M I N U T E S
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - COLUMBIA, MISSOURI
NOVEMBER 1, 2004



INTRODUCTORY

The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, November 1, 2004, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS and JOHN 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 October 18, 2004, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Hutton and a second by Ms. Crayton.

APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA

Mayor Hindman noted that B358-04 and B362-04 would be taken off 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. John.

SPECIAL ITEMS

None.

SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

B349-04 Voluntary annexation of property located on the north side of Richland Road, east of the City limits; establishing permanent R-1 zoning.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as a 160 acre tract located in northeast Columbia. After review by City Staff, approval was recommended. The Commission recommended

approval on a 4 - 3 vote.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

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

Mr. Ash noted discussion in the Planning and Zoning minutes in regards to getting away from the policy of granting specific open zoning at the time of annexation. They felt it should be more broad with a category being described. Although he understood the concept, he did not think it was realistic or that people would be willing to annex unless they knew, specifically, what kind of zoning they were going to get.

Mr. Hutton noted a condition regarding zoning happening within six months of annexation and asked for clarification. Mr. Boeckmann explained that if zoning was not dealt with at the time of annexation, the Planning and Zoning Commission had six months to make a recommendation. It would then go to the Council. He noted that it had been a long time since that had happened.

B349-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B350-04 Approving the Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon C-P Development Plan.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that the Planning Staff and the Commission recommended approval of the request with some conditions. The conditions included a five foot sidewalk on a private street in the area and a lighting structure with a maximum pole height of 20 feet with full cut-off fixtures.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Curtis McDonald, the developer of CenterState, wanted to highlight a couple points and explained that every time they obtained a building permit, a geotechnical report was also required. Due to clay soil in this region, the requirement to have a load bearing capacity, and the non-expansive character of soil immediately under the parking lots and buildings, they were being required to create an impervious surface. He felt the idea of having a pervious parking lot on top of an impervious surface did not work. Until standards were established, they would just continue to do their best. He pointed out that they were exceeding stormwater detention measures where they could. Currently, there was not a good way to create a pervious surface parking lot because once it went through the asphalt, it had no place else to go. Regarding the signage for Lone Star Steakhouse, he explained that they would do everything as tastefully as possible. He noted the west side of 63 had always been envisioned as a large format, big box, retail development. Mr. McDonald wanted the signage to welcome people to this bright and festive area. He asked the Council to keep in mind that they did want to have signage, a pylon sign, within the tasteful standards that were used elsewhere in the City.

Mayor Hindman asked about pedestrian connectivity and how it would work. Mr. McDonald replied that their engineer would be presenting a plan.

Mr. Hutton asked about signage specifics. Mr. McDonald replied that he felt they had the right to advertise themselves and that they were planning to line up at least five restaurants on the strip along Highway 63, all of them having a very high level of architecture. Mr. Hutton understood the signs in the plan were 30 foot pylon signs, as originally presented. Mr. McDonald believed that was correct.

Ron Shy, 5600 S. Highway KK, spoke on behalf of Lone Star Steakhouse in regards to pedestrian connectivity. Using a map, he explained an 8-foot sidewalk would be on the south side of Vandiver Drive and a 5-foot sidewalk would be on the north side. Another 8-foot sidewalk was shown on east side of Lake Ridgeway, which led down to Bass Pro Drive. There would be a 5-foot sidewalk on Bass Pro Drive leading to the Bass Pro building and a 5-foot meandering sidewalk in front of their building. From there on, there would be a 5-foot sidewalk going clear back to Vandiver Drive. The future Woodard Drive would have 5-foot sidewalks on both sides. The private drive between Bass Pro, MV, and Lone Star would have a 5-foot sidewalk on the south side of the street. There would also be a 5-foot sidewalk going between Ruby Tuesday and Lone Star that would go up to the Hilton. Sidewalks would go in front of the shopping center towards Bass Pro and towards the sidewalks in front of both buildings of the MV property. Anybody wanting to go to the restaurants or Bass Pro from the Hilton would have various ways to get there. Mr. Shy noted the proposed ordinance showed sidewalks on the northwest and southwest. He suggested the language be changed to northeast, east and the southwest side across the drive.

Mayor Hindman asked if Staff had known, at the time of their recommendation, what the developer had in mind. Mr. Shy replied that they had not yet made their presentation at that point. He stated that it was very enlightening to the Commission last Wednesday when they met and showed them the entire plan. When they submitted the plan for Lone Star, they did not submit a plan for the entire development, and therefore, they did not have a chance to see the whole thing.

Doug Coffman, a sign consultant for Lone Star Steakhouse and Saloon from Carmel, Indiana, explained their proposal to be for one pylon sign, 30 feet in overall height and 112 square feet in size. The zoning for C-3 on an arterial or expressway would allow them to go to 145 feet high at 128 square feet. They chose 112 feet at 30 feet high because they felt it was sufficient for the site. Their wall sign request was for three wall signs with their signature signage, which was on all of the prototype buildings in the Country. All three signs were identical with the Lone and the Star letters being 22-inches, the Steakhouse and Saloon letters being 14-inches, and the star symbol, from left to right, being 54-inches. He noted that the size of those letters was the smallest that could be made, while still being able to obtain UL approval due to the neon lighting.

Mr. Janku asked about the dimensions of the 112-foot pylon sign. Mr. Coffman thought it was roughly 7 x 16. He said the signs were compatible with those in other areas, specifically at I-70 and Stadium Boulevard.

There being no further comment, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Janku circulated to the Council an aerial depiction outlining the various pad sites. He felt the signage was excessive and said he would be amenable to monument signs. He also felt the restaurant signage at the Broadway Market Place, specifically the signage for the Longhorn restaurant, should be the model for this development. He stated that he thought wall signage was a better way to go and indicated he had no problem with that proposal. Mr. Janku made the motion that an 8-foot monument sign, consistent with the restaurant at Broadway Market Place, be allowed instead of the pylon sign. Ms. Crayton seconded the motion.

Mr. Hutton asked what had been done with the other C-P plans approved at this site. Mr. Janku's recollection was that the Hilton had extensive wall signage, which the Council approved. He also thought they had monument signs and that the Council allowed a 30 foot sign at the far end of the development for Furniture Row. He felt they might have made a mistake since they did not see the five restaurants coming forward, as well as the other pad sites lined up, or they might have done it because of its placement in the development. Looking at the map, he noted the potential for a lot more signage. Instead of ending up with a modern looking shopping center, he feared it would end up looking more like the Business Loop where the signs were lined up in a row. He pointed out that the signs might block each other out.

Mr. Ash felt that the Furniture Row sign, because of its configuration and the fact there was no good wall signage equivalent to it, probably made sense. In this case, the signage on the building was attractive, large, and eye-catching. In comparing this to the Broadway Market Place, he asked about the topography from 63 and if it was similar. Mr. Janku thought it was better here than at the Market Place. He agreed that whatever they decided would be propagated times five.

In regards to the size of the monument sign for Longhorn, Mr. Hutton thought it was a four-foot base and a four-foot sign on top of the base. Mr. John read that it was four-feet in height above the base, 18-inches thick and 12-feet in width and noted that the Board of Adjustment lowered the base to two-feet, making the height 6-feet total. Mr. Janku agreed the sign should be 6-feet in height and 48 square feet in size. He amended his original motion by allowing a 6-foot high monument sign limited to 48 square feet in size to replace the pylon sign. Ms. Crayton seconded the amended motion.

Mayor Hindman noted that this development had the incredible attraction of the Bass Pro Shop and that everyone would already be looking in that direction. He felt the monument sign was the answer.

From a practical standpoint, Mr. Loveless noted that southbound traffic on Highway 63, at 70 mph, would be past an exit point by the time they would see any signs on this property because of the underpass and the curve. Northbound, he said, there would be lots of distance to look over and spot everything very specifically. He did not see the advertising need for a tall pylon signage.

After having been asked for his thoughts on the suggested changes, Mr. McDonald agreed to make the signage equivalent to that of The Broadway Market Place. He said he would make it a condition of all of the frontage road restaurants. The Lone Star Steakhouse representatives were also agreeable to reducing their signage, but thought it would be important to have another building sign on the north side of the building, which would be comparable to the other walls. Mr. McDonald's commented that they would limit pylon signage, not only for Lone Star Steakhouse, but for all the restaurants in the frontage, to The Broadway Market Place standard. Mr. Janku was agreeable to the sign on the north side of the building and amended his previously amended motion by allowing a fourth sign on the north side fo the building that matched the other three sides. Ms. Crayton seconded the twice amended motion.

Mr. Boeckmann clarified the motion on the table and noted the third condition to Section 3 would state that the pylon sign shown on the plan shall be replaced with a monument sign not to exceed 6-feet in height (2 foot base and 4 foot high sign face), the sign face shall not exceed 48 square feet, and a wall sign shall be allowed on the north side of the building comparable to wall signs on the other sides of the building. The motion twice amended by Mr. Janku, seconded by Ms. Crayton, was approved unanimously by voice vote.

After receiving clarification from Mr. Shy, Mr. Loveless made the motion to further amend B350-04 by changing the wording to Section 3, Item 1 to state that five-feet sidewalks shall be constructed along the northeast and southeast border of the site and on the opposite side of the private street on the southwest side of the site. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B350-04, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B351-04 Rezoning property located at the northwest corner of Providence Road and Third Avenue (209 and 213 Third Avenue) from O-P and C-P.

Having received a request from the applicant to table the issue, Mayor Hindman made the motion that B351-04 be tabled to the November 15, 2004 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B364-04 Authorizing construction of water main serving Oak Forest Plat 10; providing for payment of differential costs.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that this line would be constructed along Green Meadows Road. With the City's policy to pay for the extra diameter of the pipe over and above that needed for the development, a twelve inch, rather than an eight inch line, 1655 feet in length, would be constructed at an estimated cost of $18,519 and would be paid from Water and Light funds.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

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

B364-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

(A) Renovations to the Gentry Building and Howard Building.

Item A was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted that they had been working on a master plan for the upgrading of older municipal buildings in downtown Columbia. Since the Health Department had moved out of the Howard Building, they wanted to move forward and discuss with the Council the renovation of the Howard Building. At the same time, they could take up the Gentry Building. He noted the estimated cost for both buildings ranged from $2,140,000 to $2,354,000 without the architectural/engineering fees.

Lou Koetting, Koetting and Associates, explained that they had been examining the two buildings for the last several months to determine recommended renovations. Using the overhead he showed building plans and explained the proposed renovations. Both buildings were historical and all proposed renovations reflected the sensitivity and importance of them. He noted that two local historians had been working with them, Deb Sheals and Brian Pape. He also noted that they wanted to approach this as a green building in remodeling, to the extent they could. He showed renderings of how they wanted to bring the two buildings into closer proximity of each other, much more so than what presently existed. He stated they would use a city scape and greenspace to connect the two buildings.

Mayor Hindman understood that they would continue to use the present entrance into the Gentry Building, but thought the original entrance had been on Broadway. Mr. Koetting replied that it had been and that they considered going back to it, but the primary reason they did not was because it would split the building in two. There was also an existing fountain and they would be modifying the landscaping along that area. In addition, for access to the building, it was felt it would be easier to come in the side and reuse the present entry. He noted that they could look into the issue again. More than likely, Mr. Koetting felt, they would still have to keep the handicapped ramp on the side. He added that the historical consultants had no strong opinion about maintaining the entry on Broadway. Mayor Hindman said he would appreciate them looking at it again because he liked the idea of having as many store fronts or public building entrances on Broadway as possible.

Mayor Hindman commented on the patio at the Howard Building. He noted that it was almost never used and was extremely hot in the summer because there was no shade or landscaping. What was shown, he saw as a definite improvement, but thought it needed more. Mr. Koetting explained the space was smaller than one might think. He noted that he had looked at the possibility of some trees for the area and thought they could have a couple of potted trees worked in with street trees to help give it some greenery on the north side. As they went forward with the plan, he felt they could do more by softening it with greenery and providing some areas where one could sit outside. Mayor Hindman stated he would like to see it become a very public area. Mr. Koetting replied that was their intention. Mr. Ash felt it might need some type of covering to make it truly usable most of the year.

Mr. Janku asked what could be done to make the roof less stark on the Gentry Building without having to replace it. Mr. Koetting thought they could repair and repaint certain areas, but it would still be a silver color. He thought they might be able to have the color more like a gun metal color.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

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

Mr. Hutton made the motion that Staff be directed to prepare an addendum to the contract and to move forward with plans and specifications. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(B) Construction of storm drainage improvements in the Maupin Road and Edgewood Avenue area.

Item B was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Patterson stated this was one of the originally identified projects in the 1983 report prepared by Black & Veatch as one of the lower priorities at the time. The specific problems to be solved with this project were structural flooding in the areas of 103 and 105 Westwood where house flooding occurred presently. He noted a common collector sewer project they were working on that would be under construction next year and stated that they felt doing the two projects together would minimize disruption to properties, back yards, and streets. The project would consist of replacing the storm drainage system and closing some of the open ditches. The estimated cost was $188,000, which would be paid for by the storm water utility. If they proceeded with the project, he hoped to have both the sewer and the storm water project under construction next fall.

Mr. Janku understood this to be for a ten year storm event. Mr. Patterson explained that their design standards were for enclosing or conveying 10 year storms in residential neighborhoods, but providing for overflows for 100 year storms. When they put in a storm pipe, they did not try to pipe it for a 100 year storm, but they made sure they had a conveyance system where there was an overflow area.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

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

Mr. Loveless commented that he had been to a couple of meetings with the stormwater folks and the neighbors on this project and he felt the neighborhood to be universally supportive of easing the flooding problems being experienced.

Mr. Loveless made the motion that Staff be directed to proceed with plans and specifications. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C) Construction of storm drainage improvements in the Concordia Street and Walther Court area.

Item C was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Patterson explained that this project was more related to protection of the street and to eliminate hazardous, icy conditions in the winter when the ponding water froze over. The estimated cost was $92,700 and it had been programmed into the storm water utility funds. The actual location of the work was in the west part of town, south of Broadway on Concordia Street and Walther Court. The work would consist of installing and replacing some undersized pipe and putting in drop inlets that would allow the water to be conveyed off the street and into the natural drainageways. He expected to have the work under contract next summer.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

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

Mr. Ash made the motion that Staff be directed to proceed with plans and specifications. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

OLD BUSINESS

B352-04 Vacating unbuilt street right-of-way in conjunction with the Replat of More's Addition.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained the City was working toward expanding its area for Water and Light Department storage. This vacation was necessary to allow for fencing and construction of a building next to the right-of-way. The following bill was the replat, which included a request for a variance to the requirement that Bowling Street terminate into a cul-de-sac.

B352-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows; VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B353-04 Approving a Replat of Lot 19, Part of Lot 20 and Lots 21 through 24 of More's Addition to Columbia; granting a variance to the Subdivision Regulations relating to turnarounds for terminal streets.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted this replat consisted of approximately two acres of land located between Business Loop 70 and the COLT Railroad.

Mr. Ash pointed out this was a M-1 and C-3 zoned lot. He asked if it was unusual for a lot to have split zoning on it. Mr. John did not think it was common and felt it would not cause a problem unless someone wanted to use it for the wrong thing on the wrong side of the lot.

B353-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B355-04 Vacating unbuilt street right-of-way for First Street.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this would vacate the remaining unbuilt right-of-way for First Street, south of East Broadway. The other portion was vacated in 1966.

Mr. Janku asked if this stubbed into the C-2 zoned property to the south and if it was a connection from Broadway to this piece of property. Mr. Patterson replied that this right-of-way did make that connection. Mr. Janku felt the property in this area was likely to develop pretty intensely and thought it might be a place where they wanted to preserve access. He commented that from Providence up to Garth, this could be the natural point, possibly, where they might want to have an intersection. The other exit from the property was just to the east, mid-block basically. Second Street, he pointed out, was too close to Providence to have much of a flow. Mr. Janku thought, in the long term, the City might want to preserve it to use at some point.

Mr. Beck asked if Staff had looked at the potential. Mr. Patterson replied he did not know, but did not think it was considered as being a probable development since it had been vacated up to that point and because there was already development behind it. He supposed if access was needed to the property for the development, that it would likely be a driveway location. He did not know that they considered it to be a likely street location for a future extension. He stated it would only be a stub street and would not go to another street.

Mr. Beck asked if his suggestion was that there could be a light at First Street to the north and a major business user to the south, which would have controlled access to Broadway half way between Providence and Garth. Mr. Janku indicated that was correct and that it could be for vehicles and pedestrians. Mr. Patterson commented that if that occurred, we would still be able to do that because we had locations where there were signals at T-intersections and where the private drives came in. He gave Columbia Mall and Clark Lane at Burger King as an example. Mr. Janku thought it would make more sense to have it at First Street. Mr. Patterson stated it could be done at First Street where the City could have control of it and have a pedestrian crossing or a signaled break at that point. Mr. Janku thought they were moving too quickly and that the City's options should be preserved. Mayor Hindman agreed. He thought the reason they wanted it vacated was so they could build a building on it. Mr. Janku stated they could also use it for parking.

Mayor Hindman asked if the City would incur a liability to bring it up to standards if they were to keep the property. Mr. Beck did not think so.

Mr. Hutton suggested tabling the issue and asking Staff for a more detailed report on potential uses and whether it truly had any benefit.

Mr. Hutton made the motion that B355-04 be tabled to the November 15, 2004 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B358-04 Approving the Final Plat of Redeemer Presbyterian Church Subdivision Plat 1.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Boeckmann explained that an amendment sheet had been prepared adding a performance contract.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that B358-04 be amended per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B358-04, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B359-04 Amending Chapter 12A of the City Code to add a new article on detection and elimination of illicit storm water discharges.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Patterson explained this as a new portion to Chapter 12A relating to provisions for illicit detection and elimination of such discharges. It was a requirement under the City's Phase II EPA permit on file with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources where the City would implement programs that pro-actively addressed, by identifying and removing, locations where there were discharges to the storm water system that had the potential to cause or actually caused pollution of the streams. The ordinance was modeled after EPA guidelines, very similar to those ordinances adopted by other cities in similar situations. In order to develop, at least a community understanding of what the City's efforts were directed toward, Mr. Patterson noted that they had worked with the Council appointed Stormwater Task Force. Additionally, they provided copies of the potential ordinance to people they identified as having an interest in the efforts, such as recognized environmental organizations, the development community, the Chamber of Commerce, downtown businesses, and anyone else they felt would be impacted by the implementation of this ordinance. He pointed out that adjustments had been made based on comments received and he felt that persons affected by it understood it was not something that would be enforced in a draconian way, but in a way the City could systematically begin trying to meet its obligations under the EPA requirements.

Mr. Ash saw no problem with aggressively going after people who had their sewers tying into the stormwater, but said he was concerned about the word "discharge." He noted it talked about any pollutant whatsoever and wondered if it could be narrowed to focus more on intense pollution problems. Mr. Ash asked if commercial businesses could no longer use power sprayers outside. Mr. Patterson explained the ordinance also identified those types of activities that would be exempt from the discharge prohibition, such as water line flushing, irrigation, uncontaminated pumped ground water, and non commercial washing of vehicles. The bottom line was to protect from the pollutants that might occur as a result of a deliberate discharge or even accidental discharge. He noted procedures were included for appeals and variances. Mr. Patterson felt there to be sufficient safeguards to entitle people to some recourse. Mr. Ash asked how deck washers would be able to continue to work. Mr. Patterson explained that if the product used was a contaminant that could get into the stormwater system, Staff had an obligation to try to prevent its use. He felt we needed to face the fact that we had to take action to try to prevent the pollution of these groundwater sources. Mr. Ash understood we had to meet EPA guidelines, but wanted to make sure all of the "what ifs" were considered. He thought the way to get around a lot of the concerns was to direct a lot of things that might have previously gone into the stormwater system into the sanitary sewer system. He asked if that impact had been looked into. Mr. Patterson replied that the City also had pretty strict ordinances regarding the sanitary storm sewer and what could or could not go into it. If this was some material that was going into the storm sewer now, it probably should be going into the sanitary storm sewer. If it was pollutant, it would be handle at the wastewater treatment plant. Anything that was hazardous had to be regulated and prevented from going into either one of them. They did not anticipate this would cause a massive increase or injection of material that should not go into the sewer system.

Referring to page 7, Division 3, Section 12A-191 (b), Mr. Loveless noted a typographical error and made the motion to add the word "in" between deemed and compliance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Loveless noted that the person giving the order for the abatement would also be the person standing in judgment of the person appealing the abatement. Mr. Janku saw no difference between that and other nuisance ordinances where the Health Director enforced the ordinance and also presided over appeals hearings. Mr. Loveless explained that he merely wanted to point it out. Mr. Patterson noted that they did the same thing with minimum property standards where they gave notices of violation and an abatement order of correction notice under his signature. Those people had the right to a formal hearing over which Mr. Patterson presided. The safeguard was that people could appeal to the Court in regard to any action taken administratively.

B359-04, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B360-04 Calling for bids for the construction of Blue Ridge Road from Garth Avenue to Rangeline Road.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Patterson explained this would allow them to call for bids on Blue Ridge, the second part of a major project in the area. The estimated cost was $1,155,000 with funding coming from tax bills, Federal STP monies, and County road tax revenues. The public hearing for this project was held in October of 2001 at which time a maximum tax bill was set at $15.00 per abutting foot. Since that public hearing, the Department of Transportation requested that we stop our project 425 feet west of Route 763 because of the design they had for the intersection. They wanted to be able to tie it in with the road correctly and did not want to have to put in work that would have to be torn out during their construction project. The project was expected to begin early in 2005 and be completed next summer.

Mr. Janku asked about temporarily connecting the sidewalk on Blue Ridge over to the last 425 feet with gravel or something. Mr. Patterson said they had not looked at that, but certainly could, and indicated they might be able to use asphalt.

B360-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B362-04 Authorizing an agreement with Larkin Group, Inc. for engineering services for the Harmony Branch detention project; appropriating funds.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Janku asked about the acreage of the tract. Mr. Patterson replied they were not sure what size it would end up being when they got finished, but noted it did include the entire identified floodplain basin in that area. Mr. Janku asked if the property was City owned. Mr. Patterson responded that it was not and added that the project was in the middle of what had been discussed as a major commercial development a few years ago. He explained that the project started out as a straight forward detention facility, but because of the development issues that had occurred in the area, they were now approaching it differently. They were asking the consultant to look at the environmental design concept, taking into consideration the potential for commercial development, and asking the consultant to provide options on how to preserve the integrity of the basin. It would become an issue when the consultant began defining boundaries because it was certain this was not going to be a willing seller of property where they would be putting in the facilities.

Mr. Janku asked how much land the City owned it this area. Mr. Patterson replied that the City owned approximately 10 acres. Mr. Janku asked about any trails that might be incorporated with the project. Mr. Patterson noted that if the City acquired the property for stormwater purposes there would be all kinds of opportunities. The area currently owned could certainly be incorporated. That was why they wanted the consultant to begin looking at options for the entire basin.

B362-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B363-04 Authorizing the acquisition of easements for the construction of a public sidewalk for Boone Prairie Development.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that, in conjunction with plan approval, the Council asked that a sidewalk be constructed where there was no easement. The developer needed the City to purchase the property and would reimburse the City for those costs.

Mr. Ash asked what the reimbursement costs would be. Mr. Patterson explained that if we had to go to condemnation, the developer would have to pay all legal fees and court costs. The developer had tried negotiating with the owner, but was unsuccessful. He thought the cost could amount to several thousand dollars, but the land would not be that much. Mr. Ash commented this could be a lose-lose situation if it had to go to condemnation. Mr. Patterson stated they would make an effort to negotiate a settlement.

B363-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B370-04 Authorizing a waiver and release of restrictive covenant agreement for the Eastgate Shopping Center area.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained the City would join the other property owner in releasing a restrictive covenant on the property requiring a service station be on it. He noted that the service station would be replaced with a bank facility.

Mr. Loveless asked if the hang up was that this was a second building. He noted that the restrictive covenant listed specifically a bank or banking facilities as being allowed, but that it also stated a service station and a second building in which banking was allowed. Mr. Boeckmann clarified that the problem was the second building, not the use.

Robert Smith, one of the property owners, explained the restrictive covenant. He noted that two-thirds of the neighbors had agreed to abolish the covenants. The problem was that one of the neighbors, Stephens College still had title to the property, and the City had an equitable interest in it, in that there was a contract to purchase. For that reason, the attorney felt the City should also give its okay to the release of restrictive covenants. Mr. Smith gave the history of the property. He explained that Mr. Landrum wanted to make this a very attractive facility that would stand out because of its location. He passed out an artist's rendering of what the facility might look like. It was designed with a lot of landscaping and canopies that were designed to look like trees. The building itself would be constructed of metal and glass.

Mr. Ash asked how Stephens College felt about the request. Mr. Smith replied that he had a signed agreement by the College President, which indicated they approved the removal of the old restrictive covenants. Mr. Blaylock, owner of the Eastgate Building, also approved the removal, as had Ms. Rogers.

B370-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B371-04 Authorizing an intergovernmental cooperation agreement with Shoppes at Stadium Transportation Development District.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this agreement to be similar to the two previously established transportation districts. He pointed out a provision indicating the district would disband if the City formed a Master TDD in the Stadium corridor. He noted they had imposed a half cent sales tax effective today. The City would be paid one percent of the sales tax collected to handle the collection of the sales tax.

Mr. John asked if one percent was what the City was collecting from the other two districts. Mr. Beck replied it was the same.

Craig Van Matre, an attorney for the Transportation District, with offices at 1101 E. Broadway, explained that he wrote the agreement trying to mirror the form of the agreement used in the past. He commented that they were phasing in construction and that they had already awarded a contract for the right in/right out and the initial work there. They wanted to do it in phases so it did not interfere with the master plan for the development of Stadium. He indicated there was a drop inlet and a sidewalk that they preferred not to start construction on right away because of the uncertainty of the plans for the entire corridor. However, he noted, they did intend to pay for both as soon as they were designed in a permanent fashion. He was not certain a decision had been made as to which side of the street the pedway and sidewalk would be placed.

Mr. Janku asked about the time frame for the final plans. Mr. Van Matre stated it was out of his control and that there were political aspects and design aspects. The design aspects, he noted, were with MoDOT. He thought Public Works wanted to be consulted with on all the intersections and the ancillary roadway. He thought it would not be planned for another eight months to one year. Mr. Patterson pointed out that he was told today that the City had a bond for the amount of the sidewalk to ensure its installation. He noted that they had no problem with the deferral of it. They were confident that the drop inlet could be worked out in a phased manner also. Mr. Patterson noted it had nothing to do with the immediate improvements.

Mayor Hindman felt it was reasonable to hold off on the sidewalk under the circumstances.

B371-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. 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.

B354-04 Vacating utility easements in the Broadway Marketplace; accepting a conveyance for utility purposes.

B356-04 Approving the Final Plat of Springdale Estates, Plat No. 8; authorizing a performance contract.

B357-04 Approving the Final Plat of Thornbrook, Plat No. 13; authorizing a performance contract.

B361-04 Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission for proposed improvements to Southampton Drive; appropriating funds.

B365-04 Accepting conveyance; authorizing payment of differential costs for water main serving Timber Ridge, Plat 2; approving the Engineer's Final Report.

B366-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

B367-04 Accepting a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant; appropriating funds.

B368-04 Accepting a DWI Enforcement Grant from the Missouri Division of Highway Safety; appropriating funds.

B369-04 Accepting a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency - Department of Homeland Security to purchase self-contained breathing apparatus for the Fire Department; appropriating funds.

R217-04 Setting a public hearing: storm drainage improvements to the Third Avenue and Garth Avenue area.

R218-04 Setting a public hearing: storm drainage improvements to the Merideth Branch drainage area.

R219-04 Authorizing acceptance of an FY 2004 Missouri State Homeland Security Grant.

R220-04 Authorizing an agreement with local agencies for an FY 2004 Missouri State Homeland Security grant.

R221-04 Authorizing an agreement with First Night Columbia, Inc. for support of the New Year's Eve celebration.

R222-04 Authorizing an agreement with Boone County Historical Society for caretaker services at Nifong Park and Maplewood Home.

R223-04 Authorizing an agreement with Boone County Historical Society to operate, maintain and improve the Maplewood Home and related structures located in Nifong Park.

R224-04 Authorizing a HOME agreement with Regional AIDS Interfaith Network.

R225-04 Authorizing a Percent for Art agreement with Carol Fleming Marks for the project at Stephens Lake Park.

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

NEW BUSINESS

R226-04 Approving the Final Plat of Settlers Ridge Plat 2.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained the location to be at the northeast corner of Route B and HH, outside the City limits, and under Boone County jurisdiction. The property consisted of about three and one-half acres. The pre-annexation agreement required City approval in order to be connected to City sewer. The plat was checked by Staff and met City subdivision requirements.

The vote on R226-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R227-04 Authorizing a resource management agreement with The Energy Authority, Inc.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Dasho explained the Water and Light Department was looking for help with integrating into the Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO) and its proposed new market place for electricity. They needed help because it was a very complex system they were putting into place. They found an organization, The Energy Authority, a not-for-profit, public authority made up of a number of municipal utilities from around the Country. They had been in the business since 1996 doing work similar to what they were proposing to do here. Staff recommended use of their services in the coming years, while integrating into this new market place.

Mr. Ash asked if the $1.5 million saved in transmission fees was an annual savings or a one time savings. Mr. Dasho replied it was an annual savings. Mr. Ash noted that we would be spending $325,000 annually, which would make the net savings just slightly over $1 million, and asked if the extra headaches would be worth it. He asked if it was too late to change our mind about joining MISO. Mr. Dasho replied that we were already in and that they had made the decision based on the recommendations of consultants, which showed them the $1.5 savings. Since Ameren, one of the City's major power suppliers, was in MISO, he noted, it would be extremely complicated for us not to be in MISO. To a certain degree, he felt there might be levels of complexity for not being in it, as well as for being in it. Mr. Ash asked about the fee for bilateral transaction services. Mr. Dasho explained bilateral transactions to be agreements reached between the City and another willing buyer or seller for a longer term arrangement. It was a 50 cent charge per MWh. He stated that he had not looked into it because they were not very concerned about bilateral arrangements at this time. They were much more interested in the services they could provide for us under MISO. Mr. Dasho was not sure the City would even do bilateral transactions in terms of selling energy to other folks. Mr. Ash inquired about Attachment A and a steam turbine with natural gas. He thought the City had a coal generator. Mr. Dasho explained that the City had a gas turbine with a steam generator associated with it. That was the unit we would use in the market place and that was how we registered our facilities with the MISO. Our other generation, coal fired generation, was behind the meter, which meant MISO did not have control of it.

The vote on R227-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R228-04 Authorizing an engineering agreement with Stanley Consultants, Inc. for the Municipal Power Plant rehabilitation upgrade study.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Dasho explained that they had been investigating what the City should do for future power supply needs. They had gone through the process of looking at a power plant in Illinois and would be investigating one in northern Arkansas. There were additional wholesale contracts they might make with Ameren. Another thing they needed to investigate, in order to get a full picture, was the cost of doing something at the existing power plant in comparison to other alternatives in the long term. They asked Stanley Consultants to take a look at the power plant and to give them an estimate of the cost of adding capacity there or the cost of refurbishing existing capacity. They would then be able to compare other offers they might see for the long term. Mr. Dasho pointed out that Stanley had done this job for other municipalities in the past and that Staff felt they would be able to do the job for the City.

Mr. Ash commented that they received an e-mail from the Energy & Environment Commission Chair, who noted one option might be to modify the boilers so they could burn things other than coal. He asked if anyone had looked into burning things that went into the landfill. Mr. Janku replied that the City had looked into that, but ther system could not handle it. Mr. Dasho stated one of the things Stanley would consider was the kind of boiler that would be capable of boiling opportunity fuels, like refuse derived fuels. If the percentage of the mix of coal and the other fuels was fairly low, they would be able to burn a number of different kinds of things.

The vote on R228-04 was recorded as follows; VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R229-04 Authorizing the demolition of a dilapidated structure located at 703 Banks Avenue.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted that all procedures had been followed in regards to this structure. This would authorize removal of the structure and the tax billing of costs to the property owner.

The vote on R229-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. 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:

B372-04 Rezoning property located on the west side of Brown Station Road, north of U.S. Highway 63 from A-1 to PUD-12.

B373-04 Approving the Boys and Girls Town of Missouri O-P Development Plan.

B374-04 Approving the Final Plat of Boone Prairie Plat 1; authorizing a performance contract.

B375-04 Approving the Final Plat of Vandiver Crossing.

B376-04 Authorizing acquisition of easements for the Third Avenue and Garth Avenue drainage improvement project.

B377-04 Authorizing acquisition of property for the construction of the Merideth Branch detention basin.

B378-04 Amending Ordinance No. 17978 to correct legal descriptions on properties assessed for sewer construction in Sanitary Sewer District No. 144 (Mexico Gravel Road).

B379-04 Confirming the contract with Emery Sapp & Sons, Inc. for construction of improvements on East Broadway; appropriating funds.

B380-04 Authorizing a railway crossing agreement with the City of Centralia, Missouri; appropriating funds.

B381-04 Appropriating funds for the purchase of supplies for the D.A.R.E. program.
B382-04 Accepting a grant from the State Emergency Management Agency for Citizen Corps Programs; appropriating funds.

B383-04 Authorizing Amendment No. 1 to agreement with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for the Lead Agency Program; appropriating funds.

REPORTS AND PETITIONS

(A) Intra-departmental Transfer of Funds.

Report accepted.

(B) Proposed Lighting Ordinance.

Mr. Janku asked if Staff had ideas about what the revised standards should be in order to address the concerns of the neighbors and property owners and whether those should be given to the Council before going to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. John and Mr. Hutton.

Mr. Janku made the motion that Staff be directed to report back with recommended standards for Council consideration. The motion was seconded by Mr. John.

Mr. Ash commented that he had compared this to the proposed lighting ordinance the Council received earlier. He liked this concept better because the first one basically focused on gas stations. This one, he felt, was more broad.

Mr. John noted that the industry had design bezels and different kinds of things for directional lighting and etc. He thought the City had been trying to raise and lower the pole instead of trying to set the amount of light going off site and the illumination levels.

Mr. Ash suggested keeping it simple to begin with and possibly add more detail later by focusing on the end result versus how to get there.

The motion made by Mr. Janku, seconded by Mr. John, was approved unanimously by voice vote.

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

None.

COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COUNCIL AND STAFF

Mr. Janku commented that e-mails had been received from people living near Blue Ridge and 763, with respect to the new 763 design. They were concerned the design did not allow traffic in Kennesaw Ridge to make a left turn south on to Blue Ridge. He reminded the Council that they had requested a stop light, but MoDOT did not go along with the request. He wanted to find out what was in the initial report or plan regarding connector streets because he felt there was a lot of commercial development potential and other residential development in that general area along 763 that would need access to the south. If we did not have a plan, he wanted to move forward.

Mr. Janku made the motion that Staff be directed to report back with an update on the issue. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ash and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Janku noted that they had talked a lot about the potential for methane gas from the landfill generating electricity and wondered if the City could get grants from the State Office it funded with the tipping fee. Mr. Beck stated there were two potential grants; one through the Mid-Missouri District and the other through the statewide grant program. Mr. Patterson noted they had not applied for a grant at this point, but were exploring, as part of the study, what options and opportunities were available for financial assistance. The ones the City had received in the past were waste reduction grants and this would not qualify.

Regarding the Nifong Connector, Mr. Janku suggested renaming it Southampton. That way, people coming down Nifong would be able to find Southampton easily. Mr. Loveless suggested waiting until Southampton was built. Mr. John agreed.

Mr. Ash commented that he had heard from people living in Jefferson Commons about getting bus service to the area. He said it was not possible earlier in the year at the time they were tweaking the routes, but now the numbers had reached critical mass where somehow it might be worthwhile.

Mr. Ash made the motion that Staff be directed to report back on the possibility of bus service to the Jefferson Commons area. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Janku pointed out that once upon a time the apartment complexes provided their own shuttle service. He said it would be great if they cooperated and offered to help fund it.

Mr. Loveless stated that he had brought to Staff's attention the lack of street lighting on Aztec. He was interested in hearing about any movement toward a solution to the situation.

Regarding annexation of large tracts and making concessions from City ordinances, Mr. Loveless asked if there was anything to report. Mr. Boeckmann replied that he had been working on it, but was not able to finish it for this agenda.

Mayor Hindman commented that they had talked about changes to the rezoning application procedure where they might take a look at public hearing notices and the length of time given in cases were there would obviously be objections. He said there was a considerable amount of dissatisfaction where people objecting to the proposals of developers felt they were not getting in on it early enough or there was not enough time for them to prepare. He noted there were also several other issues brought up. He thought a motion had been previously made.

Mr. Loveless asked if they should wait until the new Planning Director was appointed and on board as the new director might bring in experiences from other cities. Mr. Watkins thought the Commission was wrestling with the issue currently, but had generally made the decision that a comprehensive review of the whole procedure needed to be done and that they should wait for the new director. Mr. Beck said Staff could start checking into how the procedure was handled by other cities.

Mayor Hindman noted much enthusiasm for the downtown trolley idea. He suggested looking into taking steps toward adding one or two trolleys to the City's fleet. He stated that they had one report on the issue, but it was before it had moved ahead this far. Mayor Hindman wanted to take a look at the pros and cons of proceeding at an early date to acquire a trolley. Mr. Loveless asked if it would be helpful, as the City replaced its fleet of buses, to do so with trolleys and move the buses that were downtown to other lines. Mayor Hindman noted that was the kind of thing on which Staff could report. Mr. Loveless asked if we were looking at replacing any of the buses next year. Mr. Beck did not believe so. Typically, he replied, they tried to run them for ten to twelve years. Mr. Janku asked about the status of the Federal Transportation Bill. He understood it did not pass. Mr. Janku asked if there was still an opportunity to try to get funding for this purpose. Mr. Beck explained that there would be a level of funding included in the bill for transit. Mr. Patterson pointed out that the City had replaced more than ten of them over the period of a few years. Right now, the best opportunity to obtain funding for something like this was to have designated or earmarked funds. The City received over $2 million last year for the Wabash and that was the type of competitive funding it would come from. Mr. Beck said we could apply for it and maybe tie it into trying to gain more ridership or something that would make it unique enough to qualify for funding. Mr. Loveless asked about recently purchased buses from Kansas City. Mr. Beck pointed out that they were used buses. Mr. Loveless asked if there might be a market for some of our buses where we could sell a few and use the proceeds of that sale to purchase a trolley. Mr. Beck understood the Kansas City buses to be surplus. Mr. Patterson explained the only way they were able to do that was because Kansas City was reducing service and they had more buses than the spare ratio allowed by the FTA. He was not certain they would go for trading a type of bus for another. He noted that they could look into what options might be available. Mr. Beck explained two possibilities; purchasing one, with or without grants, or leasing one, which would add to operating costs, but would not be a big capital cost. Mr. Ash noted that Ms. Steiner indicated that this was not necessarily a transit issue, but a tourism issue where it could possibly help promote a lot of the things they were trying to do downtown. If the cost were to be split amongst several pockets, he thought it could make it a little easier to get done. Mayor Hindman thought they should look into lease and purchase and into what pockets funding might come out of.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that Staff be directed to report back on the trolley issue. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Janku asked Staff to look into a program Fannie Mae had adopted called the Smart Commute Initiative. It gave home buyers credit for living near transit lines. He was hopeful something could be set up in Columbia.

The meeting adjourned at 10:22 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sheela Amin
City Clerk