his plan, across his frontage, or the half width right-of-way for Providence. The off-site improvement, he guessed, would be negotiable, but that there was no hard and fast rule.
B147-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B148-04 Rezoning property located on the east side of North Providence Road, between Dysart Avenue and Pecan Street from R-3 to C-P; approving the Kilgore's Pharmacy C-P Development Plan.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this would allow for a two story pharmacy building with an office. The Commission recommended approval subject to access on Providence being restricted to a right in, right out, and a left turn in off of Providence Road.
Mr. Bondra noted the applicant was not in agreement with the turning restriction. They wanted the full turning movement of right in right out and left in left out. He said the ordinance was prepared with the restriction. He also noted the original proposal was for the entire shaded area, but it was scaled back to include just the pharmacy proposal.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Bob Kilgore, 2509 Lacewood, owner of Kilgore's Medical Pharmacy, said his business had grown to the point they needed to do something. They only have six parking spaces in front of the store right now and that did not serve the patients well enough. He pointed out that people parked at Burger King from time to time because of the lack of spaces in front of his store. In addition, he stated he did not have a drive-through at this location and because they served a lot of people in wheelchairs who wanted a drive-through, he wanted to put one in. At the current location, there was no more room for parking and they could not get a drive-through. Mr. Kilgore indicated he wanted to stay in this neighborhood and if this did not work out, he would stay where he was or try something else. He explained that they met with the neighborhood associations in the area and received their input on what they wanted and did not want on the property. The list of uses was included with the request. Neither the City nor MoDOT was not comfortable with a driveway on to Providence. He met with MoDOT and the neighborhood associations and they came up with a centralized driveway concept for the whole block by giving their rights to MoDOT for other driveways. MoDOT supported the idea and said they would give them a regular driveway that would service, not only this development, but other developments because they understood that some day something would go north of this. The neighbors to the north agreed with that, but agreed to a full access driveway. He said the driveway was actually on part of the neighbors property, and he had an easement for it. At the very end, he noted, they would not provide a full access driveway and that was the other issue.
Mr. Ash felt the no left turn out restriction was a fair compromise. Mr. Kilgore stated he was concerned about his older patients and wanted a place where they would have good visibility without a lot of traffic. If they turned onto Dysart, they would not be able to see because there was a big house at that location. Also, he indicated he would lose the support of the people to the north because they wanted the full access driveway.
Mr. Janku asked how many driveway accesses had been given up by Mr. Kilgore and the neighbors. Mr. Gebhardt explained there were four platted lots he believed to be zoned R-3 and thought there was close to 30 units that could be built on four separate driveways on to Providence. That was where they started with MoDOT and then realized one driveway in the middle of the block would be better than four. He reiterated that this was originally one request for the whole block. An agreement could not be reached between a company called Sugar Bowl LLC and the neighbors on the uses, so the company graciously bowed out of the rezoning request in order to allow Mr. Kilgore to continue on. He explained that they could not get access without the agreement with MoDOT and the property owners to the north. If a restricted drive was required, they could not get the agreement and would not be able to have a Kilgore's at that location. Mr. Ash envisioned the other owners filtering out the side just like they would from Kilgore's. Mr. Kilgore said that could happen, but he did not think they wanted to go that far. Mr. Ash asked why, if this was such a deal killer, this was not explained at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Gephardt replied that the Commission brought up this recommendation after the public hearing was closed, so they could not provide a rebuttal.
John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, spoke on behalf of North Central Neighborhood Association. He commented that Mr. Kilgore had asked them to tell him what restrictions on uses they could live with. He noted the access issues were discussed at some length and they had been okay with it because of the extremely limited kind of uses. They made sure it did not allow for fast food restaurants and other traffic generators. They were hopeful the access issue could be worked out and that something could also be done about making Providence safer to cross somewhere between Worley and the Business Loop.
Linda Rootes, 811 N. Eighth, Secretary of the North Central Neighborhood Association talked about the Metro 2020 Plan. She stated that the center of their neighborhood was Columbia College and Jefferson Junior High. The corner of the neighborhood where Providence Road crossed the neighborhood might be an appropriate place for a neighborhood market place, but Hickman High School occupied 20 acres there. They had to look for alternative places to site some of the services a good neighborhood would need if it was going to flourish as a walkable neighborhood. They felt having the Kilgore's Pharmacy at this location to be appropriate even though historically they had thought about having offices along Providence Road. She asked the Council to support the application.
Rebecca Schedler, 120 Benton, spoke in support of the request. She said they met with Mr. Kilgore and all of their concerns had been met. She agreed that the next problem would be getting people across Providence all in one piece.
Pat Kelly, 1007 Grand Avenue, a member of the Ridgeway Neighborhood Association, explained they had done a survey last year asking people what they liked about their neighborhood. One of the things people cited was having a pharmacy within walking distance. Last week her neighborhood association voted unanimously to support Bob Kilgore's rezoning request. She said they liked Bob Kilgore and noted that his business had always been supportive of their neighborhood association.
Vernon Forbes, 1007 Grand Avenue, stated this business was a lot like a nexus, a place to go frequently where neighbors could meet each other. It was actually a vibrant living part of their neighborhood. He encouraged the Council to support the request.
Kevin Brown, 5033 Wilson Turner, a wheelchair user, asked the Council to support the idea of a drive-through. He said for some people it was not a convenience, but a necessity.
Ray Warren, 208 Sexton Road, spoke on behalf of the Douglass Neighborhood Association and in favor of the request. He said Mr. Kilgore had served his community well and asked that he be allowed to continue. He noted there were presently traffic issues on the Business Loop that the Kilgore customers were having to deal with.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Ash asked if it turned out to be a problem in the future, if MoDOT could make some turn restrictions. Mr. Bondra said MoDOT could put some type of median there if this became a problem. They stated as much at an earlier meeting.
Ms. Crayton spoke in support of Mr. Kilgore and his request. She thanked him for choosing to remain in the area.
Mr. Janku saw the rezoning as a positive thing and thought it would be exciting to see this kind of redevelopment occur. He thought it was appropriate commercial development for the neighborhood as well as for the Providence corridor.
Mr. Loveless made the motion that B148-04 be amended by striking the last sentence in Section 3. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Ash suggested in the future, if this propagated, they try to funnel pedestrians and cars, on their way out, to the side roads.
B148-04, as amended, was given third
reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS,
JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted,
reading as follows:
B157-04 Authorizing construction of water main serving Dakota Ridge, Plat 1; providing for payment of differential costs.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck described the project as 1,045 feet of eight inch water main needed to serve the area. The differential would be paid by the Water and Light Department.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B157-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B149-04 Approving the Final Plat of Arcadia Plat 8.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained this plat would create three C-3 zoned lots. The 22 acre tract was located in northeast Columbia. Approval was recommended by both Staff and the Commission.
Mr. Hutton made the motion that B149-04 be amended per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.
B149-04, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B150-04 Approving the Final Plat of Pratt's Subdivision - Plat 4, a Replat of part of Lot 6 of Pratt's Addition.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this proposal was before the Council earlier with a 25 foot setback and this moved it to 48 feet. It would create an R-3 lot.
Dan Simon, an attorney with offices at 203 Executive Building, appeared on behalf of the applicant and offered to answer any questions. The ordinance in question, he said, was very unclear. They believed it had to be strictly construed against the City and would allow the property owner, in this case, to use a 25 foot setback, but the property owner had elected, as a matter of compromise, to put the setback at the front of the existing building. He remarked that the building had been there for 80 years. If the setback had to be setback to the median, 70 feet, the building would be automatically rendered a non-conforming building, which would mean they could not get building permits on it in order to rehab it or do anything else. Mr. Simon felt that was self-defeating the purpose to make substantial improvements to the building. The only people who could legitimately complain about this, he thought, would be people on the other side of the street.
Mr. Ash thought when it was before the Council previously, they had come to a good solution, but it was pulled at the last minute. Mr. Simon said that was not his opinion, but an opinion ventured by others. He said there were a number of people there saying they were going to oppose it. Since then, they have studied it and talked with members of the Staff about it, and now feel it is appropriate at this time.
Clyde Wilson, 1719 University, a member of the East Campus Executive Committee, stated they did not oppose this proposal.
B150-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B151-04 Authorizing an annexation agreement with Breakthrough Construction, Inc.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained this request to be in accordance with the provisions of Council policy to areas outside the City limits. The agreement would allow the property owner to withdraw the request for annexation, if R-3 zoning was not granted. It also obligated the City to provide sewer service to the property even if the property was not annexed into the City. The agreement also set forth certain conditions which had to be met by the property owner in order to connect to the City's sewer system. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny approval of the proposed annexation agreement and extension of a City sanitary sewer line to serve the subject property. During the discussion Commissioners expressed concern about the traffic impact 83 dwelling units would have on unimproved Bethel Church Road and the incompatibility of a high density apartment complex with surrounding low density one and two-family dwelling units.
Mr. Ash asked about surrounding zoning and maps. Mr. Bondra explained the property was zoned RM and believed most of the immediate surrounding property to be zoned the same, which he noted, was the same as our R-3. Mayor Hindman asked about getting maps of the County like they received for surrounding areas in the City. Mr. Bondra explained the County maps were difficult to interpret, but said they would try to put something together in the future.
Nancy Gore, 254 W. Old Plank Road, explained that this property touched the back of her property. She appreciated the research and recommendation on behalf of the Commission and asked the Council to follow it. She explained that Old Plank was 19 feet wide and the entire Norvel Subdivision used it, as did The Highlands. She was concerned about traffic issues at the four-way stop. She said they all understood the density of 83 units on five acres. Ms. Gore stated the applicant told her that they would put a road through and shortly after that she received a letter about her lagoon overflowing. She showed the Council the letter.
Dan Simon, an attorney with offices at 203 Executive Building, spoke on behalf of Breakthrough Construction, a party to the proposed annexation agreement. If the agreement was rejected by Council, he thought they would be establishing a terrible precedent. He said they had entered into an agreement with Boone County Regional Sewer District, which, in effect, made the City the sole effective sewer provider for the area. While the Sewer District had a line running through the area to conserve it, the City had an agreement that stated, in this specific area, the only entity that could provide sewer services was the City of Columbia. Before a property owner in the County, as Breakthrough was, could connect to a sewer line in the area, be it a District line or a City line, they would have to receive City permission. In exchange for that, the City indicated they would have to have an annexation agreement. When the City has agreed to these pre-annexation agreements for areas outside the City, what it has done is said you have to build your streets, buildings, sewer lines, and water lines in accordance with City standards. All City development standards must be abided by, but to date he did not recall the Council dealing with the issue of zoning. Mr. Simon pointed out that what was proposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission was that the property owner in the County be denied that ability to use his property for a lawful, totally conforming use in the County unless he submitted to the more restrictive requirements of the City's PUD ordinance. He stated they would not be eligible to be annexed into the City and asked if they were to have to submit a PUD plan, to whom would they submit it. He said the City had no zoning jurisdiction over the property. Mr. Simon felt to turn this down would totally discourage people from entering into pre-annexation agreements and likely from seeking voluntary annexation. He noted the traffic issue had been brought up before and that the owner had a traffic survey done by Allstate Consultants. He passed out copies of the survey, which showed, even with the development, no adverse effect on the intersection in question (Old Plank and Bethel Church). The level of service was and would remain good. He pointed out that they were not here to talk about zoning, but about the pre-annexation agreement. He respectfully asked the Council for their approval of the agreement.
Kurt Albert, 318 Old Plank Road, passed out pictures of what the three story buildings would look like. He noted that the surrounding properties were never informed about this. He agreed with the Planning and Zoning Commission in their recommendation to oppose the annexation. Mr. Albert owned a single family house adjoining this property on two acres. He found the density to be shocking and said their quality of life would be damaged as would their property values. By turning down this request, he felt, it would allow the project to be reworked and come back as a PUD. He reminded everyone that this property would be annexed into the City soon.
Patrice Albert, 2000 W. Gleason Road, said she was hoping to move into 318 Old Plank with her husband who was remodeling the house. Not only was she concerned about the density, but also about the quality of the structures and the tenants they would attract. She asked the Council to respect the decision of the Commission and deny the annexation pending a PUD development more in keeping with the ambiance of the neighborhood.
Jeff Geyer, 8501 E. Highway HH, spoke on behalf of his mother-in-law, Nancy Gore. He said he had not had long to review what was being proposed because they did not receive notice of what was going on. He said they wanted to ensure this plan was something that would be suitable for the neighborhood. He asked that they be given more time for preparation.
Brian Harrington, Allstate Consultants, explained that they were not asking for different zoning, but for equivalent zoning by means of this agreement. The only thing the agreement did was to allow them to get sanitary sewer service. The County concern, when the project was started, was the intersection of Old Plank and Bethel Church. He said they counted it and found the level of service to be high and stated it would remain that way. While greenspace was not the issue tonight, he noted the tract would have approximately 30% in greenspace.
Mr. John gave the history of pre-annexation agreements and saw the issue here as almost a timing issue. He asked if we had ever refused to sign a pre-annexation agreement to provide sewer service because we did not want to grant the equivalent to the current zoning. Mr. Janku could not remember that ever happening. Mr. John noted that even though the property was zoned RM in the County for a long time, much of the subdivision was built out with duplexes and single family homes. He personally found the density too high and said he still had questions in terms of access. He also stated he did not think the Council had much ground to stand on.
Mr. Ash thought it was only fair to request planned zoning if someone was up zoning. In this case, he said it was equivalent zoning. He agreed with Mr. John and said there was an upside because by signing this pre-annexation agreement they would have to build to City standards. He did not think it would be fair to hold them hostage for planned zoning because of a sewer issue. Mr. John pointed out that could cause problems when renegotiating territorial agreements.
Mr. Janku said the agreement we had with the Sewer District was not perfect, but it had worked pretty well. He felt some good things had been accomplished and thought it was dependent upon honoring the County zoning.
Mayor Hindman found it difficult to not talk about the access and the credibility with the neighborhood. He said they seemed to be fundamental questions. Mr. Ash reminded him that they were County questions and perhaps not even relevant to this issue. Mayor Hindman commented that if this property was in the City this conversation would be very different. Mr. John asked if it were R-3 and in the City, if it would even be discussed. Mr. Loveless reiterated the long standing policy of annexing property with equivalent zoning.
B151-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B156-04 Authorizing a Boone County Road Improvement/Repair Cooperative agreement for 2004 revenue sharing grant funds relating to the Chapel Hill Road extension project; appropriating funds.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained this cooperative agreement with respect to the Boone County revenue sharing grant would provide $292,500 toward the Chapel Hill Road extension project.
B156-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B159-04 Authorizing an agreement with Twin Corners, LLC for donation of property located in Eastport Gardens Subdivision for park purposes.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained an offer was received to donate three lots in Eastport Gardens for public park and open space uses. The Staff recommended acceptance of the donation.
Mr. John pointed out that two of the lots, 74 and 76, could be disposed of if maintenance became a problem and they were considered surplus.
B159-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.
B152-04 Authorizing a Right of Use Permit with Kliethermes Homes & Remodeling, Inc. to allow the installation of irrigation lines within Corona Road right-of-way.
B153-04 Authorizing a Right of Use Permit with Lakeshire, LLC to allow the installation of an irrigation system and lighting within Woods Crossing Drive right-of-way.
B154-04 Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to contract with J.C. Industries, Inc.; approving the Engineer's Final Report relating to the Defoe Drive Drainage Project.
B155-04 Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to contract with Sam Gaines Construction, Inc.; approving the Engineer's Final Report relating to the Vintage Drive Drainage Project.
B158-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.
B160-04 Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri Division of Highway Safety for a DWI Enforcement Grant; appropriating funds.
R93-04 Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property located on the south side of Old Plank Road, approximately 600 feet west of Bethel Church Road.
R94-04 Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property located on the south side of Rustic Road and at the north terminus of Warren Drive.
R95-04 Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property located on the west side of U.S. Highway 63, approximately 1,000 feet north of Brown School Road.
R96-04 Setting a public hearing: construction of Sewer District No. 154 (West Broadway, Glenwood Avenue, Westwood Avenue and Maupin Road).
R97-04 Setting a public hearing: construction of the Cow Branch Outfall Sewer Extension project.
R98-04 Setting a public hearing: street construction on Rowe Lane and sidewalk along Worley Street adjacent to the Sanford-Kimpton Health Facility.
R99-04 Setting a public hearing: construction of improvements to Stephens Lake Park.
R100-04 Setting a public hearing: construction of improvements to Indian Hills Park.
R101-04 Setting a public hearing: construction of water main serving Lake Shire Estates, Plat 1.
R102-04 Setting a public hearing: replacement of a maintenance building and the modification of coal bunkers at the City Power Plant.
R103-04 Authorizing various Adopt A Spot agreements.
B104-04 Authorizing the City to co-sponsor a grant application with Boone County for the development of two ballfields on jointly owned property adjacent to the Boone County Fairgrounds.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
R105-04 Authorizing expansion of the boundaries of the Neighborhood Response Team area.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck commented that they had talked about expanding the NRT area and that this would add two areas, "I" and "J". These two additions would extend the west NRT boundary from 10th/Rangeline to College Avenue. If approved, the change would go into effect this summer. He pointed out this would make the added areas eligible for additional assistance in terms of CDBG funded housing rehab loans and grants. The expansion would also make boundaries consistent with existing police beat boundaries.
The vote on R105-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
R106-04 Approving the Preliminary Plat of Cross Creek.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this plat would create 34 R-1 lots on an eleven acre tract. The property was located on the north side of Brown School Road, about one-quarter of a mile west of Route 763. The Commission recommended approval.
Jay Gebhardt, a civil engineer with A Civil Group, offered to answer any questions. He noted that the property had been recently annexed into the City.
The vote on R106-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
The following bills were introduced by the Mayor unless otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:
B161-04 Rezoning property located on the west side of Oakland Gravel Road, south of Edris Drive from R-1 to PUD-3; approving the Bear Creek PUD site plan; granting variances to the subdivision regulations.
B162-04 Rezoning property located on the south side of Vandiver Drive, west of U.S. Highway 63 from O-P to C-P; approving the MV Properties at Centerstate Crossings C-P development plan; granting a variance relating to parking.
B163-04 Approving the Hilton Garden Inn at Centerstate Crossings C-P development plan.
B164-04 Approving the Cross Creek PUD site plan.
B165-04 Approving the Final Plat of Bay Hills, Plat No. 1; authorizing a performance contract.
B166-04 Approving the Final Plat of Mill Creek Manor, Plat No. 1; authorizing a performance contract.
B167-04 Approving the Replat of portions of Lots 76, 77, 78, 115 and 116 of Columbia Old Town.
B168-04 Vacating street right-of-way for a portion of Old 63; accepting easements for utility purposes.
B169-04 Vacating street right-of-way in conjunction with the proposed Final Plat of Centerstate Plat 2.
B170-04 Approving the Final Plat of Centerstate Plat 2.
B171-04 Calling for bids for street construction on Rowe Lane and sidewalk along Worley Street adjacent to the Sanford-Kimpton Health Facility.
B172-04 Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to contract with N-J Wilson Contracting, Inc.; approving the Engineer's Final Report relating to the Bicknell-Walnut Storm Drainage Project.
B173-04 Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to contract with Emery Sapp & Sons, Inc.; approving the Engineer's Final Report relating to construction of the pedestrian bridge over I-70.
B174-04 Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to contract with Columbia Curb & Gutter Company; approving the Engineer's Final Report relating to construction of the Paris Road pedestrian bridge over Business Loop 70.
B175-04 Calling for bids for the F-1 Relief Sewer - Phase 1 (UMC South Campus Relief Sewer) and Maryland Avenue Drainage Project - Phase 1.
B176-04 Authorizing a grant of easement for the construction of the fire station at Columbia Regional Airport.
B177-04 Authorizing a Right of Use Permit with Lake of the Woods Transportation Development District to allow the installation of landscaping and an irrigation system within a portion of the Bull Run Drive and Port Way rights-of-way.
B178-04 Authorizing a road construction cost reimbursement agreement with THF Grindstone Plaza, L.L.C. relating to the Green Meadows Road extension project.
B179-04 Authorizing the transfer of property from the Sewer Utility to the Parks and Recreation Department; dedicating a sewer utility easement for the Upper Hinkson Outfall Relief Sewer along the east side of the Stephens Lake Park property.
B180-04 Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code as it relates to special pedestrian control signals.
B181-04 Authorizing construction of water main serving Lake Shire Estates, Plat 1; providing for payment of differential costs.
B182-04 Calling for bids for replacement of a maintenance building and the modification of coal bunkers at the City Power Plant.
B183-04 Authorizing an engineering services agreement with R.W. Beck, Inc. to review the Peabody Prairie States Energy Project.
B184-04 Authorizing an agreement with Wisconsin Electric Power Company for market rate electric power sales and the resale of transmission rights.
B185-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.
B186-04 Authorizing construction of improvements to Stephens Lake Park.
B187-04 Authorizing construction of improvements to Indian Hills Park; transferring funds.
B188-04 Amending Ordinance No. 017838 relating to the definition of family memberships at The ARC. (Introduced by Loveless)
B189-04 Appropriating funds to install fiber optic cable to Columbia Regional Airport.
B190-04 Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri Safety Center for the Missouri Police Chiefs Association Step Grant; appropriating funds.
B191-04 Authorizing an amendment to the Regional Public Health Emergency Planning and Preparedness contract with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services; appropriating funds.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Growth and Traffic Congestion in the Clark Lane Corridor.
Mr. Beck explained that the Commission was recommending that two actions occur. One was to accelerate the completion of street projects which would divert traffic from the Clark Lane corridor. The projects included extending Vandiver Drive from the 63 Highway Interchange east to Mexico Gravel Road and reconstructing and widening Mexico Gravel Road from the extension of Vandiver Drive to Ballenger Lane. The second was to designate Clark Lane and Ballenger Lane as a "Traffic Congestion Corridor." He thought this was to create a guide for developers when proposing new developments within the corridor, which would generate "X" number of peak hour trips and derive access from this area to make improvements, which would mitigate negative traffic impacts resulting from the development.
Mr. Janku suggested the whole concept of how to ask for and determine the amount of off-site improvements required was something a consultant could think about. He thought this was something that could be applied uniformly so they would not have to engage in negotiations at Council meetings. Mr. Beck said he would like to see a guideline on which properties would be included in the designated corridor. Mr. John agreed with Mr. Janku in that this should be part of what the consultant would be providing.
Mr. John asked if this "Traffic Congestion Corridor" was some sort of specific designation that provided something or if it was something they felt to be a good catch phrase. Mr. Beck said it did not sound very positive for someone trying to sell their house. Mr. Ash felt that people coming in should have to pay their part, but perhaps the existing neighbors should also be required to pitch in. He thought it leaned a little too much on the last guy coming in. Mr. Bondra thought this was a term the Commission came up with.
Mr. John made the motion that the concept be referred to the consultant as part of the study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(B) Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission Report: Revision to Potential Old 63/Broadway Intersection Improvements; Trail/Sewer Easements; Pedestrian Access Improvements at the New Health Department Site.
Mr. John stated he would like to see what they were talking about on US 63. Mr. Ash noted the revised design was not attached. Mr. Patterson explained that they had received a report from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission with some recommendations. He said they looked at those and sent a report to the Council about some of the questions they felt might be raised on it. They have met with the Commission and discussed some alternative crossing proposals. The Commission endorsed them and they were the ones Staff was proceeding with on the final plans.
Mr. Janku asked about the Health Facility. Mr. Patterson replied there would be a public hearing at the next meeting on the sidewalks along Worley Street and for the termination of Rowe Lane. Part of the recommendation was also to have pedestrian connectivity between Rowe Lane and Worley. It was Staff's suggestion that it be incorporated with the final parking lot plans. They would be implementing what could be done at this point with the Worley Street sidewalk work. With regard to the other item, sewer and trail easements, Mr. Patterson said they were following Council direction and they had the sewer project west of town for which the consultant was getting the easements prepared. They would have appraisals both with and without trail easements. Additionally, every sewer project that came up would be submitted to Parks and Recreation for their evaluation to determine the appropriateness of trail easements. If they were appropriate, they would incorporate them into the easements. Mr. Ash understood that everything being suggested were things we were already doing. Mr. Patterson replied that was correct.
(C) Growth Management Planning.
It was decided this issue would be taken up at a work session.
(D) Alley South of Broadway and West of Fifth Street.
Mr. Beck explained the report suggested that improvements be made to this partially vacated alley.
Mr. John made the motion that Staff be directed to proceed with the described improvements. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(E) Accepting Recommendations of the Convention and Visitors Bureau Master Plan Sub-Committee on Attraction Development.
Lorah Steiner pointed out that their primary conclusion was that Columbia was unique in that we had this very walkable attraction base that was either quasi-developed or developing in the downtown area. The feeling was the primary focus should be on developing a supporting attraction base and that any destination level attraction or major attraction was probably going to come from the private sector. She said the first thing that had to be done for a destination level attraction was to find out what would work well in the City of Columbia. Ms. Steiner felt the first thing that needed to be done was to have a public hearing on the Attraction Development Committee's recommendations.
Mr. Ash asked about the "up to 25%" and how much it would be. Ms. Steiner said there would be up to $45,000 to $50,000 for the total. Mr. Ash asked about the funds for this. Ms. Steiner explained that attraction development funds were separate and secured and that they could not be used for festivals and events. She further explained that the tourism development fund covered festivals, events, and attractions. Whatever was not allocated each year for festival and events, she stated, accrued to the attraction development fund.
Mr. Janku made the motion that a public hearing be scheduled. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(F) Status Report for College-Rogers Railroad Corridor Project.
Mr. Dasho stated they were proposing a two phase development from between Rogers to Fay and Fay to College with the first phase being Rogers to Fay Street. On that portion, he explained they would improve the drainage, allow for walkways, and provide some protection from the train tracks being used for pedestrian. The drawing showed a six foot fenced sidewalk from Rogers to Fay. He said they would come back to the Council with the final design. They expected to do this portion of the project this year. In FY 05, he explained they would do the Fay to College portion. The project was more involved as they would need to work out a traffic pattern with a one-way street going from College towards Fay to allow access for businesses that were currently using that corridor, which was not designed for cars, but was being used that way. The project was going to be set up to allow for some traffic flow through the area. The project did not include a crossing at Fay Street because Engineering prefered to eliminate crossings whenever possible. Additionally, they were asked to reduce the budget on the FY 05 project. By eliminating the crossing, they eliminated $47,000 from the budget.
Mayor Hindman understood there to be no sidewalks or pedestrian facility in the second phase. Mr. Dasho indicated there was not, other than along the one-way street. Mayor Hindman wanted to see a pedestrian pathway at the beginning of the trail. Mayor Hindman understood the resistance to rails with trails, but said he had visited a couple in other states and that there were lists of them all over the country. He said they worked and we should do it here. He noted that the Mayor of Centralia was very interested in developing a trail along the COLT line. Mayor Hindman stated it was a case of public right-of-way, which needed to be used in such a way as to serve the public to a maximum degree, not just as a railroad. In some instances, Mr. Dasho felt that could be done, but when the trail was close to the tracks, he felt it would be inviting safety problems. Mayor Hindman commented that they needed to talk about this further before proceeding with the second phase.
Mr. Janku asked Mr. Hutton if he was going to pursue the crossing. His sense was that there was pretty strong interest in having it. Mr. Hutton assumed they would see a plan before actually moving forward. He thought they could do phase 1 without the crossing by having it end on the south side of the Fay Street crossing, and make it a part of phase 2. He believed there should be a crossing. Mr. Dasho replied they would bring it back in that manner.
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:
Upon receiving the majority vote of the Council the following individuals were appointed to the Planning and Zoning Commission:
Meier, Jeffrey S., 3824 Woods Edge Road, Ward 5 - term to expire 5/31/09
Wheeler, Doug, 3516 Churchill Drive, Ward 6 - term to expire 5/31/09
Skala, Karl D., 5201 Gasconade Drive, Ward 3 - term to expire 5/31/05
COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC
Mayor Hindman reminded everyone about sending the amended sections of B92-04 to Planning. Mr. Ash listed them as connectivity, stream crossings, private streets, and cul-de-sacs and t-intersections. Mayor Hindman suggested they immediately begin looking at the intersection issue. He asked if they should send it to Planning and Zoning, and then, if they felt they needed consultant help, come back to the Council. Mr. Janku stated he would like the Staff report back on the intersection issue and how they feel the Council should proceed. Mayor Hindman replied he would be happy with that, he just wanted to see it started.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that the intersection issue be referred to Staff for their direction on how to proceed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman noted that they also needed to deal with how to get across Providence Road somewhere between Worley and the Business Loop. He thought it would be appropriate, at the new Kilgore's Pharmacy, to connect it with the Ridgeway neighborhood. Another suggestion was at Hickman High School.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that Staff be directed to report back on what could be done to get more pedestrian crossings on Providence Road between Worley and Business Loop 70. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless.
Mr. Janku brought up the pedestrian timers. He did not think they needed to be pedestrian activated, which he thought would alleviate MoDOT concerns about throwing the timing off. He stated he would like to see his thoughts conveyed to MoDOT.
Mr. Janku asked if his suggestion could be incorporated into the motion. Mayor Hindman agreed.
The motion made by Mayor Hindman, seconded by Mr. Loveless, amended by Mr. Janku, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Ash commented on the report from Public Works regarding mid-block crosswalks at neighborhood park T-intersections. He stated that when they discussed it during conversations about High Pointe, they knew it would not meet the minimums because the traffic count would not be high enough, and noted that they still asked that it be looked at due to it being an unusual circumstance. In the report, he noted a sentence that read when a crosswalk was not present there was a recognition by the pedestrian that they were doing something legal and allowable by ordinance, but inherently dangerous. As a parent of young children, he felt he could honestly say children did not think that much. He felt what they were talking about was not a lot of cars or a lot of kids, but about putting the two together, which was a bad combination. He brought up attractive nuisances, where we had built something that would attract kids. He thought we needed to do something to keep them safe. He saw a similar analogy with parks at T-intersections. If we did not put up signs, crosswalks, traffic calming devices, or something, we would be asking for trouble. If the policy needed to be changed, he stated he would like to have it looked at.
Mr. Ash made a motion that Staff be directed to re-examine the issue as a parent. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Ms. Crayton submitted a packet of grant information she received from Senator Bonds office. She was hopeful the information would be helpful for people needing assistance. Mayor Hindman thanked her for obtaining the information.
Mr. Janku had a newspaper article regarding mixed use development which he passed on to Staff and asked that they refer it to the Housing Task Force.
Mr. Janku asked the Water and Light Department to evaluate our demand side management program. He said it had been an excellent program in the past and obviously the figures were based on the fact there would be a cost saving that would tie into the cost of utilities. With utility costs going up, he thought we should be able to step up our demand side management programs. He asked that the tree program be included.
Mr. Janku made the motion that Staff report back on demand side management, including the tree program. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku noted that the Stephens Park sign on Old 63 needed to be changed. He suggested that all the destination signs be checked.
Karl Skala, 5201 Gasconade, thanked the Council for his reappointment to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mayor Hindman thanked him for his service.
The meeting adjourned at 1:10 a.m.
© 2016 City of Columbia