M I N U T E S
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - COLUMBIA, MISSOURI
MAY 3, 2004
The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, May 3, 2004, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH and HINDMAN 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 April 19, 2004, as well as the minutes of the Special Meeting of April 19, 2004, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Loveless and a second by Ms. Crayton.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Beck noted that B145-04 would be added to and B135-04 would be removed, as requested by the developer, from Introductions and First Reading.
The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. John 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.
Mr. Beck explained the Council requested the Planning and Zoning Commission review standards for transportation facilities within City rights-of-way. The Commission appointed a street standard planning group that addressed definitions for new terms, provisions for a street connectivity index to review new subdivision plats, provisions for the use of private streets in planned districts, changes to street right-of-way and pavement widths for various types of streets, changes to terminal streets, provisions for residential alleys, changes to the width and location of sidewalks, provisions for bike lanes and pedways, changes to drainage facilities and stream crossings, and changes to utility easements. He noted the proposed amendments and staff report from the Public Works and Fire Departments were attached to the bill. The current City standards were adopted in 1962 and reviewed several times by different committees. Mr. Beck pointed out the need for affordability, both from a construction standpoint and maintenance standpoint, in review of these standards.
Mr. Patterson stated that while there were many good ideas proposed, Staff still had some operational concerns. The main issue was the ability to get vehicles in to provide services. He noted the report included lots of discussion regarding the cost of the streets, but did not address, to any degree, the hidden maintenance costs that might be incurred in the future due to the acceptance of additional right-of-way, landscaping, sidewalks, pedways, and narrow streets. Staff felt these issues should be addressed as part of the general public discussion of the new street standards.
Mayor Hindman pointed out he would be making a motion after the public hearing to amend the bill to require the sidewalks to be a minimum width of five feet.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Jerry Wade, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the street standard planning committee, explained their report represented a set of recommendations worked on for many months. The working group included about 15 to 20 people representing various perspectives and orientations towards street standards, and included City Staff. Mr. Wade felt the proposed standards reflected the state-of-art thinking around the country and was clearly adaptable and appropriate for Columbia. Mr. Wade pointed out they did not find that other communities were having problems with fire and garbage trucks due to the change in street widths. He also pointed out that this was a very common change that was taking place around the country. In developing these standards, they discovered they were not dealing with streets, but with public right-of-way, which performed a series of public functions. It was a multi-modal system for people moving about by cars, bicycles, walking, tricycles, and etc., it was the right-of-way for a whole series of public utilities such as telephone lines, and it was the right-of-way where we created the streetscapes for our community. At the neighborhood level, he stated, they were looking for standards that met very specific outcomes. They wanted to promote neighborhood interaction and neighborliness, ensure the concept of interconnectivity, and have street standards that offered the best possible opportunity for quality streetscapes. One of the reasons for the four foot sidewalk recommendation being moved back away from the street was to create a space between the sidewalks and the streets, which would allow for the development of real Missouri trees, not imported shrubs. Mr. Wade stated that they also wanted to address safety. He added that following the rules of the community, such as speed limits, had to be done voluntarily, but noted that speeding was primarily a function of the design of that public space. In regards to arterial streets, Mr. Wade felt that they were the streets that framed the City, organized and structured it, and created the image by which people could gain a sense of what the community was like. He noted, they were also looking to increase the economic efficiency of streets at the neighborhood level and enhance the quality of the streets at the arterial level.
Mayor Hindman thanked Mr. Wade and his committee for all of their work on the issue.
Ian Thomas, 2616 Hillshire, a member of the PedNet Coalition, stated they were supportive of the proposed street standards. He explained their mission to be to create a bicycle and pedestrian network, which they believed would be a unique community asset for the health and economic welfare of Columbia. They supported the original recommendations made by the street standards planning group on August 28, 2003 with the key elements being narrower street pavements, sidewalks on all streets, and six feet sidewalks on collectors and arterials. He noted the current version suggested five feet walks on collectors and arterials. The other two components of the recommendation were pedways and bicycle lanes on collector and arterial streets. Mr. Thomas explained they completed a cost impact analysis based on unit costs supplied by the Central Missouri Development Council and found a savings of almost a half million dollars per 100 miles of new roads and a paved surface savings of about 2.2 million square feet for 100 miles of new roads. The bicycle/pedestrian network they envisioned would serve a large number and different types of people. Two of which were low speed, off-street cyclists and cyclists that traveled close to the speed of traffic. He added that they also wished to serve pedestrians, people in wheelchairs, skaters, and a number of other users. One of the key motivators for improving the ability to walk and bicycle around the town was health. He displayed maps from 1985 to 2001 showing percentages of obese adults in each state. In 2001, more than 25% of the population consisted of obese adults in one state. Mr. Thomas pointed out these trends would continue and noted 64% of adults were overweight and 32% were obese. He also stated the number of overweight children had tripled since 1970. The main reason for this obesity trend was the reduced amount of physical activity people were getting. Mr. Thomas displayed pictures of designated bike routes with high speed traffic along side and inferior sidewalks and said this was the sort of things they wished to improve. In addition to health incentives, Mr. Thomas felt a network of bicycle and pedestrian paths would be good for the local economy. Mr. Thomas felt quality of place was something Columbia should be striving towards in order to attract the kind of companies and individuals needed to spur economic development. He noted that quality of place included bicycling and walking trails and other transportation choices. He noted the Chamber's policy of trying to attract retirees to Columbia and said that roughly half of the retirees were looking for a place where they would be able to use their legs or bicycles to get around. If we created the network, Mr. Thomas felt we would be more attractive to those people. Mr. Thomas showed photos of various cities around the country to illustrate examples of multi-modal transportation. He also showed survey results which indicated a desire for walking and biking trails in Columbia by its citizens.
Mr. Janku noted Mr. Thomas stated they supported sidewalks on all streets, but explained that some streets in the new street standards document would not be required to have sidewalks. Mr. Thomas reiterated their support of sidewalks on all streets. Mr. Janku asked if there was concern that there would be less room for on-street bicyclists due to narrower collector and arterial standards. Mr. Thomas replied that bicyclists would taken care of on major collectors and arterials with bike lanes. On other streets, they felt the reduction in width would slow traffic sufficiently and would allow for safe cycling.
Susan Roberts, 601 Westwood, spoke in favor of the five foot sidewalk width. She stated that her street was very narrow and already required the trash truck to back down and pick up at one household at the end. She also pointed out there were occasions when emergency vehicles had to come down their street and this was never a problem. She disagreed with the argument that wider sidewalks would drive up the cost of real estate.
Charles Roberts, 2905 W. Rollins, stated he enjoyed walking, but found the four foot sidewalks completely inadequate. He felt that wider sidewalks would be well worth the money.
Margaret Vocaba, 1116 W. Broadway, noted a new sidewalk had been constructed on the opposite side of her block within the last ten years. She was told there would probably be a sidewalk placed on the her side also. If this were to happen, with a five foot sidewalk, she would be losing a lot of green space. She was concerned about the speed limit on West Broadway, from Garth to Clinkscales, and thought bicyclists would not be safe. Ms. Vocaba was also concerned about the cost and asked how the sidewalks would be paid for. She noted some of the homes in the area looked run down, but stated those were still their homes and they cared about them and their front yards.
Troy Balthozar, 502 West Boulevard, spoke on behalf of Joseph Machens, Jr., 200 Day Spring. Mr. Machens expressed strong support for the street standards before the Council. As a person who could not drive, he depended upon a rollable environment to get to the places he wanted to go. The idea of a connected network in our City, was something for which he has wished for many years. Unless you have used the skinny, broken up sidewalks or busy streets, you would not understand the importance of wheelable sidewalks. Mr. Machens is currently stuck in his neighborhood because when Scott Boulevard was built, sidewalks were not part of the plan. He asked that this condition not be allowed to continue. He asked the Council to do what was right for Columbia and to adopt the proposed street standards with the five foot sidewalks in residential areas.
Laura and Henry Hager , 5300 S. Highway 163, explained that four foot sidewalks were just not wide enough for two walking adults. They asked, if changes were going to be made, that they be done right the first time.
Fred Murdock, 3909 Grace Ellen Drive, Chair of the Disabilities Commission, explained that he sent a letter to the Council in favor of five foot sidewalks. He stated the Commission would like to see six foot sidewalks, but was in support of the five foot sidewalk as a minimum. He noted that many of the issues that benefit people in wheelchairs also benefit older people that might be required to use scooters.
Barbara Hoppe, 607 Bluff Dale, Co-chair of the Boone County Smart Growth Coalition, explained that she served on the street standards committee that met for over a year. She urged the Council to vote in favor of the ordinance with the six foot arterials and the five foot sidewalks. Providing safe alternative transportation choices, she felt would benefit the people in our community who could not afford to buy a car. She said it would result in reduced demand for parking, less wear and tear on our streets, less reliance on expensive fossil fuels, less air pollution, and lower healthcare costs.
Ellen Thomas, 2616 Hillshire, a pediatrician, explained that she spent a lot of time talking about preventative health. The serious diseases increasing in frequency included asthma, type II diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. All of these interrelated diseases were strongly linked to inactivity and leading public health experts feared we might be seeing the first generation of Americans whose life expectancy is shorter than their parents. She said this was not just about preventing diseases later in life. Obese children rated their quality of life as poorly as did children with cancer. Weekly, she talked with families who had concerns related to their child's weight or other inactivity problems. Over and over again she heard that neighborhoods were not safe to ride bikes because the cars went too fast. She also heard that kids could not walk to school because they would have to cross a busy street at a dangerous intersection. These important sources of exercise, community involvement, and personal responsibility were being denied to our children because we were building our cities in ways that only worked if you have a car and a drivers license. Dr. Thomas pointed out that children were influenced by what they saw and asked how we could encourage our children to establish healthy exercise habits if their parents did not do this themselves. Many adults were discouraged from active living choices by poor or absent sidewalks and discomfort with riding bikes in traffic. She felt these street standards gave everyone a tremendous chance to build a community that reflected the values of good health, a clean environment, and a connected community.
Jeffrey Brian, 2408 Hillshire, commented that they moved here from California and bought their house because it was on the MKT Trail. He stated he bikes to work and his daughter walks to school most days. Mr. Brian pointed out it was important to him and his children to have these types of opportunities in a safe environment.
Chris Walthal, 211 Bingham, explained she had been walking her son to and from school for over two years and that most of their walking routes included sidewalks. She stated that she and her son were both overweight when they began, but were now not. She asked that other moms be given the same opportunity.
Greg Ahrens, 1504 Sylvan, read a statement for Kathleen Weinschenk, a member of the Disabilities Commission and the PedNet Coalition. Ms. Weinschenk stated that she supports the model street standards. In order for people who used wheelchairs to get around Columbia, she felt the sidewalks should be at least five feet wide even though six feet would be better. As a member of the PedNet Coalition and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission, Mr. Ahrens felt 10 feet pedways might be better than eight feet in regards to cost because of the ability to use a machine to spread the paving material. He noted the ASHTO standards for bike lanes and shared use paths was 10 feet in width. The absolute minimum was eight feet in locations where 10 feet was not practical.
Norman Lenhardt, 1118 St. Christopher, liked the idea of curbless streets, but remarked that pitfalls could be expected. He suggested looking into some type of deep insert so the roadway could not "chunk out" into the grass. Another possible solution he suggested was that Bermuda grass or some other type of severe vegetation be placed along the edges.
Johann Holt, spoke on behalf of the Sierra Club. He stated that car-driven cities suffered from elevated obesity rates, produced an elevated amount of pollutants, and caused people not to connect with their neighborhoods and cities. He stated these cities form because people do not have viable transportation choices outside of cars. Mr. Holt quoted statistics from a survey by the Surface Transportation Institute stating 80% would prefer mass transit over driving if it were an accessible and viable option. He felt the City should provide viable alternatives and said that would start with building streets people can bike and walk on without danger from cars or without having to cross dangerous intersections. He urged the Council to vote in favor of the bill and amendment.
Becky Gibbs, 311 Stalcup, explained that her children attended school on the other side of West Broadway and that there was no safe way for them to cross West Broadway. She felt the situation could have been avoided with some planning. She felt this was the opportunity to put measures in our street standards to prevent something like this from happening again.
Gina Overshiner, 1300 Garden Court, a member of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission, spoke in favor of the model street standards.
Don Stamper, 1304 Sedona Villas, Central Missouri Development Council, explained that the Development Council appreciated the work done by Staff and everyone else involved in arriving at these conclusions. He stated they were desirous of being supportive of those efforts and the Council adopting revisions to the street standards. However, they were concerned about the costs involved. They felt it would incrementally increase the cost of lots and houses. He was hopeful the Council would not only look at the short term of what this would cost the developer, but also the long term of what this would mean to our community. They did not want to oppose this, but it was a question of what was included. Five foot sidewalks, he commented, were probably not as preferable to them as four feet. He felt the numbers thrown out earlier represented hokey math and said one dollar per lineal foot was not a savings. He asked the Council be cognizant of costs.
Terry Keefer, 212 Rothwell, commented that it made no sense to build huge, wide streets only to find the need to go back five years later to put in calming devices such as planters and speed bumps. She felt the proposed standards were forward looking and asked that they be implemented now.
Christy Welliver, 184 W. Green Meadows, a member of the Disabilities Commission, a member of the street standards committee, and a wheelchair user, commented that it was only possible for her to be side by side with someone on a four foot sidewalk, if she looked at her wheels the entire time. She stated she needed a six foot sidewalk, but agreed to a five foot sidewalk for the sake of compromise. She asked the Council to support the proposal with five feet sidewalks.
Steve Kuhlman, 205 S. Garth, Chair of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission, explained that he had been appointed to the model street standards planning group. He stated they progressed through a lot of issues and debates and said he believed the standards before the Council to be the best possible compromise covering all of the issues. He noted it was more than just streets, sidewalks and pedways. It was a set of design standards for an entire network. The network included pedestrian and bicycle facilities and that was why the Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission supported the proposed standards as amended with the five foot sidewalk.
Pat Fowler, 4995 N. Sandiker, spoke in favor of the proposed standards. As a long distance runner she found it ironic that she needed to get in her car to drive somewhere to run because the access roads in and out of her neighborhood were not safe enough for her to run on. Ms. Fowler stated that she worked with a group that was trying to start a children's marathon where they would offer kids the opportunity to run incrementally the same distance as adults. She pointed out that they were doing this to try to address childhood obesity and diabetes. Her group was concerned that kids who did not have access to parents or older siblings that could drive them to safer neighborhoods that had bike lanes would not have a place to log their miles. They were concerned that they might have a lopsided attendance.
Doug Eckhoff, 608 Adens Woods Court, spoke in favor of wider sidewalks, but said he was against them at the expense of the width of the streets. He mentioned safety issues with large trucks and school buses.
Walter Gassman, 1700 Princeton, spoke in favor of the proposes standards. He said it was extremely difficult for both he and his wife to use alternate modes of transportation. He urged support of the street standards and wider sidewalks.
Greg Bacca, 314 West Boulevard North, explained that he and his family live on a corner in an area that has no sidewalks, so his children play in the street. He stated he was in favor of the proposed standards.
Jim Warner, 300 Lindell, urged the Council to adopt the proposed street standards. In regards to cost, Mr. Warner felt the City could not afford not to adopt them in terms of making the community competitive economically.
Chip Cooper, 500 Longfellow, member of the street standards planing group, commented that one of their primary concerns was traffic calming in neighborhoods. Two things encouraging speed in neighborhoods were the wide streets and the straightaways. Regarding street width, the streets would not be as wide. He passed out a document from The National Association of Homebuilders and also read from it. The report stated, for most single family residential neighborhoods, streets of 24 and 26 feet in width were sufficient and provided the best opportunity for building compact neighborhoods. It also said streets of those widths were recommended by many engineering organizations. In regards to the major streets, Mr. Cooper noted they were not as wide and that since access management had been implemented, houses facing major streets had been discouraged, and in a lot of cases, eliminated. He pointed out parking was not allowed on these streets. A 38 foot wide street, that allowed parking on both sides, would no longer allow it. Narrowing the streets slightly would not affect the function of automobiles and would permit cyclists a much safer place to operate. Mr. Cooper supplied the Clerk with four written testimonies in favor of the proposed standards.
Judy Knudson, 2100 Southwood, member of the Mayor's Council on Physical Fitness and Health and Coordinator for Bike, Walk and Wheel Week, spoke in favor of the proposed standards. As a community, Ms. Knudson felt we should do anything we could to encourage people and to make it more possible for them to ride, walk and wheel safely.
John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, pointed out that this directive was given to the Planning and Zoning Commission in order to implement the overall 2025 Plan. He said this was an integrated system, not just sidewalks or pedways, but everything. Mr. Clark stated that he supported the proposed standards because it was policy. He suggested the City immediately move to develop intersection design standards, which would require outside help. He also suggested hiring a consultant for the development of bicycle/pedestrian facilities standards. In addition, he wanted to see maintenance standards adopted.
Bill Crockett, 4600 Summerbrook Court, felt if the standards were to be adopted, the City should come up with the money now to do the job right.
Bob Walters, 2704 Vail, member of the street standards planning group, commented that he was in agreement with many of the findings and thought that the line should be held with four feet sidewalks in residential areas. He pointed out that the City had a standard of five feet on major streets. He felt four feet to be adequate for purely residential areas. Mr. Walters, as a member of the Storm Water Task Force, pointed out that in a January report they suggested the current specifications for sidewalks should be continued. As a member of the Housing Market Analysis Steering Committee, he noted they had recently hired some people whose initial report found that a barrier to affordable housing, in addition to many other factors, were permit fees and sidewalks. It was suggested that sidewalks could be waived in certain areas to entice development in certain infill areas. As a numbers cruncher for the Columbia Board of Realtors, Mr. Walters felt the data shown spoke to what was happening with house prices in Columbia. If it were not for the low interest rates the past several years, the housing affordability crisis now looming on the horizon would have already been here. Mr. Walters pointed out that we were facing a mandate by EPA, as part of the overall changes to storm water regulations, to reduce impervious surface.
Mr. Ash asked where the one foot difference would come from regarding sidewalks, from the property owner or out of the green space between the street and the sidewalk. Mr. Walters felt that regardless of who provided the green space, it would still be green space. He said there was a net gain when it came to residential standards. On one grid he had seen that laid out impervious surface by various combinations of streets, we would actually be increasing impervious surface on minor and major aterials. Mr. Walters understood the one foot would come from the public side, not the property owners side.
Steve Wendling, 2012 Chapel Ridge Road, felt that narrower streets would increase the probability of accidents. He preferred wider streets with medians. Regarding pedways, he was concerned about liability issues.
Terry Skinner, 3716 Lansing, noted that people walking in his neighborhood, two by two, always walked in the street, even though they had four foot sidewalks. He thought five foot sidewalks in residential neighborhoods was the way to go.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mayor Hindman asked how to word the amendment to B92-04 in order to require five feet sidewalks as a minimum.
Mr. Boeckmann explained how the amendment could read and which section would need to be changed.
Mayor Hindman made the motion to amend B92-04 per Mr. Boeckmann's suggestion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku.
Mr. Hutton asked Mr. Patterson to specifically outline his concerns. Mr. Patterson replied that Staff did not oppose the standards, but simply wanted to point out other factors involved. While 28 feet might be adequate for what was normally viewed as residential use of a street, the department had very large service vehicles going into the residential neighborhoods every day. He said parking on two sides severely restricted the ability of those types of vehicles to maneuver. He said they could do things differently, but there were costs associated with the changes. Mr. Hutton asked if the concern could be alleviated if parking were limited to one side. Mr. Patterson replied that it would certainly help. Mr. Hutton noted that he traveled Hinkson Avenue everyday, a fairly busy, 28 foot street with parking on one side. He said two cars could barely get by when meeting each other. He felt there was no way two cars could pass on a busy 28 foot street with parking on both sides. He noted the same concerns on a 24 foot access street with parking on one side. Mr. Hutton pointed out that Option A, under major arterial, included a bike lane and a pedway. He asked if both would be needed due to the two different types of bikers (fast and slow). Mayor Hindman replied that was the theory behind the recommendation. He pointed out, under Missouri law, bicyclists have a right to be on the street.
Mr. Janku noted at the last meeting a speaker raised the issue of geometrics of the design at intersections and how it would tie together with the pedways and sidewalks. He felt that need to be looked at in the future. Regarding parking on streets, Mr. Janku thought there should be a mechanism to establish parking restrictions when a plat or road was built and before neighborhoods and patterns were established.
Mr. Janku asked about alleys and noted they would be public unless otherwise designated as private alleys as part of a private street. He asked if that would entail City maintenance and where the service pick ups would be. He noted the issue had been avoided at Cherry Hill because they indicated the alleys were not the City's responsibility. Mr. Dudark replied they could be public or private alleys. It depended upon the development. The Council would have discretion to accept or not to accept them as a public dedication. Mr. Loveless asked what responsibilities the City would be assuming for maintenance if they accepted an alley. Mr. Dudark replied they would have to be paved to City standards so there would be some thickness and construction standards specified. The maintenance would be from that point on. Mr. Janku asked, in regards to an access street, if the developer met all requirements, whether the Council would be required to permit it. Mr. Dudark replied that would be like anything else in the Subdivision Regulations. If the standard was met the subdivider would be able to presume that he had an approvable plat. If the Council chose not to approve it, the burden would shift to the Council to defend that action.
Mr. Hutton asked where the access streets were intended to be used. Mr. Dudark explained that they were only intended to be used when there was a street less than 750 feet in length, when there were single family homes only, and when the average daily traffic was 250 or less.
Ms. Crayton spoke in support of five foot sidewalks. She felt the standards were fine, but asked about older neighborhoods. She named narrow streets where cars were parked on both sides and there were no sidewalks. She said people were walking in the streets because they had no other choice.
Mr. Ash pointed out that they were talking about new streets and/or streets that were re-done. He noted it would not apply retroactively and we would not redo all of the existing streets and sidewalks. Mr. Ash asked if it was part of the street standards to make the streets thicker, as well as more narrow. Mr. Patterson replied there had been no change in those types of standards at this point, but that it was a possibility in the future, and one that could become necessary. Mr. Beck felt it should be looked into. Mayor Hindman did not think thickness should be included in these standards because that was something that was taken care of in other ordinances. Mr. Beck agreed and said it was a cost matter. Mr. Hutton pointed out that if they were to redo the standards for thickness, they would have added something that was not revenue neutral. Mr. John agreed.
Mr. Janku asked about the residential feeder and if the Council could require a 32 foot street if they felt it was necessary due to parking issues and to provide access for bigger vehicles. Mr. Dudark replied that the standards included criteria that addressed the 32 foot street. It was called for when there was a duplex or multi-family zoning. Also, the 32 foot street was called for when there were streets inside a subdivision that led to another street that became the outlet for the subdivision. In those cases, if the developer did not propose it, and the conditions fit, the Council could require it.
Regarding neighborhood collector streets, Mr. Loveless noted that driveway access would be permitted on both sides of the street. He asked why the philosophy changed. Mr. Dudark explained that today we had one type of collector and under the new standards we would have two types. He described the neighborhood collector as more of a residential type collector where there was an expectation to have houses built along the street. To not have driveways and access to it would require an extra street to be built in the subdivision because the homes would have to back up to the street. This would impose an additional cost. On the major collector, he stated, that was fine because it was carrying more traffic and one did not expect to have driveways on it. Mr. John asked for examples. Mr. Dudark described Stewart Road and Grant Lane as a neighborhood collectors. An example of a major collector would be Green Meadows Road.
Mr. John asked where the 70% connectivity factor came from in the cul-de-sac portion and how many there could be. Mr. Dudark indicated it was information in residential design for connecting one subdivision to another subdivision. He explained it was a ratio between the number of cul-de-sacs in a subdivision and the number of intersection type street . Out of ten streets, seven would be intersections and three would be cul-de-sacs, except when there were environmental issues. It would be increased due to environmental reasons. Mr. John asked if two streets that came in as a T would count as two intersections. Mr. Dudark replied, yes.
Regarding only one crossing of creeks, Mr. John said that would lead to a lot of cul-de-sacs on either side of the creek. He assumed that would constitute environmental issues that allow more than the 30%. Mr. Dudark replied that was correct.
Mr. Janku understood that private streets would be limited to PUDs and would have to be specifically approved by the Council as part of the PUD plan. Mr. Dudark said that was correct. Mr. Janku asked if these could be multiple lot, single family style developments under the PUD designation. Mr. Dudark replied yes. He said the private street would, in fact, be where there would be multiple ownerships. If it was under single ownership, it would be a private drive, like an apartment complex. Mr. Janku asked if any existed right now. Mr. Dudark stated there were some the Council approved that had private streets such as Cambridge Place.
Mr. Ash thought the 0.7, connectivity index was too specific. He felt they would receive many more strange street designs in order to fit in cul-de-sacs. He noted that they received a lot of infill developments that were already surrounded on three sides. In those cases, they would have a lot of cul-de-sacs. If they were not going to allow cul-de-sacs, he felt they would be wasting a lot of land. Mr. Ash stated he would like to strike the 0.7 index and go back to where they just try to limit cul-de-sacs or modify it to only apply the number when the property was surrounded on all sides by open, developable land.
Mr. Janku asked if the index had been used in other places. Mr. Dudark replied that it had been adopted in other places. Mr. Janku asked how they had dealt with the issue Mr. Ash raised regarding infill development. Mr. Dudark replied that he did not know, but pointed out that they could request a variance to allow it.
Mr. John commented that you could have a really nice, well connected subdivision that had more than 0.3 and you could also have a really bad subdivision with long cul-de-sacs and lots of poor connectivity and make it meet 0.7. He said the goal would not be satisfied by this, but would be just one more thing that would have to be figured out. He said it might be done in other places, but he did not think it would do what it was intended to do.
Mayor Hindman asked if they took out the connectivity issue if it could be added back at a later date. Mr. Dudark indicated the ordinance could be amended to add it back in. He personally did not feel it would be a serious change.
Mr. Janku pointed out that they struggled with pedestrian interconnectivity and noted that streets were the main mechanism for pedestrian interconnectivity because there were not too many pedestrian access points in major subdivision between cul-de-sacs. He stated that was what would really address interconnectivity in subdivisions.
Mr. Ash said he would feel better if they had more information on operational and maintenance costs. Although he was generally supportive of it, he still had questions about whether or not there should be parking on both sides of the street, if the narrower street should have a corresponding increase in thickness, and the connectivity index issue.
Regarding the stream crossing issue, Mr. Janku asked what level of a stream they were talking about. Mr. Dudark said it was not defined in the regulations. Mr. Janku suggested they might want to define it.
Regarding the turnaround standards on the cul-de-sac, Mr. Janku asked Mr. Patterson if he was comfortable with them. Mr. Patterson replied he thought they would have the same operational concerns with the smaller radius. On standard cul-de-sacs, he stated they could turn around if there were no vehicles parked in there. If there was anything in there at all, maneuvering was involved to get turned around. Mr. Janku understood it was the landscaped island that caused the problem. Mr. Patterson said he thought there were options and alternatives that could be designed to make accommodations.
Mr. John explained that the Council's position was that they had to pick out things they could afford to do because of a limited budget. He said they were looking at almost $120,000,000 in road projects they had already identified as being needed. When they come back to do the infill on rebuilding streets, if it was not revenue neutral, they would be adding a lot of cost. He had a problem jumping into this without having a cost figure. He did not have problem with the five foot sidewalks, but was not sure people were aware of the fact that they would be paying for it. He had a problem with the 0.7 index and the private streets. He thought we needed a mechanism for having private streets, but also needed a trigger mechanism where the City would take over and tax bill the owners when they were not being maintained. He felt there needed to be a standard of maintenance that applied to them.
Mr. Janku felt if we were going to have better roads, we were going to have to pay for them. He thought the process went into subdivision design and he thought that was where they became uncomfortable. He said they had not talked about things like connectivity and private drives very much. He stated he could go along with single lot private drives to deal with the issues of duplex developments. He felt that would lead to a higher standard of maintenance. He agreed that we should not rely on the existing homeowners associations to keep up the streets. He said he probably would not support them in residential, typical R-1 subdivisions, but thought there needed to be a mechanism in place if we did decide to have multi-lot private drives or private streets. He thought that should be addressed first. He agreed with the five foot sidewalk.
Mr. Hutton continued to be concerned about the 28 foot residential street with parking on both sides. Mayor Hindman replied that he lived on a 28 foot wide street where there was parking on both sides, but people rarely parked on both sides. Mr. Ash commented if they were to go with a 28 foot street with parking on one side, it could actually turn out to more spacious than a 32 foot street with parking on both sides. Mr. Janku asked if we had 28 foot wide cul-de-sacs for some time. Mr. Dudark replied it was the current standard. Mr. Hutton said the difference here was that with the new standard Hinkson would not be a residential street. Mayor Hindman noted that Edgewood was probably only 24 feet wide and it was the outlet for the Quarry Heights Subdivision. He did not think there were any parking restrictions there.
Mayor Hindman felt the proposal represented what the people really wanted. His biggest complaint was speeding in the neighborhoods and he believed that to be caused by wider streets. Mayor Hindman commented that he would be willing to experiment with even narrower streets. He suggested that we start doing things right with everything new and then look at what could be done to patch up things where things were not done right.
Mr. John made the motion that B92-04 be tabled to June 7, 2004.
Mr. Hutton asked if they would seek additional information in between times. It was decided they would. It was also decided they would leave the earlier motion for five feet sidewalks on the table. Mr. Loveless said he thought they would like to hear why the group put in certain things. Mr. John suggested they ask the Staff for input. Mr. Janku noted that the committee members were present and could respond.
The motion made by Mr. John was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
B114-04 Approving the Hyde Park South Planned Commercial Development Plan on property located on the south side of Cooper Drive North, between Buttonwood Drive and Hyde Park Avenue.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained this 4.84 acre tract would provide for up to 40,200 square feet of retail offices and restaurant floor area. Approval was recommended by both the Commission and Staff.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Craig VanMatre, an attorney with offices at 1103 E. Broadway, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He noted that the property was currently zoned C-P and described the tract and its surroundings on the overhead. Mr. VanMatre noted that the Staff had reviewed and approved the stormwater pollution prevention plan, stormwater calculations, site plan, grading plan, and landscaping plan. He explained 30% of the site would be landscaped with a greenspace buffer along the south border of the site. There would also be a landscaping berm along Hyde Park Boulevard and Cooper Drive North. Mr. VanMatre explained the stormwater would be detained such that there would be no increase in runoff per unit of time. In addition, the stormwater would drain north and away from the residences. There would be two dry sediment basins on the site. The plan restricted and provided for an internal walkway system. Adequate parking was planned in excess of that required by ordinance. Signage would be less than that allowed under C-1 requirements. Mr. VanMatre noted the neighbors had not opposed this plan.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B114-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B115-04 Rezoning property located between Leslie Lane and Texas Avenue, west of North Providence Road from R-1 to C-P; approving the Phoenix House C-P Development Plan.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that both the Staff and Commission recommended approval.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Craig VanMatre, an attorney with offices at 1103 E. Broadway, spoke on behalf of Phoenix Programs, Richard Miller, the contract purchaser, and the Johnson Companies. He showed the site using the overhead and explained where the facility would be located. He noted the property was on the City bus line and the proposed uses were generally O-1 uses. There would be some additional uses, but only those necessary for the utilization of the tract by Phoenix Programs for its residential counseling, education, and group therapy functions. All of the plans met the City requirements and had been approved by Staff. He noted they were modified to reflect Planning and Zoning's comments. The design parameters shown on the overhead met all City requirements and left 61% of the site open and in landscaping. Mr. VanMatre stated there would be only one freestanding sign. He commented there was no intent to develop the southern portion of the property at this time. At the request of the Commission, they reduced parking by nine spaces. These spaces would be set aside until it was determined they were needed. There would be a dry detention basin on the site. The lighting plan included shoebox type cut-off fixtures and, at the Commission's request, they reduced the height of the light poles to 18 feet. Mr. VanMatre commented that they felt the building to be an ideal transition between commercial and residential areas. They would use exterior materials residential in character, but adequate for commercial purposes. He displayed pictures of what the building would look like.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B115-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B116-04 Rezoning property located on the north side of Chapel Hill Road, extended, and on the east side of Perche Creek from R-1 to PUD-2; approving the Westcliff PUD Site Plan; granting variances to the subdivision regulations.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Dudark displayed on the overhead the south portion of the proposed subdivision. He pointed out that this had previously been before the Council and explained that this was a revised preliminary plat. It was a PUD request to vary street widths, rights-of-way, and pavement widths. He pointed out three 28 foot wide cul-de-sacs with 46 feet of right-of-way. The current standard was 50 feet of right-of-way and 28 feet of pavement on cul-de-sacs. This would not meet the proposed street standards either. The request was to go down from 50 feet to 46 feet of right-of-way. He displayed the north portion on the overhead and pointed out the cul-de-sacs requested to have 24 feet of pavement within a 44 foot right-of-way. One would comply with the new proposed street standards as an access street. Another request was to have a hammerhead on one of the cul-de-sacs. Mr. Dudark noted hammerheads were not provided for in the regulations. A full bulb was required. Another request was to have an island in one of the cul-de-sacs. He said that would not be permitted today. He commented that it would provide a 24 foot driving lane around the bulb. The proposed standard, with the island, would require 28 feet of driving width around the bulb. There was a request to have a reduced cul-de-sac bulb on cul-de-sacs on the south end. The current standard was a 94 foot diameter right-of-way and 76 feet of pavement diameter. The request was to have 86 feet of right-of-way diameter and 68 feet of pavement width diameter. He noted this would comply with the proposed new street standards, but would not meet current regulations. On the north end of the property, he noted that the design did not provide a stub street to the property to the north. The applicant proposed a 44 foot private street easement that could be opened and constructed to the north if needed. He noted access to a cul-de-sac to the property, but stated there was a substantial ravine between the cul-de-sac and the high ground in the area. The 44 foot easement was shown on the plat. Planning and Zoning recommended approval of the variances with a split vote on the 46 foot right-of-way. A condition was that the applicant negotiate with Parks and Recreation for placement of a greenspace trail easement along Perche Creek on the final plat. He said there was no trail or easement there presently.
Mr. Janku assumed the 20 acre area could have 60 homes. Mr. Dudark said that was correct and the maximum would be 100 homes with one access. Mr. Janku asked if it would comply in terms of traffic volume. Mr. Dudark replied that it would comply with today's regulations of 100 for one access way, but would not comply with the proposed street standards for an access street that would have 250 trips per day.
Mr. John recalled regulations requiring a street being stubbed off once every so many feet. Mr. Dudark replied that it was strongly suggested that there be a stub street for abutting property, but that there was no size or distance requirement.
Regarding the radius of the cul-de-sacs, Mr. Loveless asked about trucks being able to get in to do their jobs. Mr. Patterson replied this was the same situation. If approved, accommodations would have to be made for backing the vehicles. Mr. Loveless asked about the shape of the island in Perche Pointe Place. Mr. Dudark explained that the original proposal had a 14 foot travel lane around it. The standard with the 20 foot island would be 28 feet. The Commission suggested that it be changed to 24 feet. Mr. Loveless commented that would still not help getting our services in. Mr. Patterson stated it would be very tight.
Mr. Janku asked how a snow plow would handle the 24 feet. Mr. Patterson replied they would not make the circle, but would push down to the end and then back out.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Bob Walters, 2704 Vail, stated he could happily drop back to a standard cul-de-sac for Perche Pointe Place. He noted it was a misnomer to think the land to the north could accommodate 60 homes because it was essentially a small butte. He said Mr. Overton was content with building a home there, which was why he retained access from Fort Sumpter Place. He explained the reason he asked for most of the variances was because this area was a series of ridge tops. In addition to the narrower streets, cul-de-sacs, and setbacks, the biggest thing he was going for was to allow for reduced setbacks. He wanted to attempt something like Cherry Hill, where the houses were set back 15 feet and the garages were set back 20 feet. The reason to do this, particularly in the cul-de-sacs, was the very rugged terrain and a severe drop off. In those instances, it would allow the builders to literally move the houses as close as possible to the street to reduce building costs and would require less money in sub-basements. He indicated the impact to trees on the site would be minimized. Instead of prioritizing some green space along the frontage of the street, Mr. Walters said, they would be prioritizing the tall timber behind the houses. In regards to the greenbelt, there would be only one entity to deal with in putting a trail through - either him or the neighborhood association. He explained the people he brought the property from had discussions with the City and had been told the property in the floodplain was valued at $5,000 per acre. He said that was what he paid for it, even though he did not want it. In discussions, he was told the City was not in a position to pay $5,000 per acre for it, but he stated he was still open to negotiating for a trail easement to come through there. Mr. Walters stated that he was not willing to give it away, but was not expecting $5,000 per acre either.
Mr. Beck thought that Mr. Vanlandingham had set aside a greenbelt in the floodplain of Perche Creek. Mr. Walters commented that he bought the property from the Juddah's and knew of nothing there at the moment. Mr. Janku thought we acquired it when Longview was developed and indicated it was not a private easement.
Mr. Janku asked if there would be any trail access in this proposed plan. Mr. Walters replied there would not be because it was extremely steep. Mr. Janku pointed out it was the right-of-way that restricted the setbacks. As long as the right-of-way did not change, he thought the cul-de-sacs could be expanded. Mr. Walters agreed and said his goal was to get as close to the front as possible.
Mayor Hindman asked about the trail easement. Mr. Walters replied that he was willing to work with the Parks and Recreation Staff and would agree to designating a trail easement where they wanted it, but reiterated that he thought some sort of compensation would be in order. Mr. Walters assumed it might be a 20 foot wide strip the City wanted, which he was okay with.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Janku asked Mr. Patterson if he thought it was feasible to fit a wider cul-de-sac into the 86 foot right-of-way. Mr. Patterson said that would compress the areas between the curb and the right-of-way. He assumed there would be room to do that, but said it would just narrow any separation between sidewalks or curbing. Mr. Janku asked what minimum would be needed in terms of turning around properly. Mr. Patterson replied the standard cul-de-sac design allowed for the turning radius of typical service/refuse/fire vehicles. He noted that any vehicle parked in the cul-se-sac, regardless of whether it was of full size or smaller, would impact the ability to turn. Mr. Patterson felt Mr. Walters design was very good because he was trying to maximize use of the property, but this conflicted with the use of service vehicles. A full cul-de-sac had a 76 radius. Mr. Beck pointed out that it was not safe to have trucks backing out. Mr. Hutton agreed, but pointed out that Mr. Patterson indicated, even with a standard size cul-de-sac, if there was one car parked in it, it would be blocked.
Mr. Janku made the motion that they amend B116-04 by removing the variance for Perche Pointe Place, retain the variance for right-of-way, amend the variance for the cul-de-sac bulbs to be the normal 76 foot bulbs, and remove the hammerhead cul-de-sac.
Mr. Janku felt these were basically the variances dealing with the efficiency of operations. He said he was willing to go with the variance on the right-of-way for the 28 foot cul-de-sac at 46 feet. He wanted to expand all the other cul-de-sac bulbs to the normal 76 feet.
Mr. Ash asked if they needed to take out the hammerhead. He felt they were getting rid of all the creativity shown. Mayor Hindman agreed. Mr. Janku said the reason he went with the variance on the right-of-way was because Mr. Walters said he could still build on it.
Mr. Walters asked if proposed was 68 feet of pavement and 86 feet in right-of-way. He asked if Mr. Janku was proposing 76 in an 86. Mr. Janku said that was correct. Mr. Walters asked if that was feasible. Mr. Dudark did not think it was because the sidewalk would be at the street pavement line. Mr. Loveless commented that there were sidewalks at the curb all over town and this would still allow Mr. Walters the creativity to move his houses up close and allow us to get our service vehicles turned around and get a four foot sidewalk. Mr. Dudark commented that the only problem he saw with it was that the mailbox post would be in the sidewalk.
Mr. Hutton asked if there was another issue with the driveway approaches. Mr. Patterson replied it would put a cross slope on the sidewalk that would not meet ADA requirements if you were that close to the back of the curb. Mr. Ash asked about making the bulb slightly smaller than ideal and/or have a little more right-of-way. Mr. Loveless asked about making it 74 feet of pavement, giving a foot between the curb and the sidewalk all the way around. Mr. Patterson said 72 feet would work and would leave two feet between the curb and sidewalk. Mr. Walters agreed.
Mr. John pointed out that Mr. Walters had designed to the new proposed standards, 68 foot right-of-way diameter. Mr. Janku was concerned about vehicles backing down streets. He commented that the crews moved quickly and efficiently and he felt backing down streets, all over town, would decrease efficiency.
Mr. Walters understood the trucks would pull into the cul-de-sac, back up slightly, and then move forward. Mr. Patterson replied that was correct, unless there was something blocking them like an island or a vehicle. In which case they would have to back out. Mr. Walters said he would prefer what was proposed because it did match the new proposed street standards.
Mr. Hutton pointed out that the same standards would allow for an island. Mayor Hindman said he was in favor of the original plan.
Mr. Loveless made the motion to amend B116-04 by making the pavement diameter 72 feet in the cul-de-sacs (section 5 from 68 feet to 72). The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved by voice vote.
B116-04, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
(A) Voluntary annexation of property located on the east side of Creasy Springs Road just north of Prairie Lane.
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck described this as a vacant 78 acre tract located north of the current City limits. The applicant would like to plat the tract into R-1, single family lots. It was served by Boone Electric and the Boone County Fire Protection District. There was City sewer just south of the tract and the City had an eight and twelve inch water main immediately to the east.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Bill Crockett, 2608 N. Stadium, explained this would basically be an extension of the Vanderveen development. He said it would also extend Blue Ridge Road out to Creasy Springs Road. He offered to answer questions.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. John said he saw a problem with the calculation when determining the density of a PUD versus a straight zoning area. It would only happen if no streets were required. If you had to put in streets, there would be frontage, side street, corners, and etc. He stated that even with 7,000 square feet, he could not get much more than 4 or 5 per acre. They never mentioned that you had to take out the streets when actually figuring the net density in an R-1. Mr. Crockett agreed. He said the net density was of the developable land and excluded dedicated right-of-way, which was the street. The easements were part of the calculations. They did not get the overall density of seven plus units per acre, it was always something less. He commented that it depended on the piece of land. In 35 years, Mr. Crockett said, he had never laid out a normal R-1 subdivision that even got close to six units per acre.
(B) Voluntary annexation of property located on the north side of Brown School Road, west of State Route 763.
Item B was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck described this as an approximate 29 acre tract 2,000 feet west of 763. It was shown as a neighborhood district on the 2020 Plan. The proposed zoning was R-1, PUD-7. The property was served by Boone Electric and the Boone County Fire Protection District. City sewer and a 12 inch City water main were in the vicinity.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B125-04 Authorizing an extension of a real estate lease with The Wardrobe, Inc. for property located at the northwest corner of Park Avenue and Eighth Street.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this would extend a 20 year lease which was entered into in 1984. The proposal was to extend the lease an additional ten years at the rate of $10 per year. He explained it was a community service type operation because The Wardrobe served lower income individuals in the way of providing clothing either at low cost or no cost. He pointed out that the City did not pay insurance, utilities, etc. on the building.
B125-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B126-04 Authorizing participation in the State Revolving Loan Fund relating to the issuance of Sewerage System Revenue Bonds.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the City would be selling $656,000 in bonds for our sewer utility. He noted that a special meeting was required to meet State requirements. This meeting was scheduled for May 12, 2004 at 5:30 p.m.
The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.
B117-04 Abrogating the Final Plat of Scheulen Acres - Block V; approving the Final Plat of Timber Creek, Plat No. 1; authorizing a performance contract and development agreement.
B118-04 Approving the Final Plat of Hawks Ridge; authorizing a performance contract.B119-04 Approving the Final Plat of Lake Shire Estates, Plat No. 1; authorizing a performance contract.
B120-04 Confirming the contract with Admire Construction LLC for the Fifth Street and Cherry Street sidewalk project.
B121-04 Authorizing acquisition of easements for the Chapel Hill Road improvement project.
B122-04 Accepting conveyances for drainage, sewer, sidewalk, street, temporary turnaround and utility purposes.
B123-04 Accepting conveyance; authorizing payment of differential costs for water main serving Boone Quarry, Plat 3; approving the Engineer's Final Report.
B124-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.
R74-04 Setting a public hearing: construction of water main serving Greystone Subdivision, Plat 1.
R75-04 Setting a public hearing: upgrade of water main along University Avenue, from College Avenue to Ninth Street.
R76-04 Setting a public hearing: replacement of water main along Rollins Road, from Providence Road to Maryland Avenue.
R77-04 Authorizing an agreement with Mellon Consultants for consulting services for competitive bidding of the City's life, accidental death and dismemberment and disability plans.
R78-04 Authorizing an agreement with Mellon Consultants for annual review of the City's medical/dental plans and financial projections.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
R79-04 Authorizing an agreement with Anita A. Griggs for operation of a restaurant at Columbia Regional Airport.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this agreement would re-open the restaurant at the Airport for $12.75 per square foot per year, the standard rental rate, and would yield about $9,175 in revenue annually for the City. The lease would begin June 1.
The vote on R79-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
R80-04 Approving the Preliminary Plat of Auburn Hills C-P; granting a variance to the subdivision regulations.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained this to be a revision to a previous plat of 66.6 acres. It would create nine C-P zoned lots and one lot zoned PUD-15. The variance requested would allow them to do the platting before bringing in the PUD plan.
Mr. John pointed out that the plat had lots that would be on a private drive. According to current regulations, because they did not have frontage on a public road, he could not see where they would be approvable. Mr. Dudark pointed out that C-P zoned lots did not have to have access onto a public street. Mr. John noted that the map indicated two PUD's when there should only be one. Mr. Dudark replied it would be corrected on the final plat.
Mr. Hutton asked if the City did inspections on private streets. Mr. Patterson said they would inspect anything that was part of a planned development. Mr. Hutton asked if the Staff would see the specs and approve them in case the City took over the street in the future. Mr. Patterson replied that they would see them and would do construction inspections to make sure fire and refuse trucks could travel on them.
The vote on R80-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
R81-04 Approving the Preliminary Plat of Bear Creek Park.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Dudark described this as seven acres of ground off of Oakland Gravel Road. The plat would create 20 R-1 lots.
Mr. John noted that animal names were used in Vanderveen and commented that the street name Grizzly could be confusing for Joint Communications.
The vote on R81-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN. 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:
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.
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.
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.
B130-04 Approving the Kochtanek PUD Site Plan; granting a variance to the Subdivision Regulations.
B131-04 Approving the Oak Forest PUD Site Plan; granting variances.
B132-04 Approving the Northwest Storage M-R Development Plan; granting a variance to the Subdivision Regulations.
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.
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.
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.
B139-04 Authorizing construction of water main serving Greystone Subdivision, Plat 1; providing for payment of differential costs.
B140-04 Authorizing the upgrade of water main along University Avenue, from College Avenue to Ninth Street.
B141-04 Authorizing replacement of water main along Rollins Road, from Providence Road to Maryland Avenue.
B142-04 Accepting conveyances for underground electric purposes.
B143-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.
B144-04 Authorizing a moratorium on the demolition of buildings in the Special Business District.
B145-04 Accepting a donation from the Boone County Community Trust and a grant from the State Historic Preservation Office for renovations to the Blind Boone Home; appropriating funds.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Intra-departmental Transfer of Funds.
(B) Street Closure Requests.
Mr. Beck noted that the Special Business District recommended approval of the requests.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that the requests be approved as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(C) Human Rights Commission Correspondence to the City Council regarding the USA-PATRIOT Act.
David Finke, explained that he had been elected by the Human Rights Commission as Chair for next year. The Commission's request was for an in person discussion during a pre-Council work session to look at procedural issues rather than substantive issues about the PATRIOT Act itself.
Mayor Hindman explained that the Council has successfully taken the position that, regardless of their personal opinions, they did not get into national policy issues. If there were a situation where a local resident's human rights were actually charged to be violated as a result of this law, he thought it might be appropriate for the Human Rights Commission to look into that particular individual case. He personally did not think it would be appropriate for them as a City Council or for a City Commission to be causing community debate with respect to national policy.
Mr. Loveless agreed with the Mayor's stand on the issue and added he had seen no indication from his Council colleagues that they would likely change this precedent. He was concerned that by holding a hearing there might be an expectation by those who testified that it would lead to some action by the Council. He said it was very unlikely it would. The City's Commission were very valuable to them and he did not want to see them invest themselves in something the Council would not take any action on.
Mr. Hutton felt the Commission would be establishing an expectation that something would happen. After holding hearings and spending hours of hard work on the issue, he said they could report their findings to the Council and that would be the end of it, after the Council accepted their report.
Mr. Ash said it was because they felt it was beyond the scope of the Council and they did not want to set a precedent and open a "Pandora's Box." If asking for Council advice, he thought this might not be the best use of the Commission's time.
Mr. Janku pointed out that the Council was elected to deal with particular local issues. He felt Congress was where this issue should be decided.
(D) Demolition of Downtown Buildings and New Surface Parking Lots.
Mr. Beck explained the next step would be to determine whether or not the Planning and Zoning Commission should hold a hearing on the proposal. He noted they would vote on the continuation of the moratorium at the next meeting.
Mr. Ash agreed that it was currently too easy to tear down a building and that more hoops needed to be created. In regards to setting up a new requirement where any time someone wanted to construct a parking lot, they had to put a building in front of it, he felt was going from too few hoops to too many hoops. He explained his Church wanted to expand their building and tear down the Wendy's building to recoup some of their parking. He understood it would be okay for them to build on their parking lot, but not okay for them to tear down the Wendy's building because they were not planning on constructing a building in front. Mr. Ash commented that he wanted what was best for downtown, but thought they had to balance the personal property rights of others. He had no problem with notifying more people, including the Special Business District, and letting people have input. He said the moratorium was not as strict as what was being proposed and does not say anything about building a new parking lot with a building in front of it.
Mr. John did not like the proposal. He felt they were putting disincentives in front of disincentives. If this was sent on, he suggested that Mr. Ash's comments be taken onto consideration by the Commission. He also thought the Council needed to look at the district they were picking. He felt if some on the fringes were torn down and a new building was put up, it would be a good thing.
Mr. Janku asked if a public hearing had been held on the issue. Mr. Dudark said there had been no public hearing, it was referred to the Commission to report back to the Council. They were recommending that the Council direct them to amend the C-2 district. Mr. Janku asked if they would have a public hearing when they initiated an ordinance. Mr. Dudark replied that they would. At that point, Mr. Janku said other alternatives could be presented to them and they could come back with something different. Mr. Dudark suggested the Council determine whether or not this was the right direction to take. He said they would then hold a public hearing and report back to the Council. If the Council thought it was not the right direction, he did not think it would serve any purpose to refer it to them.
Mr. Ash did not think it was the right direction. Mr. Hutton asked if either of the other two options were better. Mr. Ash asked which option corresponded to his earlier thoughts on the issue. Mr. Dudark explained that the two fundamental choices were to directly deal with the demolition of the building or indirectly deal with the establishment of a commercial parking lot. To directly deal with the demolition of the building was a much more complicated issue. One would have to determine whether or not it was a historic building, economically feasible to rehabilitate, and feasible to construct a new building on the lot, and if so, what kind of new building, how it would be designed, how big, and etc. Mr. Dudark stated it was serious business when you discussed someone having to reconstruct a building when they wanted to demolish it. The commercial parking lot, he felt could be done now without any standards. There was no requirement to have a building on the lot and it could be put right up to the sidewalk. The group that worked on it felt it was not the surface parking lot that was so bad, it was it was the location near the street. If we were going to have a streetscape with pedestrians walking along the sidewalk, there needed to be a building there because it was downtown. He said the parking lot would be in the back, accessed by an alley or a side street, not Broadway where you would have pedestrians walking on a major street. He said the guidelines could be changed some, but questioned if they were going in the right direction.
Mr. Janku assumed any ordinance had a variance provision. If the Church would be increasing the street frontage covered by a building, he suggested that might be a situation where there would be some flexibility involved where they could tear down one building to basically build a bigger building adjacent to it. Perhaps, as the Commission moved forward, that would be something they could look at. Mr. Ash said Mr. Dudark brought up a good point about focusing on the construction of new parking lots and allowing one to circumvent the tricky area of what could and could not be demolished.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that the issue be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission, along with a copy of the comments made this evening, for a public hearing and report back with an ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku.
Mr. John asked if they wanted to lean toward regulating demolition, toward regulating the establishment of parking lots, or not lean at all. Mayor Hindman thought they were already on the right track. Mr. Ash commented that it would still be very simple to knock a building down. Mayor Hindman agreed. Mr. Ash thought maybe just focusing on the parking lot was not the way to go.
Mr. Janku asked if the Commission could present both alternatives at the public hearing. Mr. Dudark replied they would have to develop an ordinance for the first one and that would take several months. He said it was not an easy thing to write a demolition ordinance.
Mr. Ash asked Mr. Dudark his opinion. Mr. Dudark replied that if the Council felt that one of the two was preferable, they might look at the concerns they had with that preference, let the Commission try to address the concerns, and see if they could find a way through it. Mayor Hindman commented that they had just heard the major weakness with respect to what otherwise seems purposeful - that it was awful easy to tear down a building and build anything. Mr. Dudark asked if it was the loss of the building or the creation of the parking lot. Mayor Hindman felt it was both. He wholeheartedly agreed with the idea that we should have storefronts along the streets of downtown. Mr. Hutton thought it was more about the loss of the building than it was building the parking lot. Mr. John thought it was the other way around, that they did not want these parking lots because they were not retail buildings up on the front. They would not mind them being demolished if they knew another building was going in its place. What they were worried about was the establishment of a parking lot on the street line. Unless they wanted to try to enact some sort of historic preservation ordinance for downtown buildings, Mr. John said the question was not the demolition of the building but the building of the parking lot on the street. If they were going to start looking at historic preservation for downtown building, Mr. John said they needed to take a whole other tact on this issue.
Mayor Hindman stated he would stick with his motion that the Council favored looking at the location of the parking lot with a structure in front of it. He noted it might not be the permanent solution, but felt it would deal with the issue for the time being.
Mr. Ash commented that the way the current moratorium worked was not a bad example of how things should work in general. If someone wanted to take a building down, they would have to obtain Council permission.
The motion made by Mayor Hindman, seconded by Mr. Janku, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
(E) Moonlight Hoops Program.
Mr. Beck commented that the program in effect the past two years had been very successful. He explained that it was jointly sponsored by the Police Department and the Parks and Recreation Department with the Police Department acting as referees. He said they were looking into expanding the program, along with the C.A.R.E. program.
Mr. Hood explained they felt they could expand to two nights this summer and their intent was to do so. They would still be doing it with volunteer officials and without scoreboards. They would continue to look for additional funding sources to fund any enhancements.
Ms. Crayton was concerned that the police officers may be needed somewhere else. She said she would not tolerate the problems she had last summer and wanted to head off any bad situations.
Mr. Ash noted there was a $10 charge for the program, with scholarships available. He inquired if there was a waiting list for Moonlight Hoops. Mr. Hood was not aware of a list. Ms. Crayton explained that t-shirts were provided for different teams and that the $10 was for a shirt. Mr. Ash asked if a greater positive could be achieved, not only with Moonlight Hoops, but with the ARC scholarships also. His idea was to provide a carrot and/or stick such that someone could have their scholarship given to someone else on a waiting list if they got in trouble. He thought that would provide a year round incentive to stay out of trouble. Mayor Hindman suggested it might be better to come up with a punishment scheme that would cover everybody, not just people with scholarships.
Ms. Crayton asked if there was any money for passes to Douglass pool for the summer. She wanted to find something constructive and inexpensive for the kids to do.
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:
COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC
Mr. John commented that local business people had noted that Flat Branch Park was not being used by local business people on nice days because there were people who had basically occupied the park and taken it over by living in, around, and underneath parts of the park. He wondered what could be done to make it safer for people to use the park, especially during the noon hour. Mr. Hood explained that his department had received some of the same comments. Last week, they stepped up their patrol with the Park Ranger. He was hopeful that would help some. He said if someone was just sitting there and not violating any laws, there was little that could be done. They were looking at what they could do and also discussing with the Special Business District options that they migh be bringing forward to the Council with respect to possible limitations on alcohol in that particular park.
Mr. John said he would like to see some of their "Retreat" time taken up with work session items they needed to work on, so they could get their list cleared up before starting on budget sessions.
Regarding the proposed street standards and terminal streets in industrial areas, Mr. John noted they had been removed. He said terminal streets would not be allowed in industrial area. He said he had not been able to figure out why they would not be allowed.
When they approved the plan for the two homes west of Forum and north of Katy Place, Mr. Loveless noted they had talked about traffic problems at that intersection. He said the problems have not gotten any better. He thought they had asked for a report. Mayor Hindman replied they had gotten a staff report and it had been found to be safe. He voiced concern about the left hand turns. Mr. Beck said he would get them a copy of the report.
Mr. Loveless asked about a pedestrian activated light at Broadfield across Broadway. He asked that MoDOT be petitioned again, if they had not been recently. He was concerned about the school children having to cross Broadway. Mayor Hindman thought it would be a good place for a count down timer because it was a long, wide street. Mr. Loveless made a motion that staff be directed to contact MoDOT about the pedestrian activated light. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Hutton commented that it had been brought to his attention that the five lots off of the cul-de-sac in the Hawks Ridge Subdivision they approved off of St. Charles Road recently were meant to have the same covenants as the rest of the subdivision to the west of it. Mr. Dudark indicated they could not be recorded until the final plat was recorded. Mr. Hutton made the motion that Staff be directed to follow up on the issue making sure the covenants were recorded. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku made the motion that Staff be directed to recommend to MoDOT that a stop light be installed at the Kennesaw and Rain Forest intersection providing full access to 763. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Ms. Crayton noted that the buses were taken out of the Mall and that the riders had to stand out on Bernadette. She noted that a lot of the people were handicapped and could not walk. They had no shelter from the heat and rain. She asked that a bus shelter be installed. Mr. Beck thought they had moved the stop to a better location, but said he would check into the situation.
Ms. Crayton noted that houses were starting to be boarded up again on Third and Fourth Streets.
Mike Bloom, an attorney with offices at 609 E. Broadway, member of the Human Rights Commission, spoke regarding their request about the PATRIOT Act. He did not know how a Human Rights Commission empowered to oversee the state of human rights in the City of Columbia could not, in good conscience, address the PATRIOT Act.
John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, member of Community Making a Difference, asked the Council to direct the City Manager to direct the City's Purchasing Agent to make copies of certain proposals that had been received to engage a consultant to assist the Police Department in revising its performance evaluation system. He asked that the copies be made available by 4:00 p.m. tomorrow afternoon. He felt public participation in planning and supervision of Police operations to be one of the key elements of community policing.
The meeting adjourned at 12:52 a.m.
© 2016 City of Columbia