M I N U T E S

CITY COUNCIL MEETING - COLUMBIA, MISSOURI

MAY 17, 2004



INTRODUCTORY
The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, May 17, 2004, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN and CRAYTON 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 3, 2004, as well as the minutes of the Special Meeting of May 12, 2004, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Hutton and a second by Mr. Loveless.

APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Hindman noted that report D would be added under Reports and Petitions. Mr. Janku asked that B142-04 be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed under Old Business.

The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Ash and a second by Mr. Hutton.

SPECIAL ITEMS
None.

SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

B127-04 Voluntary annexation of property located on the east side of Creasy Springs Road, just north of the present city limits; establishing permanent R-1 zoning.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Dudark showed the 74 acre property on the overhead. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the R-1 request.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Chris Sander, Crockett Engineering, 2608 N. Stadium, offered to answer any questions.

Nancy Kivitt, 633 Pear Tree Circle, explained she was purchasing property at 715 West Prairie Lane. She requested the developers be required to leave enough trees, particularly evergreens, to provide a visual and sound barrier between the new development and the properties on the north side of West Prairie Lane. She explained that residents on West Prairie Lane could not plant trees at the edge of their yards because of the power lines.

Mr. Janku noted that a plat would be brought in at a later date. Mr. Dudark added that this was only a zoning request. Mr. Janku suggested that because the plans were still being developed, Ms. Kivitt make her remarks directly to the engineer to see if that issue could be worked out.

Mayor Hindman asked about land clearance rules. Mr. Patterson explained that a land disturbance permit could be issued at any time and a final plat could not be approved until a land disturbance permit was issued. He said the property owner could come in with a land disturbance application tomorrow and, if it met City requirements, they could proceed with site preparation - i.e. grading and whatever else was in accordance with their plan. Mayor Hindman asked about tree protection. Mr. Patterson replied they were required to preserve 25% of any identified climax forest on the property. He noted that evergreens were not considered climax forest trees.

Mr. John pointed out if this property was not annexed or rezoned, they could do the same thing in the county. He asked about the depth of the lots backing up to West Prairie Lane. Mr. Dudark did not recall, but noted that lots were typically 120 feet in single family subdivisions.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

B127-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B128-04 Voluntary annexation of property located on the north side of Brown School Road, approximately 2,000 feet west of Range Line Street (State Route 763); establishing permanent R-1 and PUD-7 zoning.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this 21 acre tract of ground was being presented in two tracts. Tract A contained approximately 10.3 acres and was being recommended for approval by Staff and the Commission as R-1. Tract B was 18.4 acres with a recommendation of PUD-7. He noted the plan had been amended per Commission recommendation for a 20 foot setback building line rather than the 18 foot setback originally requested.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Jay Gebhardt, A Civil Group, 1010 Fay Street, displayed the plan and noted that next door, the Forest Ridge Subdivision, was a PUD-7. He noted the covenants and statement of intent were basically a mirror image of what was proposed for Forest Ridge. Mayor Hindman asked if it would not work to have the fronts of the houses closer and the garages moved back. Mr. Gebhardt replied it was difficult to do a building line that was 15 feet for the house and 20 feet for the garage. They would have to draw a building line on the final plat and that would make it confusing. He noted that it could work on corner lots and that they did that in Westcliff, but it had wide lots with many side entrance garages. With these two-family units in 80 foot wide lots, it was very difficult to envision a plan having side entry garages. Mr. John felt the Mayor was looking for a logical way to simplify having two building lines on the plans or having one building line for the garage with the right for the house to encroach up to three feet. He reiterated the reason for having the garage set back was to avoid cars hanging over the sidewalks.

Mr. Janku noted this proposal included a small section of Providence Road. The statement of intent indicated they would be landscaping on both sides of Providence. Mr. Gebhardt replied there was a 20 foot strip similar to Forest Ridge and also some common areas. Mr. Janku pointed out there would be a gap where there would be a strip of right-of-way that would not be landscaped. He suggested that be addressed when the development agreement was worked out.

Mr. John asked about the exits from the subdivision. Until the connection to the south was built, he understood there to be one going to Providence Road and two out to the current subdivision. Mr. Gebhardt replied there would be two at Providence, one at Burning Bush, and one at Jasmine, which would go back to Burning Bush and out to 763.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

B128-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B129-04 Rezoning property located on the northwest corner of Stadium Boulevard (State Route 740) and Audubon Drive from R-1 PUD to C-P, O-P and PUD-4; approving the Stratford Chase C-P/O-P Development Plan and PUD-4 Site Plan; granting variances.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Dudark displayed the property on the overhead and pointed out the area currently zoned PUD and approved for a mixture of single family and attached townhouse type units of up to 84 dwelling units. Tract A was a request for C-P zoning. It would contain about three acres and they were asking to build 19,700 square feet of commercial floor space on the property. Tract B was 2.7 acres and an O-P request for professional offices. Tract C was a request for PUD-4 zoning with a combination of single family homes located along the north side and attached single family homes between the O-P tract and the single family tract. He displayed the development plan and explained there would be a driveway entrance off of Audubon coming into the C-P and O-P tracts. The driveway would be about 380 feet north of Stadium Boulevard. He noted that Audubon would be widened by the developer to create enough width for a left turn lane on Audubon southbound and on Audubon northbound to turn into the private drive. He pointed out the list of uses attached to the ordinance and noted they were primarily neighborhood oriented uses. In recommending approval of the C-P tract, the Commission had two conditions - there be no restaurant exceeding 2,500 square feet in size or having a drive thru window and there be no drug store or pharmacy exceeding 3,750 square feet. The applicants, at the hearing, agreed to theses changes. Mr. Dudark noted the line separating the O-P and C-P tracts and stated there would be a list of uses for the O-P tract as well. Between the O-P tract and the PUD tract, he pointed out a common area, a drainageway, and two stormwater detention ponds. He explained that Falcon Drive was intended to be extended, but noted the neighborhood did not want that done. There was concern it would lead to cut-through traffic. The current proposal would not extend Falcon Drive, but there would be a pedestrian way through the right-of-way connecting the existing subdivision to the single family development and out to Audubon Drive. Mr. Dudark noted three variance requests. One had to do with the cul-de-sac length being 1,100 feet. He noted that would not have been necessary had Falcon Drive been extended. Another variance was on the loop street. Because of topography, he explained, they would have to pull the homes up out of the drainageway in order to create this area for stormwater and a buffer. The radius would be 85 feet instead of the required 100 feet. The third request dealt with a sidewalk on Stadium itself. Mr. Dudark noted there were no sidewalks along Stadium in this particular area and there was only one sidewalk on Stadium, which was near the Columbia Mall. The recommendation was to grant the variance. He noted a paved shoulder on Stadium that could be used by pedestrians and bicyclists.

Mr. Hindman asked if the applicant would be required to put up funds, if the sidewalk waiver was granted. Mr. Dudark replied that there was no requirement to put up funds, if the Council granted the variance. Mr. John pointed out granting a variance now would not relieve those lots of their future obligation if the City should decide to have a sidewalk built at a later date.

Mr. Loveless noted a change from a 440 foot separation between the entrance to the commercial and O-P area back down to 380 feet because of topographic problems. He asked why the 440 foot standard had been chosen. Mr. Dudark explained it to be the recommendation from an expressway in the MoDOT Access Management guidelines. The 440 would be in an ideal situation. He explained there was a drainageway at the 440 line, so 380 was the best they could do.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Dan Simon, an attorney with offices at 203 Executive Building, spoke on behalf of the applicants, Rex and Patricia Waid. He noted that the Waid's had been involved in the ownership of this property since the early 1980's and were involved when the property was originally zoned PUD. He said the Waid's sought to adapt this piece of property to the definition of a neighborhood district. When they submitted their first rezoning request, there was a substantial amount of opposition, so the Waid's pulled their rezoning request, met with the neighborhood association, and asked that they appoint a committee. The neighborhood appointed a committee of five persons from geographically diverse areas of the neighborhood to meet and consult with them. The Waid's met with the committee on eight different occasions. Mr. Simon stated the committee endorsed the plan before the Council this evening. The plan was submitted to a general meeting of the neighborhood with the vote at that time being 12 for, 6 against, and 6 neutral. Although they did not have unanimous support of the neighborhood, he noted, there was support in the neighborhood and from the committee. He commented that they tried to take into account the location, near the urban highway, and wanted to provide some buffering for the nice houses that would be on the north part of the property. He went on to show the small neighborhood district with very restricted sized businesses, which, he said, were totally acceptable to the City. Over 50% of it was shown in open area. They buffered the C-P with an O-P, which had 51% open area and was buffered from some very nice two family attached houses in the area immediately to the north of it. He pointed out that they were not duplexes, but two-family attached houses identical to those approved by the Council in Country Club Villas, Sedona Villas, and the Villas at Vintage Falls developments. Lastly, he noted they would put single family houses along the north part of the property so that any single family homes to the north and west would back up to single family homes or open area. The C-P area left 74% in open area. Overall, he said, the open area was in excess of 70%. Mr. Simon stated that the plan had gone through a lot of work and changes at both the request of City Staff and the neighborhood committee, and pointed out it received an unanimous recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommendation by City Staff.

Mr. Janku asked if they had tried to avoid the length of the cul-de-sac or if any thought was given to alternatives. Mr. Simon replied that Mr. Shy would address that, but noted a topographic map of the site would show it virtually impossible to put two cul-de-sacs in.

Mr. Loveless said he had received a call this afternoon asking that he make sure the plan in front of the Council was the one the working group from the neighborhood had approved. The caller felt the acreages were different. Mr. Simon responded that there were some changes, but no substantive changes. There was increase in acreage in the C-P portion of the plan, but it was done at the suggestion of the City Arborist. The building square footages, parking lots, and so forth, he said, remained the same, but in order to provide for the additional protection of a climax forest in the open area, the C-P area was expanded in terms of acreage. With respect to the PUD portion, Mr. Simon said, a request was made that the right-of-way for the loop street be increased. When the right-of-way was increased, the mathematics used to compute the PUD, which required rounding up to the next highest number, changed it from a PUD-3 to a PUD-4. Mr. Simon noted the number of dwellings had not changed, nor had the locations or open space. The only change was to increase the street width on the circular street.

Robbie Price, an architect with Simon Oswald Associates, 700 Cherry Street, explained that he was part of the design team that worked with the Waid's in coming up with the plan before the Council. He pointed out a Planning and Zoning Commission concern was how the area would be lit at night as they wanted no light pollution for the existing neighborhood. He showed a graphic demonstrating the use of zero cut-off lenses on all of the parking lot lights. This meant there would be no spill light off of the property. Mr. Price felt the Waid's produced an economically viable, low impact, and contextually sensitive development for this neighborhood.

Ron Shy, 5600 S. Highway KK, Allstate Consultants, indicated he worked with the team in developing this project and explained the reason for the long cul-de-sac. When they did the traffic study and submitted it to the City for review, there was a real notion that there could or would be short cut-through traffic on Falcon Drive to get to Shepard Boulevard. With that in mind, Staff recommended that they should not make the connection into this subdivision. As far as the topography, with regard to a loop street, the crossing of the drainageway up onto the commercial area would mean a very significant, severe grade change. They did not want to mix the flavor of the development that way. He noted there would only be 50 units on the long cul-de-sac.

Mr. Shy pointed out that stormwater issues had been taken care of with a series of detention ponds that would not increase the peak flows for the required storms at the culvert going under Stadium Boulevard. In addition, they would have a water quality design feature in the courtyard of the C-P/O-P area. He noted that all of it sloped to the center of the courtyard. They would also build a system that would filter the flow before it entered the detention pond. Even though their traffic study did not indicate it was warranted, Mr. Shy said the owners felt the left turn lane they were going to create to go into the private drive of the C-P/O-P development was necessary.

Mr. Loveless asked about the pedestrian access from Meadowlark to Stratford Chase Parkway. Mr. Shy noted a sewer lines currently ran through the right-of-way. They were proposing to vacate the public right-of-way, leaving an easement for the sewer, and building a pedestrian walkway from Stratford Chase Parkway to Falcon Drive and Meadowlark.

Mayor Hindman voiced appreciation for the pedestrian route and the goal of having a neighborhood market concept. He was still concerned about the 1,100 foot cul-de-sac and noted the pedestrian/bicycle connection to Falcon Drive that went down to Stratford Chase. To get to the commercial area, he commented, one would have to go out to Audubon and then into the driveway. He wondered if there could be a pedestrian access off of Stratford Chase Circle or off the cul-de-sac. He noted the 2020 Plan pointed out direct pedestrian/bicycle access sites should be available for a neighborhood market. Mr. Shy replied they had thought about that during the process, but the only feasible place they could make a transition from one area to the other by way of a pedestrian way was through the area where the detention ponds were and from the loop street. He stated they might be able to do something when they begin the development, however, he pointed out, there would be sidewalks on both sides of Audubon leading to the commercial area when the project was complete. As far as the end of the cul-de-sac, the terrain was too severe to have a pedestrian walkway come up the hill. That would also require crossing a blue line stream. He did not think that would be a safe thing to do without a substantial bridge structure or something across it. He felt the walkway was something they could look at in the initial area he spoke about. Mayor Hindman said he would like to see the pedestrian connection.

Mr. Loveless suggested coming across the dam. Mr. Shy said that had been the area they were looking at initially. Mayor Hindman liked the idea and thought it would be a good step forward.

Rex Waid and his wife Patricia, 2304 Ridgefield Road, explained they were the owners/developers of Stratford Chase. Mr. Waid stated he and his wife wanted this project to be something they could be proud of for years to come. They would like it to be serviceable, aesthetically attractive, and an asset to both Columbia and the Shepard Neighborhood. Mr. Waid noted they had done their very best to work with the neighbors to arrive at a design they thought was best for the site.

Daniel Jordan, Chair of the Shepard Boulevard Neighborhood Association, noted that the first time the proposal was presented to them, it was unanimously rejected. The objective of the five person committee he appointed was to see if there were issues the developer could address. They consulted with the people who had the most at stake - those who live next to it - and those five people were all convinced. He learned earlier this evening that there had been a petition drive which had a number of signatures of people opposed to this development. He indicated he had not had time to digest the information, so he could not comment on it, but knew there were people present who could.

B. C. Jones, 1504 S. Azalea, commented that this proposal was incredibly unpopular in the Shepard Boulevard Neighborhood area. He said they had 142 signatures opposing it. The proposal was unpopular because it would tie up an intersection, which was their only south exit, create cut-through traffic, and would create late or all night hour bank ATM, restaurant, and possibly three additional businesses. He felt these to be unfortunate features of commercial strips. He asked if the Stratford Chase site was an appropriate place for a neighborhood market under the guidelines of Metro 2020, Section 48, pages 22 and 23. He believed the answer to be no. He noted it called for a cluster of neighborhoods far removed from major highways where arterial or through streets were available to carry traffic through that cluster to the neighborhoods to be served. He pointed out Stratford Chase did not have that configuration. He explained an expressway fed traffic onto a neighborhood collector street in this area.

Janet Wright, 1200 Danforth, a 35 year resident of the area, explained that her property had the most footage backing up to the Stratford Chase Development. She spoke in support of the project and stated she was also speaking for the neighbors that very grateful to have local owners and developers of the property. They felt very fortunate to have people who cared about the neighborhood, included them, and tried their best to answer any questions or criticisms. Mrs. Wright explained that she was one of the five members appointed to the committee. She noted they had been fortunate that this area had been left in its natural state for as long as it had and felt common sense would tell anyone this land was going to be developed. The quality and the density the Waid's wanted to put there, she said, would be an enhancement to their neighborhood and something Columbia could be proud of.

George Ruskell, 2323 Meadowlark, read a letter from his neighbors, Judy and John Morgan of 2305 Meadowlark. The letter voiced adamant opposition to the proposal of commercial uses at the corner of Stadium and Audubon. Their concern was safety and increased traffic.

Randy Weaver, 2604 Mallard, explained that his property was adjacent to the property in question and that his wife was the principal at Shepard Boulevard Elementary School. He said the development was of utmost concern for both of them, professionally and personally. Mr. Weaver who also served on the committee of five stated he was convinced the Waid's had bent over backwards trying to address the concerns of his neighborhood regarding traffic patterns, the types of businesses, lighting concerns, density of homes, and a variety of other issues. He voiced his support for the plan as proposed.

Mrs. Ralph Anderson, 2517 Shepard, asked that the residential priority be retained in their area. She was opposed to the commercial rezoning. She said an attractive apartment complex could be placed there with no more cars involved than a commercial enterprise. Commercial, she felt, would add more traffic than homes would. She asked that the plan include homes only.

Ken Pearson, 2408 Meadowlark, was mainly concerned about the office and commercial uses and the traffic it would create. He felt it would increase the traffic flow, congestion, and opportunities for accidents. Closing Falcon, he said, might solve the problem for those living on it, but it would not change the flow of those that would go out and get on Audubon to cut through.

Bernadine Ford, 1101 Bob-O-Link, shared the concerns of others regarding the increased flow of traffic on Audubon and the cut-through traffic. Mrs. Ford read a letter from Lori Rich, a resident living at 2516 Meadowlark at the southern corner of Meadowlark and Audubon. She explained she ran a home daycare and had a kindergartner who attended Shepard Boulevard School. Ms. Rich was very concerned about the traffic pattern on Audubon and increased traffic in the neighborhood, especially the increased speeds on Audubon. She asked that the Council give great consideration to the traffic flow when determining the entrances and exits of this new complex.

Erin Pearson, 2408 Meadowlark, expressed opposition to the rezoning because of increased traffic around the area. She was concerned about the children who played in the streets and the elderly who walked the streets. She read two letters, the first from Dr. Robert Blake and his wife, 2223 Meadowlark, who live less than one-half mile from the corner of Audubon and Stadium. They were strongly opposed to the rezoning of the site at their corner for commercial use. They urged the Council to reject the proposed rezoning of part of their neighborhood. The second letter was from Laura Noren, a Shepard Boulevard resident. Ms. Noren was concerned about traffic issues at Stadium and Audubon.

Mary Kinney, 1017 Bob-O-Link, agreed with her neighbors regarding the traffic congestion. She read a letter from Sharon Butcher, 2515 Meadowlark, expressing her concerns about the development of a 41,000 square foot commercial area. Ms. Butcher had a daycare business in her home and she noted that traffic was already heavy because of Shepard Elementary School. Ms. Butcher also noted an increase in traffic after the Hollywood Theater was built. She strongly objected to the development because of safety factors.

Diane Pearson, 2408 Meadowlark, spoke in opposition and explained she had circulated a petition last weekend against the proposal and had obtained 76 signatures.

She also had a letter from Dorinda Dureau, 1112 Danforth, expressing she was not against developing the property as residential, but was against the commercial, and was concerned about traffic.

Alisa Booth, 1113 Falcon, stated she was extremely opposed to the project at first, but now liked it, primarily due to the change for Falcon Drive. She explained she was a part of the committee of five and that during the planning process either their needs were addressed or a compromise was met. That was how they went through the eight meetings. Ms. Booth explained that any development was going to increase traffic and that was something they needed to face. An east turn lane and light were addressed with MoDOT and the last thing the committee heard was that they did not want to put in the turn light for the eastbound traffic because they felt it would back traffic up on Stadium where it was coming off of the 63 exit ramp. She said the Waid's, along with Ron Shy, met with MoDOT representatives and tried to get the issue addressed. They were very happy with the one entrance in and out because they felt it would make the residential area quieter and help maintain the integrity of the existing neighborhood as much as they possibly could. The one entrance and exit into the commercial, she felt to be a good thing and was hopeful that by having one entrance in and one exit out, it would help funnel as much of the traffic as possible back onto Stadium.

Linda Peterson, 2508 Meadowlark, explained that she and her husband were both supportive, given the fact that the Waid's had literally bent over backwards to please the neighborhood association. Because the property would be developed sooner or later, she suggested this proposal be accepted because it was something they felt the majority could live with.

Curtis Altis, 1505 Azalea, explained he would be looking out his front door at the commercial property if this plan was approved. He did not believe the plan was suitable for the neighborhood. He did not feel the neighborhood had been given ample opportunity to present their views. He noted plenty of options for commercial and office across the street. Regarding the higher density housing, Mr. Altis said it was presently R-1 PUD and higher density housing could not go in without Council approval. He flet the residents misunderstood that and were confused by statements made by the developer.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Janku asked about the potential density with the existing zoning of R-1 PUD, which was not the same as PUD-1. Mr. Dudark replied that although the R-1 PUD was obsolete and had been replaced, that zoning was in effect here and would allow up to 84 dwelling units on the 23 acres. That was equivalent to a PUD-4. There would have to be a final plan submitted, a layout of the project, but the zoning had been approved. Mr. Janku understood it could be a combination of single family and attached townhomes - - any mix, as long as it was limited to 84 units. Mr. Dudark replied that was correct.

Mr. Loveless asked how that density compared with R-1. Mr. Dudark explained that R-1 had no particular dwelling unit count. It allowed a minimum of 7,000 square foot lots. Typically, he said, it was difficult to get more than five units per acre once the streets were deleted from the land area. Mr. Loveless thought they would be talking about a density of dwelling units that was about the same as what was there already. Mr. Dudark replied he would say it was fairly close to the same.

Regarding the left turns onto Stadium and Audubon, Mr. Ash asked if it might be something that did not meet the criteria required by MoDOT pre-development, but would meet the criteria post-development. He asked how the process worked. Mr. Patterson replied that it would have to meet the warrants for the turning movements. The factor there, he said, would be the impact it would have on Stadium flow and the progression of traffic on Stadium. MoDOT would be requested to evaluate the traffic counts and turning movements and, if there seemed to be a significant change, they would consider allowing left turn movement. Mr. Ash asked if Stadium being so close would make it more of a tough sell. Mr. Patterson replied it would make it tougher because MoDOT was not completely receptive to having a traffic signal put at this location anyway. He said it took quite a bit of persuasion and the fact that people were willing to pay for it made it easier for them to allow it to be put in. He said they would have to evaluate the impact to the entire system.

Mr. Loveless asked about the Staff's determination that the C-P/O-P met the criteria in the Metro 2020 Plan to be considered a neighborhood market place. Mr. Dudark explained they looked at the criteria in the Metro 2020 Plan and then compared it with the proposal. Land area for a neighborhood marketplace, he stated, was between two and seven acres with this particular project being five acres. The range in the floor area in the 2020 Plan was 30,000 to 100,000 and for this plan the number was 40,000 square feet. The uses recommended in the 2020 Plan were a mix of office and retail. This plan had that recommended mix. The 2020 suggested there be a variety of housing styles, which was also included. The 2020 talked about open space being approximately 20% and this project would have between 50 and 70%. The one thing pointed out regarding the two arterial streets was also suggested in Metro 2020. Mr. Dudark explained that at this location there was an expressway and a neighborhood collector street, which was not technically the intersection of two arterial streets, but it was at the perimeter of the neighborhood. He thought that had been the intent of saying that it was recommended that it be at the intersection of two arterial streets. On balance, the plan substantially met all but the one of the recommendations, which he felt substantially met the spirit by having it at the perimeter.

Mr. Ash did not see where this would cause a large increase to the cut-through traffic. He agreed with Mr. Dudark in that he felt the plan met the spirit of the Metro 2020 Plan by being on the edge of the neighborhood. He did not think anyone would want commercial in the center of a neighborhood. He pointed out that on the other side of Stadium it was open zoning and thought the neighborhood should be pleased this would be planned zoning. Mr. Ash also pointed out that next year both of his children would be attending Shepard Elementary and that he was very interested in maintaining the safety of the area. He was also hopeful this would not be the type of thing that would somehow splinter the neighborhood.

Mr. Loveless asked how many residences were in the Shepard neighborhood. Mr. Ash said he thought there were probably 800 to 1,000 people. Mr. John thought there were probably 300 to 400 residences. Mr. Loveless complimented the design team on the lighting scheme, but stated he was concerned about the number of signs and asked the developer to consider the number as they worked through their development.

Mr. John noted that when the 2020 Plan was worked on, there had been comments about the need for pointing out the Plan was a guideline and not written in stone on each page rather than just the beginning. The design parameter, as Mr. Dudark pointed out, was for a neighborhood marketplace to be in the middle of several neighborhoods. Shepard would be considered a neighborhood or possibly two and East Pointe would be another. Mr. John said if there were more neighborhoods out there, it would be in the middle of multiple neighborhoods. The only increase in cut-through traffic he could see would be from people in the neighborhood going to the stores and then return home. It did not make sense to go from the corner of Stadium and Audubon to go through the neighborhood streets and come back out. Mr. John was sorry more people had not attended the neighborhood meetings because he thought more people would have gotten a better understanding of what was being planned. Mr. John asked if there could be apartment buildings if they were built as small condominiums. Mr. Dudark believed they could have condominiums, but stated they would have to be attached, single family style.

Mr. Hutton felt Mr. Dudark had very adequately explained the marketplace situation and how it closely matched the requirements. Referring to remarks made about cut-through traffic, he could not figure out why someone would turn on Shepard to Audubon to go to this development. Mr. Ash replied that he had heard that people wanting to go north on Old 63 were taking Audubon to Shepard to Old 63. If that was occurring now, Mr. Hutton felt it was a totally separate issue from this development. Although this proposal might not be perfect, Mr. Hutton felt it was a good compromise and much better than what could happen at this location.

Mr. Janku understood the concern about making a protected left turn, but pointed out that if Stadium traffic was backed up, more people would be trying to look for a cut-through in the neighborhood. He felt the development was to the scale they looked for in the Metro 2020 and that it would provide some service to the neighborhood without attracting too much traffic through the neighborhood to get to it.

Mayor Hindman understood this to be the final plan. Mr. Dudark replied that it was. Mayor Hindman noted that Audubon was a long, wide street and felt it undoubtedly had a lot of speeding on it. While driving through, he noted two cars parked on the entire length of Audubon. He also noted temporary traffic calming was being installed and remarked he did not think it was enough to get the job done. He thought they should be looking at significant traffic calming on Audubon to eliminate any temptation for cut-through traffic. He liked the idea of having some neighborhood commercial in residential areas as long as it was done right. He was worried about the pedestrian access from the neighborhood and said, if this was going to be a neighborhood marketplace, people should be able to have direct walking or bicycling access to it. He said he would like to see that added to the final plan. He asked how that could be done. Mr. Boeckmann replied it could be done as a condition, but thought the developer might want to address the question. Mayor Hindman understood the engineer to say it might be possible to go across the dam. Mr. Shy replied that after looking at the topographic map, they felt they could put a sidewalk between the office area and the loop street across the top of the east detention pond. Mayor Hindman asked if that could be written in as a condition. Mr. Shy replied it could. Mayor Hindman agreed with Mr. Loveless regarding the numbers of signs. Mr. Loveless said he would like to see the five foot signs shortened to three feet, particularly in the office area. He also saw no reason for the signs to be lit at night in the office area. Mayor Hindman agreed.

Mr. Janku asked why C-3 was chosen as a comparison as opposed to C-1. He noted C-1 was generally more of a neighborhood commercial. Although this was on Stadium, the commercial uses were not really intended to be what one would call a normal C-3 use. He thought the signage should match up. He asked about the C-1 parameters. Mr. Dudark replied that C-1 was not substantially different than C-3. He noted there was C-3 zoning across the street at the theater site and said that was why they used C-3.

Mr. Price explained they had a development sign on Stadium and Audubon, a two-sided, monument sign. He said they also felt there was a need for a monument sign for the entry to the C-P/C-P. The directional signs were for a right turn only out of one of the driveways and to point out additional parking down below. He felt a lot of the additional signs mentioned served the purpose of directing traffic around the site. The monument signs for the building themselves, he pointed out, were purely for identification purposes and would show building numbers and provide a list of tenants for each one of the buildings. Mr. Price explained they had met with someone from Protective Inspection to go over the sign ordinance and had been shown what would be allowed in this zoning as well as what would not. Since this was a PUD, they were told they could ask for whatever they felt would be appropriate. Mr. Price said they wanted to make sure the tenants who would occupy these buildings would be allowed a fair and average sign for each one. He remarked they were not sure how many tenants there would be in the C-P as there could be one large tenant or several smaller tenants. They also felt the commercial tenants in C-P would need to have an individual tenant sign and that was why the numbers seemed so high. He said the number was still within the limits for that zoning. Mayor Hindman asked about the five foot signs. Mr. Price said that was something that could be changed to three feet, but was something they felt would allow for better visibility for people driving through the development.

Mr. John asked how many flag poles they intended on having in the development, noting two in the O-P and two in the C-P. Mr. Price said they intended on only two flag poles. Mr. John felt there was some overlapping on the poles and signs. Regarding the flag poles, Mr. Shy pointed out, they were on the zoning line so they wanted them to be an allowed use either way. As far as whether the signs met the current ordinance in C-1 zoning, Mr. Shy said that was fine with them. If it would ease the situation by saying they would conform to current standards, he said, that would be fine with them. Mr. Loveless and Mayor Hindman accepted.

Mr. Ash reminded them these would be internal signs tucked within the development. He thought that was different than having a lot of signs on Stadium or Audubon. At this point there was a discussion as to how they would amend the bill to clarify the signage issue.

Mr. Loveless asked Mr. Waid if he understood their concerns. Mr. Waid replied he did and, in fact, shared some of the same concerns. He had told everyone he wanted no variances on signage and wanted to conform with regulations. Mr. Waid felt the sign ordinance was confusing and said they did not want too many signs or any really tall signs.

It was decided the amendment would be worked out during the break.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that Section 6 of the ordinance be amended by adding the following conditions: condition 2 - a pedestrian access way shall be constructed between the office area and the loop street across one of the dams of the detention ponds and condition 3 - the sign plan is amended as follows: (a) the freestanding sign at the corner of Audubon and Stadium shall be a single face sign, (b) the directional sign shall be no more than three (3) feet in height and (c) the freestanding building identification sign shall be no more than six feet in height. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ash and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B129-04, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B132-04 Approving the Northwest Storage M-R Development Plan; granting a variance to the Subdivision Regulations.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as a 6.2 acre tract being requested for expansion of an existing land use as a self-storage facility. They would be adding 120 units and14,350 square feet of warehouse/office space. They were also requesting a sidewalk variance along the unimproved I-70 Drive NW outer roadway. Both, Staff and the Commission, recommended approval of the request.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Chris Sander, an engineer with Crockett Engineering, 2608 N. Stadium, offered to answer any questions.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Loveless commented he was happy to see the billboard coming down.

Mayor Hindman asked about the reason for the variance request. Mr. Dudark explained the main reason to be the topography. He noted there was a bluff along I-70 Drive in this area. In addition, he pointed out there were no other sidewalks in the area. He also explained the use, being storage, would not produce any pedestrian traffic on its own. Almost all of the factors supported the variance. Mayor Hindman asked if the bluff made it prohibitively expensive. Mr. Dudark replied there would probably have to be a retaining wall built because of it. Mr. Loveless pointed out this was a section of road that would be rebuilt when I-70 was corrected through town. Mayor Hindman commented that might not happen for another 20 years. Mr. John suggested they begin with places where sidewalks could actually be built. He said this one would have to be built on the side of a cliff. Mayor Hindman accepted the argument regarding the topography issue. Mr. Hutton pointed out the City would still have the tax billing opportunity as the street was redeveloped. He stated he could not support putting in sidewalks in unimproved areas that would be improved at some point in the future causing them to be torn out and rebuilt.

B132-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B139-04 Authorizing construction of a water main serving Greystone Subdivision, Plat 1; providing for payment of differential costs.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained the City's policy was to pay for the extra diameter pipe when the City deemed it necessary over and above what the developer was required to put in. In this case a 12 inch line would be built instead of an 8 inch line and an 8 inch line instead of a 6 inch line. The project would be 890 feet in length along Shamrock (12 inch) and 1,170 feet in length along Sandrock Drive (8 inch). The total cost to the Water and Light Department was approximately $19,000.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

B139-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B140-04 Authorizing the upgrade of a water main along University Avenue, from College Avenue to Ninth Street.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as being in an older part of the City. The project consisted of 1,540 feet of old 4 inch water main made of cast iron that would be replaced with an 8 inch main. The estimated cost was $259,000 which would be paid from Water and Light funds.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Ash asked that they be provided the estimated cost again with the bid award.

Mr. Janku pointed out that a lot of money was being spent to rebuild existing infrastructure in the older parts of the City.

B140-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B141-04 Authorizing replacement of water main along Rollins Road, from Providence Road to Maryland Avenue.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as an older 4 inch cast iron pipe water line being replaced with an 8 inch PVC pipe. The length of the project would be 870 feet with an estimated cost of $110,000 to be paid from Water and Light funds.

Mayor Hindman assumed these pipes were being replaced because they were worn out. Mr. Beck explained the pipes eventually get rusty and start springing leaks. Another factor was their capacity. Mayor Hindman asked how long a cast iron pipe would typically last. Mr. Beck replied it would depend upon the acidity of the soil. PVC, in some areas, would last longer. Mr. Beck noted that a big part of our ballot issues for water and sewer were for replacement of the older lines. He commented that each ballot issue included them.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

B141-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

OLD BUSINESS

B130-04 Approving the Kochtanek PUD Site Plan; granting a variance to the Subdivision Regulations.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Dudark explained this to be a site plan approval for a PUD that was zoned by the Council a few months ago. The plan was for 14 two-unit buildings for a total of 28 dwelling units. He explained there would be a street coming off of Scott Boulevard into the area and a sidewalk along the north side of that street connecting the neighborhood to Weston Drive to the north, through an existing lot in the area. The variance requested was for the ability to have some parking in the 25 foot perimeter setback that was around the entire boundary of the PUD. Using the overhead, he showed the location of the additional guest parking. The house would be about 160 feet away. Staff's recommendation was to approve the variance to allow the parking to encroach into the perimeter setback.

Mr. Loveless inquired about the sidewalk width. Mr. Dudark replied it was four feet wide. Mr. Loveless thought everyone was in agreement that they wanted to see five foot sidewalks in neighborhoods.

Mr. Loveless made the motion that B130-04 be amended to include a five foot sidewalk. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku.

Jay Gebhardt, an engineer with A Civil Group, 1010 Fay Street, said the five foot sidewalk was fine with Mr. Kochtanek. He explained that the sidewalk would be on the north side as they did not feel it necessary to have a sidewalk on both sides. He pointed out an existing sidewalk on Scott Boulevard.

Mr. John understood the encroachment into the 25 foot setback and stated that if it were not for the fact that the shape of the lot was so odd, he probably would object to the variance request. He felt those people bought that specific lot to increase their buffer. Mr. Gebhardt replied that he knew he could not have parking or a driveway in the 25 feet and had a sharper kink in the driveway to stay out of the 25 foot buffer, but had to change that when Staff and the Fire Department decided they would rather have the encroachment for additional parking rather than the sharper kink. He felt they had more parking than needed because they had two car garages and parking up in front, but Staff felt there was not enough parking in the rear for guests. They saw this as a good compromise.

Mr. Boeckmann explained an amendment sheet had been prepared because the original bill referred to a variance in the subdivision ordinance, which he said was actually the zoning ordinance. He suggested they move the amendment sheet with the addition of Section 3 reading approval of the PUD Site Plan is subject to the condition that the sidewalk shall be five feet in width.

Mr. Loveless amended his motion per Mr. Boeckmann's suggestion. The amended motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B130-04, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B131-04 Approving the Oak Forest PUD Site Plan; granting variances.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Dudark displayed the site plan on the overhead and described the property as being east of South Providence Road and on the north side of the future Green Meadows Road. There would be a total of 246 dwelling units with 9 two-family structures on the west edge of the development, a new street going in off of Green Meadows in a northerly direction, and multi-family apartment buildings consisting of 228 units to the east. There were two variance requests. One had to do with the requirement for a temporary turnaround where a street stubbed into an adjacent property. Mr. Dudark explained the applicant was unable to get an easement for the turnaround from the adjacent landowner, even though this street would provide them access. Due to the topography, they were proposing the use of a driveway to a maintenance building. People going to this location would use that driveway rather than a residential driveway to make a turnaround. The other variance request was near the entrance where portions of the seven parking spaces went into the 25 foot perimeter setback. Other portions of the parking lot were well back of the 25 foot setback. The recommendation of the Commission was to approve the plan with the condition that there be a greenspace trail easement to the east of this development in the open space area for a potential connection to the north Seven Oaks development and the pedway along the north side of Green Meadows Road in the future.

Mr. Janku noted the word "encouraged" was used as opposed to actually dedicating the trail easement. Mr. Dudark explained that this particular trail was not on the master plan for the trail system. This was in anticipation of the possibility of a trail in the future. He stated they did not have a master plan to point to that would make it a requirement.

Jay Gebhardt, A Civil Group, 1010 Fay Street, explained that his client, Mike Kelly, had been working with the Parks and Recreation Department to try to determine a location for the trail. Mr. Kelly was 100% behind dedicating an easement for the trail. It was just a matter of working out a location so it was not in a topographically difficult or expensive place to build. He noted a power line on the east side of the property running up to the new Green Meadows right-of-way. Mr. Gebhardt stated it was a 30 foot wide power transmission line that was already cleared through the woods and ran all of the way to Seven Oaks. If nothing else, he said, they would dedicate it there. Mr. Gebhardt indicated that they would be happy to cooperate in regards to the trail.

Mr. Loveless asked if Mr. Kelly would be willing to build five foot sidewalks along Montclair. Mr. Gebhardt replied that he had already asked and his response was yes.

Mr. Loveless made the motion that B131-04 be amended to show the five foot sidewalk on the drawing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Janku made the motion that B131-04 be further amended by striking the language "encouraged" and adding the following language to Section 4 - adjacent to the power transmission lines or as agreed to by the Parks and Recreation Department. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B131-04, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B137-04 Authorizing a grant agreement with the Mid-Missouri Solid Waste Management District for purchase of a scrap metal baler for the Material Recovery Facility; appropriating funds.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck commented that this would be an excellent addition to the City's recycling program. The Public Works Department submitted an application to the Mid-Missouri Solid Waste Management District and received a $100,000 grant to go toward this $135,000 piece of equipment.

B137-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B142-04 Accepting conveyances for underground electric purposes.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Janku remarked that he had visited with Mr. Dasho during the break and had received an answer to his question. He wanted to know what all was involved and how it would affect the transmission lines on the west side of Stadium between Worley and I-70. Mr. Dasho explained this would not include those lines, nor would it negatively impact the possibility in the future.

B142-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CRAYTON, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B144-04 Authorizing a moratorium on the demolition of buildings in the Special Business District.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

While they continued to address the surface parking lot situation downtown, Mr. Beck explained, this would extend the moratorium another three months.

Mr. Ash commented that he liked the moratorium better than the proposed solution. He remarked that, basically, all it said was that it was a moratorium with exceptions. He explained there were four possible reasons and if someone could come convince the Council that it should be removed and replaced with something, it could be approved, even during the moratorium.

Mr. John commented that this still appeared to be a solution looking for a problem and said he would still vote against it.

B144-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: JOHN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B145-04 Accepting a donation from the Boone County Community Trust and a grant from the State Historic Preservation Office for renovation to the Blind Boone Home; appropriating funds.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this would authorize the acceptance of two $10,000 grants, one from the Boone County Community Trust, which required a match that would come from the State Historic Preservation Office. It would be used for renovation to the Blind Boone Home porch.

Mr Ash noted that there would be a fiscal impact. He asked if we would have to spend more than $20,000 to fix the porch. Mr. Watkins replied that they expected the construction cost to be about $20,000. He also explained that there was a little money left over from the last piece they were now finishing up and they could use it to pay for some additional architectural costs. He said there would be a change order to the architects contract.

B145-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

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

B133-04 Approving the Final Plat of Thornbrook, Plat No. 12: authorizing a performance contract.

B134-04 Approving the Final Plat of Hyde Park South; authorizing a performance contract.

B136-04 Approving the Final Plat of Russell Subdivision - Plat 4.

B138-04 Amending the agreement with Boone County Regional Sewer District relating to sewer services to the Waters Edge, Lakeland Acres, Lakewood Estates and Lakewood Villa developments.

B143-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

R82-04 Setting a public hearing: construction of a water main serving Dakota Ridge, Plat 1.

R83-04 Authorizing an agreement with the Curators of the University of Missouri relating to the Senior Games and Show-Me State Games.

R85-04 Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for core public health functions.

R86-04 Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for worksite wellness programs.

R87-04 Authorizing a pole attachment agreement with Boone Hospital Center.

R88-04 Authorizing agreements with Wisconsin Electric Power Company and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. relating to emergency energy support.

R89-04 Authorizing a professional engineering services agreement with Bucher, Willis and Ratliff Corporation relating to pavement repairs at Columbia Regional Airport.

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

NEW BUSINESS

R84-04 Authorizing CDBG agreements with various community agencies.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this would provide funding for five agencies.

Mr. Janku asked that they receive reports from each agency indicating how their funds have been expended.

The vote on R84-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R90-04 Authorizing a Memorandum of Agreement with the Federal Transit Administration and Missouri State Historic Preservation Office relating to the Wabash Station renovation project.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Patterson explained that this agreement would assure that the provisions for the buildings on the historic register were followed during the reconstruction and the potential demolition of the warehouse on Orr Street. It set forth the process and identified the responsibilities. It also identified the points at which certain information would have to be provided the State Historic Preservation Office and to the FTA. This would document that we followed the process in compliance with federal and state requirements.

Mr. Janku understood that the City had not yet acquired the warehouse. Mr. Patterson explained that the actual funding was in this year's federal appropriation bill. He said this project would be before the Council at several different points in time.

The vote on R90-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R91-04 Authorizing demolition of a dilapidated structure located at 509(B) North Providence Road.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Patterson explained that this structure was found to be in violation of the Minimum Property Standards. He reported that the normal process had been followed, which included the assessment by the Planning Department to determine if there was any aid or assistance for the property owner. The structure was not eligible for the CDBG Home Rehabilitation Assistance Program. Mr. Patterson explained that notices of violation had been provided the owner as well as opportunities for correction. An administrative hearing was held on the condition of the building to determine if the building was of such condition that it should be considered a public nuisance and in need of demolition. Mr. Patterson said the owner would be given one additional notification, if Council authorized the demolition.

Mayor Hindman asked if the structure was occupied. Mr. Patterson replied that it was not legally occupied.

The vote on R91-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R92-04 Approving the Preliminary Plat of Barnett Ridge Subdivision.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Dudark displayed the plat using the overhead. The property was a single family R-1 plat located on Oakland Gravel Road. He noted that the three lots facing Oakland Gravel, Lots 32, 34, and 36, would have driveways out to Oakland Gravel Road. In discussing this, the Planning and Zoning Commission felt there should be a shared driveway for the three lots. They recommended approval of the plat subject to the condition that there be one driveway serving the three lots.

Mr. Janku asked if it would be like a cul-de-sac, but a single drive. Mr. Dudark replied that it had not been designed, but noted that typically one would see a shared driveway for two lots. It was kind of unusual for a shared driveway for three lots. He was not sure what the surveyor had looked at in terms of the driveway. Mr. Dudark pointed out an area with drainage issues and said they looked at putting a cul-de-sac off of the interior street and having the lots served by the cul-de-sac and backing up to Oakland Gravel. If they did that, they would lose a lot. He noted this was not a section of Oakland Gravel that was covered by the subdivision regulations.

Mr. Hutton asked if Staff recommended the shared driveway. Mr. Dudark replied they had not recommended it to them. They came up with the idea during the hearing. Mr. Hutton asked if he was okay with the driveway. Mr. Dudark replied that he was because it was not part of the street subject to the restriction. He said there were a few driveways already in the area. Mr. Hutton was not sure having one driveway for three lots was the way to deal with it.

Mr. Janku was concerned that the one driveway might encourage parking on the street. He explained that bicyclists depended on that lane for biking and bike lanes could not be put in because there were already a lot of existing houses with driveways.

Gene Basinger, 300 St. James, explained that he was the surveyor who prepared the plat. Besides losing a lot with the cul-de-sac suggestion, he stated it was not a good place as far as the design was concerned. He had looked at the possibility of running an east/west street through and turning all the lots sideways on the street. It could be done, but there were a number of problems it would create. He said they would be building 300 feet of street, extra water and sewer lines, and would get no benefit out of it over what they would with the other scenario. Mr. Basinger commented that the real problem with the street running through and/or a cul-de-sac was stormwater. They already had a problem with the site, with probably 90% of the site draining to the northeast corner. Because stormwater was already a problem, they were looking at the possibility, on the side of the two north lots, of putting in a detention basin to deal with the stormwater. If they put a cul-de-sac in, they would create more stormwater and if they ran a street through the area, they would not be able to get the stormwater off the street and into the detention basin unless they had some type of pumping situation. Mr. Basinger commented that was not feasible at all. He explained there was an existing home that had a driveway out onto Oakland Gravel and they were going to take the driveway off and actually bring the driveway into the back of the house from the other street. He said that would mean a net gain of two driveways for the three lots.

Mr. Ash noted that a pond would be removed. He asked if the pond was where the stormwater had been headed. Mr. Basinger replied, yes. Mr. Ash wondered if there would be fewer stormwater concerns if the pond were retained. He asked if a stormwater plan would have to be developed. Mr. Patterson replied that they would have to obtain a land disturbance permit before the final plat was approved. Mr. Ash asked if that would cover stormwater. Mr. Patterson replied, yes. Mr. Basinger explained that the pond was not much of a pond and added that they had an agreement with Habitat for Humanity in Norbury Hill to extend the street through and get rid of the little cul-de-sac they had. He said it was something the City was not very happy with. To do that, they would be into the pond anyway. Because the lots were so deep, they ran from street to street. If they had to do something with the water besides just removing it, they would put in a retention pond at the bottom of the deep lots.

Mr. Ash commented that he was more concerned about the stormwater issue than he was about the shared drive. Mr. Hutton pointed out that they would have to have an approved stormwater plan. Mr. Basinger realized they had to deal with stormwater and said they were trying not to create more problems than existed already. Mr. Janku noted there was some access throughout the area already so the two driveways would not be inconsistent. He was not a fan of the shared drive going back between three houses. He thought they should be allowed three driveways and said if the applicant came back later wanting a shared driveway and could propose something, the Council could look at it. He did not want to mandate that without knowing more about it. He suggested deleting the requirement that access be limited to one shared driveway.

Mr. Loveless understood Mr. Janku to say he was okay with three driveways coming out onto Oakland Gravel. Mr. Janku felt it was better than the alternative suggested.

Mr. Janku made the motion that R92-04 be amended to eliminate Section 3. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

The vote on R92-04, as amended, was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. 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:

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.

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.

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.

B149-04 Approving the Final Plat of Arcadia Plat 8.

B150-04 Approving the Final Plat of Pratt's Subdivision - Plat 4, a Replat of part of Lot 6 of Pratt's Addition.

B151-04 Authorizing an annexation agreement with Breakthrough Construction, Inc.

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.

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.

B157-04 Authorizing construction of water main serving Dakota Ridge, Plat 1; providing for payment of differential costs.

B158-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

B159-04 Authorizing an agreement with Twin Corners, LLC for donation of property located in Eastport Gardens Subdivision for park purposes.

B160-04 Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri Division of Highway Safety for a DWI Enforcement Grant; appropriating funds.

REPORTS AND PETITIONS

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

(B) Family Membership Definition - ARC.
Mr. Loveless asked that Staff prepare an ordinance amendment as suggested using the IRS definition of a dependent.

Mr. Ash asked if they should move ahead quickly or wait until fiscal year 2005.

Ms. Crayton asked about adult handicapped people. Mr. Ash thought they wanted to keep it simple and mirror what the IRS did. Ms. Crayton noted if they received their own income, they were not counted on their guardians taxes. Mr. Loveless pointed out they would not be a dependent in that case. Mr. Hood interjected that if they met this test they would be considered a dependent under IRS rules and would be considered eligible under the family membership. If they did not meet the definition of a dependent, they would be a single adult and would be eligible to join the Center as a single adult. At this point, there were no scholarships for low income adults, disabled or not.

Mayor Hindman thought this should go into effect as soon as possible. Mr. Ash agreed and noted there had only been one request so far. He did not think it would create a mid-year problem.

Mr. Loveless made the motion that Staff be directed to prepare an ordinance amendment per Staff suggestion for implementation as soon as possible. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C) Appointment of Unit 1 Committee and the Condominium Association Executive Board.
Mr. Beck explained that the Presiding Commissioner suggested that they move forward with the committees. He was hopeful the move would begin this weekend for the health facility. He noted that the two committees could be one and the same. The Presiding Commissioner indicated he would serve along with their Public Works Director. Unless a Council member wanted to serve, Mr. Beck said it would probably be the City Manager and the Public Works Director from the City.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that the City Manager and the Public Works Director be appointed to both the Committee and the Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(D) Resubmission of Initial Grant Application for LWCF Grant Funds for Playing Fields on the Atkins Tract.
Mr. Hutton made the motion a that the City Manager be authorized to co-sponsor the grant application for assistance through the Department of Natural Resources Land and Water Conservation Fund. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:
Upon receiving the majority vote of the Council the following individuals were appointed to the following boards and commissions.

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
Walters, Robert L., 2704 Vail Dr., Ward 5 - term to expire 6/1/07

HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Johnson, Jeffrey, 307 Trinity Place, Ward 1 - term to expire 5/31/08
Kinney, Marvin K., 1623 Highridge Circle, Ward 4 - term to expire 5/31/08

LIQUOR LICENSE REVIEW BOARD
Lane, John T., 212 E. Green Meadows Rd., Suite 1, Ward 5 - term to expire 5/1/07

PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
Devine, Daniel J., 2709 Pine Dr., Ward 3 - term to expire 5/31/07
Pauls, William R., 306 Whitetail Dr., Ward 2 - term to expire 5/31/07

BOARD OF PLUMBING EXAMINERS
Knox, Herb C., 1117 County Road 2695, Clark, MO - term to expire 5/31/06
Schulz, James W., 1716 Stirling Ct., Ward 5 - term to expire 5/31/06

Mayor Hindman noted they would be interviewing the Planning and Zoning Commission applicants on Thursday evening at 5:30 p.m. on the fourth floor.

COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC
Mayor Hindman pointed out that this was Roy Dudark's last meeting and thanked him for his service. He regretted to see him leave and said he had done a very good job.

Ms. Crayton commented that she was beginning to see some progress with the summer jobs for youth program she has been meeting about. She said their long term goal was to bring extra dollars into Columbia so more children could be served.

With the Barnett Ridge plat, Mr. Janku commented that we would now almost have continuous development along Oakland Gravel Road on the west side from Holly all the way up near the park. Mr. Janku made the motion that Staff be directed to report back on how the sidewalk gaps could be filled in throughout the area. Mr. Janku mentioned the timing of the sidewalk on Confederate Hill. He said there had been some stipulations put it in the rezoning. He suggested that be looked into. As Norbury Hill and Barnett's Ridge go in, he wanted people to be able to walk to the park and the schools. The motion made by Mr. Janku was seconded by Mr. Ash. Mr. Beck said there was a Staff Report and he would have it updated. The motion made by Mr. Janku, seconded by Mr. Ash, was approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Janku commented that he had received a call from someone concerned about speeding in the Vanderveen Subdivision. He said he would send the information to the City Manager and ask for the appropriate action.

Mr. Janku asked for a Staff Report on seeking matching money. He noted we had a very successful One Percent for the Arts program, but because there was long lead time associated with it, he asked if funds could possibly be sought from the private sector to enhance the projects so the art work could be more extensive. Mr. Janku made a motion per his above statement. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. John commented on the island at Forum and Nifong put in with the new Village Square development. He said it was landscaped, but there seemed to be a problem with the maintenance of it. He asked that Staff look into it.

Regarding the memo to the Council regarding disclosure of abstentions, Mr. John asked that his be researched in order to complete the forms so his abstentions would be on file for the record.

Mr. Ash had information regarding a company that provided free recycling bins. He stated ads were sold and put on the bins. He thought it might be something to look into for the convenience stores. He asked for a Staff Report. Mr. Beck said he would take care of it.

Mr. Ash received a call from a woman living in the apartment behind the new Burger King off of Nifong. She reported hearing the drive-through speaker and said lighting was also a problem. He asked who should be contacted. Mr. Beck suggested it be sent to him and he would get it to the correct place.

The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Sheela Amin
City Clerk