OCTOBER 18, 2004


The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, October 18, 2004, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON and LOVELESS were present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department Heads were also present.


The minutes of the regular meeting of October 4, 2004, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Ms. Crayton and a second by Mr. Ash.


Mayor Hindman noted that Item E would be added under Reports and Petitions. Mr. John noted that he represented the owner/applicant in various real estate transactions to include the parcel involved with B332-04. In regards to B295-04, Mr. John noted he was working as the leasing agent for Liberty Square Properties. Mr. Hutton stated he was employed by Columbia College, the other party involved with R211-04. Upon their request, Mr. Janku made the motion that Mr. John be allowed to abstain from voting on B332-04 and B295-04 and Mr. Hutton be allowed to abstain from voting on R211-04. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

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


Patches and Pumper.

Patches and Pumper was a robotic teaching tool manufactured by Robotronics in Springville, Utah. Patches, the dalmatian driver of the fire department pumper truck, was operated by a handler using a remote control unit similar to an unit used to control model aircraft and other such devices. Chief Markgraf explained this gift was made possible by generous corporate support of the Sutphen Corporation and Missouri Employers Mutual Insurance. The Sutphen Corporation donated $5,000 and Missouri Emplyers Mutual donated $3,900. Chief Markgraf also acknowledged the New Century Fund for providing the conduit through which the purchase was made after the funding was secured. The Chief explained Patches and Pumper was not a toy, but a tool to help Columbia firefighters teach valuable fire and life safety lessons to hundreds of school children and one of the most vulnerable age groups for fire deaths and injuries. The Mayor and City Manager joined the Chief at the podium in thanking the representatives present for their donations.




R197-04 Approval of the 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan, Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and 2005 Action Plan.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that this Plan needed to be updated every five years in order for the City to obtain federal funding for its community development activities that primarily benefitted low to moderate income persons. The Consolidated Plan included a Plan to implement the recommendations of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. He noted that a hearing was held at the last meeting and that it was held over so comments could be incorporated into what would actually be approved by the Council. If additional comments were made, they would be sent along with the approved Plan to the federal offices.

Mayor Hindman reopened the public hearing.

John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, explained that he had attended most of the meetings of the Housing Market Steering Committee and a number of the meetings having to do with the Consolidated Plan. Mr. Clark commented that he was impressed with the Plan overall. His biggest concern was that it was a plan in which a whole series of strategies with numbers would be adopted before the City created and adopted its affordable housing policy. He was concerned that the City was setting goals as though it had a policy and were following it when developing strategies, when in fact, the City did not. He thought the most important part of this Plan was that Columbia needed to develop an affordable housing policy, which would be a part of the Consolidated Plan. Mr. Clark was hopeful when this got approved that kind of work would be done. He offered to serve on a committee and stated that Dale Whitman also indicated he would be willing to serve on a committee. In regards to the Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, he commented that he did not see the fair housing recommendations in the report. Once that report was approved, he strongly recommended it be included as an appendix. He also felt, from what was written, one could not tell that the group found a number of areas that really needed study about discriminatory lending practices and predatory insurance practices.

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

Ms. Crayton voiced concern about homeless shelters and noted that for the last two months New Life had been locking their doors. She emphasized the need for money to go to the agencies that were housing people. Ms. Crayton also had concerns about how and where people could voice Human Rights concerns. She asked that HUD be given a clear picture of what was actually going on in Columbia.

Mayor Hindman commented that if there were corrections needed to this Plan Ms. Crayton should talk to Staff about them. He suggested tabling the issue until those concerns could be addressed.

Mr. Watkins commented that the report needed to be into the HUD offices by November 15. He noted the comment period was not up until the 27th of this month and that they could still include comments from Ms. Crayton or anyone else from the public. He pointed out that these situations change almost monthly and added that the core of this report was written in April and May or last year. It took that long to pull it all together and get input from everyone. When it was written, Mr. Watkins assured the Council it was accurate. Ms. Crayton said she would add her comments before the comment period deadline.

With the understanding the comment period was not closed, Mayor Hindman suggested they vote on the issue.

Mr. Janku made the motion that R197-04 be amended per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

The vote on R197-04, as amended, was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

B331-04 Voluntary annexation of property located on the south side of Old Plank Road, west of Bethel Church Road; establishing permanent R-3 zoning.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this request for annexation with R-3 zoning as a 22 acre tract located in southwest Columbia. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 to 1 for denial of the R-3 request. The Commission felt a planned development would be better for the area.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Dan Simon, an attorney with offices at 203 Executive Building, spoke on behalf of the applicants and petitioners. He explained that this property was immediately adjacent to City limits and currently zoned RM, which was comparable to the City's R-3 district. He noted this situation was practically identical to a situation before Council in June with Breakthrough Construction. The Breakthrough property, he stated, was immediately to the west of the subject property and abutted it on its west boundary. He noted that both properties, like much of the adjacent property around them, had been zoned RM since the 1970's. In addition, both properties were bisected by an existing Boone County Regional Sewer District sewer main, which was capable of providing sewer service for both properties. In both cases, he pointed out, the Sewer District would be precluded from providing that service by a territorial agreement entered into with the City in January of 2002. The agreement stated the Sewer District, while capable of providing the service, would not provide the service without the City's consent. The City indicated that to provide sewer service, they would either require an agreement to be annexed, as in Breakthrough's case, or that the property actually be annexed, as in this case. If this property was annexed, Mr. Simon pointed out, the Breakthrough property would automatically become eligible to be annexed and placed in zoning district R-3. In both instances, the Commission recommended PUD rather than R-3, which they felt was inappropriate for several reasons. He pointed out that the immediate neighbor to the west, who owned a large parcel of R-1 property already in the City, did not oppose this zoning application because they were convinced that what would be done would compliment the single family dwelling district they intended to place on the property.

Bob Ragland, 526 W. Bethel Drive, spoke in opposition of the request because he felt this area was a single family housing development type area. He explained that they were opposed, not to the annexation, but to the density due to the traffic that would be created on Old Plank Road. Mr. Ragland voiced concern about people, to include school children, that had to walk and ride their bikes on Old Plank. He stated that they had attended a meeting, but were not able to obtain any numbers at that time. Noting several parcels along the road that were either for sale or would soon be for sale, he asked, if the zoning was not changed at this time, if it meant those properties would develop at R-3 all of the way to Forum. He suggested PUD-7 and reiterated concerns regarding the safety of Old Plank Road. Mr. Ragland noted they were not opposed to the development, but felt the density was too high.

In view of the present County zoning of RM, Mayor Hindman understood the result would be identical if they were to develop the property in the County. Mr. Ragland assumed that was true, but asked why that could not be changed.

Curt Lichty, 501 W. Hickam, asked the Council to consider whether the County zoning designation on these properties had been a mistake of some kind. With undeveloped roads, he felt the zoning was too dense. He understood the previous owner of the subject property had thought the land would be developed for single family dwellings. He reiterated traffic concerns, noting the many hills and curves, and passed around pictures illustrating those concerns. With the proposed zoning, he was fearful that 200 to 600 cars could be added to the road.

John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, noted that City annexation at any cost was not a good policy. He suggested changing the policy, in this instance, to give the developer access to the County sewer facility and allowing this development in the County. He also suggested the City develop a future policy indicating that it will act only on voluntary annexation applications that come with planned zoning requests.

Rita Morgan, 445 W. Hickam, opposed the zoning request and suggested R-2 would be perfect for the surrounding area. She was concerned about the rising crime rates that came with overcrowded neighborhoods. Ms. Morgan reiterated that she would like to see an R-2 area with a density of six structures per acre, a buffer zone of 30 feet or more, and a park area for the occupants. In addition, she felt, the management should take a course in Crime and Rental Property through the Police Department.

Randy Fletcher, 303 W. Hickam, spoke in support of his neighbors. He pointed out the staff report noted, as part of the existing conditions, that the area to the north of the subject tract was R-1 undeveloped. He explained that it was not undeveloped because it was their neighborhood to the north. Mr. Fletcher noted they had a three or four acre park with a pool, which was cooperatively maintained by the neighborhood. They already had problems with kids from outside the neighborhood jumping the fence to swim in the private pool. For a highly dense development to go in right across the road from their neighborhood, they felt, was insensitive to the existing conditions they had already established. On three sides of the tract in question, he pointed out the properties were R-1. Only on the east was it zoned differently.

Alexa Dixon, 554 W. Bethel, commented that because a mistake was made previously did not mean the Council had to perpetuate it further. She was concerned for everyone's safety.

John Pascucci, 3104 Timberhill Trail, spoke in opposition to the request and suggested resolving issues, such as this, before getting to this point.

Michael Szewczyk, 1404 Highlands Court, explained that he drove this road every day and felt it was very unsafe. He was worried about pedestrians and kids on bicycles. He noted that all of the units would probably include children that would be walking over to Rock Bridge Elementary School. Dr. Szewczyk felt that Bethel formed a line where everything east of it included multi-unit zoning. That was good because there were good roads for all of them to empty on to. Old Plank, he felt, was not that kind of road. He suggested R-1 for areas west of Bethel.

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

Mr. John felt it was a fallacy to believe this development would not happen if the property was in the County. He stated that they were currently studying and getting a better understanding of what it was they needed to do in regards to cost sharing on road development and that compact and contiguous were buzz words they used to try to maintain the cost of development. Mr. John felt the problem was that nobody wanted anything near them, but added that somewhere in this town, we had to have apartments and commercial. He agreed, on the face of it, that Old Plank today was not a good road to have this development on. The fact was, he commented, that if they decided not to do it in the City, it would be done in the County with a government agency that had even less money to work on roads than the City did. The only other way to do it, he felt, was to build roads prior to development. If we were to do that, there would be the question of which road to build first and which developer would get the first road built prior to development. Mr. John noted the City would always be in the situation of catching up and that we would, at least, be able to obtain the right-of-way with this development. He did not think they had the right to ask for a PUD.

Mr. Janku understood that annexation of this property would trigger the annexation of the Breakthrough property and that both would be required to have sidewalks on their part of the development. Mr. Patterson said that was correct, unless there was a specific variance granted as part of the redevelopment and platting. Part of the agreement, as he explained it, was that they had to develop by City standards in order to receive sewer access and be annexed. Mr. Janku understood it would extend a sidewalk from the western part of the tract all of the way up to Bethel. Mr. Patterson stated that was correct if platting was involved. If the developer platted the property, they would have to have sidewalks unless they were granted a variance. Mayor Hindman asked if they would have to plat it. Mr. Patterson stated that if they came in as an R-3 and it was a legal lot, they would be able to obtain building permits. Mr. Janku thought that policy had been changed. Mr. Patterson noted provisions were put in for sidewalks to be required as part of the building permit process, but it was only on specific types of projects. He was not sure it would cover an apartment complex.

Mr. Ash stated the same development could occur under the County RM zoning, possibly with lagoons, and noted that this was not upzoning. It was equivalent zoning.

Mayor Hindman commented that if it was developed in the City and City sidewalk standards had to be met with at least a five foot sidewalk along Old Plank Road, it would be a major safety improvement. Mayor Hindman felt that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not object to the density, but to the road conditions because such a development would be too much for present conditions. He reiterated the need for sidewalks

Mr. Boeckmann clarified that sidewalks could be required on multi-family as well as commercial.

Mr. Loveless understood the neighbors not wanting a development this dense next to them, but noted that if the property remained in the County, it could be developed with an on-site sewer system. He was sure everyone agreed that situation would be far less desirable then having it tied into an existing line and running down to the City's plant. Regarding earlier comments made, Mr. Loveless explained that there was considerable Staff time that went into the development of something before it got to the Council.

Mr. Hutton reiterated that the applicants were not asking to do anything they could not do right now in the County. If the zoning request was for something different than what it was currently, he said the Council would obviously have some discretion.

Mayor Hindman felt when they finished their review of the PUD requirements, it should be easier to comply with. In addition, he noted that they might want to review the possibility of making a policy that would require everything to come in as a PUD. It would have to be a requirement that people would be willing to meet. They could continue the policy that the density be the same, but that a planned unit development would be required. He noted that it was pointed out that there was fairly steep topography here, which he felt cried PUD. The engineers had argued that it would not make much difference and that although it had a high density, the total capacity of the land was significantly less than it might appear, so the total amount of building would be reduced by virtue of the topography.

Ms. Crayton asked who would straighten out the road. Mr. Janku stated that if it was annexed, it would ultimately be the City's responsibility. Mayor Hindman thought the north side of the road would still be in the County. He did not see the road being improved, at least all of the way to Providence Road, for many years to come. When the Commission was through with its study on how to pay for roads, he stated that they might be able to get more of a contribution toward this road as the area continued to build up. Ms. Crayton asked what the developer would pay. Although the developer stated he would contribute toward off-site improvements, since it was not a PUD, Mayor Hindman noted there was no requirement that he do so. Mr. Beck pointed out that most Country roads that had been improved were improved after they came into the City in conjunction with development.

B331-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: CRAYTON. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B332-04 Rezoning property located on the east side of U. S. Highway 63, north and south of Stadium Boulevard, extended, from A-1 to C-P.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as 42 acres in east Columbia. The Commission voted 7 to 1 in favor of the request.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

John Pekkala, a realtor with offices at 33 E. Broadway, spoke on behalf of the Stadium 63 Properties, LLC. He noted this corner was one of the busiest in the City, just north of LeMone Industrial Park and a bit south of the City water tower. He also noted the north and south forks of Grindstone flowed through the property. He stated their request for C-P zoning came without a plan and they planned on putting in a planned mixed use infill development with commercial, retail shops, restaurants, office, and some residential. He said they planned on putting in trails at the bottoms and along the bluffs and possibly a trailhead, if they were able to get a road down there. Besides having a nice infill project, he felt the City would benefit by dramatically increased sales tax and property taxes. As an infill, he thought it would be good for the environment and within several years, he thought it would almost be in the middle of town, as opposed to a development on the outskirts. Mr. Pekkala noted a new 36 inch sewer ran through the property. The property owners to the north of this property, he noted, spoke in favor of the rezoning at the Planning and Zoning meeting. The owner on the east side, Ms. Baumgardner, was opposed to the rezoning, but said they would work with her to minimize any disturbance. To the south of that, Dr. Baumgardner and his wife had about 75 acres to the east. Dr. Bumgardner did not care about the rezoning, but did not want any trails on his property. Mr. Pekkala stated they would stop their trails well short of his property. Also on the east, he noted part of the Industrial Park. On the south, the entire boundary was the Industrial Park. To the west was 12 acres owned by the GBO, LLC, who also wanted commercial zoning. To the north was the interchange at Highway 63. Across 63 was the Shepard neighborhood. He indicated that he had walked the site with Dan Jordan and Rhonda Linzinie, discussing lighting, signing and etc. They preferred the developer have a plan first. Mr. Pekkala said he and his clients felt they should follow the letter of the law by getting the zoning and then negotiating the road issues. Their request included all legal uses in district C-3, with halfway houses, drive-in theaters, gun clubs, and live adult entertainment and pornography stores excluded. He proposed obtaining the initial zoning, negotiating the road agreements, consulting again with the neighbors and their engineers, and then coming back to the City with a final plan. He noted that they felt commercial was the obvious choice at this major intersection.

Mr. Ash asked Mr. Pekkala if he would list the uses they absolutely had to have. At this stage, if approved as requested, all of the other C-3 uses would be allowed and he felt this was the time to strike the uses that would not be good for this neighborhood. Mr. Pekkala felt the zoning ordinance was pretty specific. He stated they were thinking about having mostly commercial and retail, basically north of Stadium, with restaurants and shops. In the south, there was not a whole lot they could do because of the creek. There was area along the GBO piece on the west where they could put in some office buildings and some residential. On the far southern end, if LeMone were extended a little bit, they could sell that portion to some unknown business at some future point. He felt it would not be too incompatible with an industrial park. Mr. Ash said he would feel much more comfortable with a list of five to ten uses and excluding everything else. Mr. Pekkala said he could not make that decision for the developer. Mr. Ash suggested tabling the issue until a good list could be provided.

Gary Cass, 712 Timberhill Road, President of the Shepard Hills Improvement Association, said they too would like to see a specific plan on the table so everyone knew what was being talked about before moving forward.

Gay Bumgardner, 1315 Rustic Road, did not understand why there was such a big hurry to rezone this property. She noted this property had no intersection, no road into the property, no traffic study, and no plan. She felt they would be dropping this development into a quiet, long established residential area, creating sprawl. She noted that MoDOT stated that they had no interest in Stadium, nor did their finalized 10-year plan include it. Stadium had been a line on a map for 30 years and was less close to being built now because of higher priorities around the state. Seven years ago, she remembered that investors came to the Council with the very same request to rezone this property. It was denied. If this rezoning was allowed without the extension of Stadium, she felt it would end in a dead end leading motorists into a private, commercial area. Because the dead end would have fast food restaurants, apartments and etc., Ms. Baumgardner stated a real traffic problem would be created. Motorists would have to wait for a turn light while cars lined up as far back as Audubon. She also noted the bottom land was entirely in the flood plain with no way to build roads, parks or trailways.

John Pascucci, 3104 Timberhill Trail, commented that this would be pocket zoning because there would be no way to get in and out of it, except onto Stadium Boulevard and 63. He stated that there should be reasonable development, not a blank check to do whatever they wished with the property. He suggested further scrutiny of the issue.

Doris Littrell, 920 Timberhill Road, pointed out that 40 to 50 families lived north of this tract. She thought it was mostly, if not all, single family residences. Their concerns included additional lights, noise, traffic, pollution of the creek, and land values. They saw no need to rush this rezoning because the Stadium extension was not on anyone's plan. She thought it was much more important to widen WW. She pointed out that the Planning Staff recommended denial of this rezoning request. Ms. Littrell commented that their neighborhood would like to meet with the developer at some point, but asked the Council to table the request until everyone understood the proposal. She stated that Mr. Ash's proposal to strike every use they were not interested in would make them feel more comfortable.

Tom Baker, 817 Timberhill Road, stated he did not want to see this intersection rezoned to commercial without some sort of plan. He had pictures showing signs erected by MoDOT indicating the road was closed and said the Council was being asked to rezone a dead end street to commercial. He was fearful it would create another traffic mess similar to that at I-70 and 63. He noted that it had been stated that if commercial went in, perhaps, another TDD would be formed to get the road improved. Mr. Baker cautioned that there might come a time when the City was in dire need of a sales tax increase and stated that if all of the commercial areas already had higher taxes due to the TDD's, he did not think the voters would react positively to having their sales taxes raised even further.

Daniel Jordan, 2700 Cardinal Drive, Chair of the Shepard Boulevard Neighborhood Association, objected to the ordinance for several reasons. He stated there were issues that need to be addressed and studied, such as light pollution, traffic and etc. He reiterated the fact that there was no plan, just the ordinance, was manifestly inadequate to protect the neighborhood. Mr. Jordan did not think the Council should vote on anything like this until there had been serious dialogue between the residents and the developers.

Sue Underwood, 711 Rustic Road, voiced concern about this intersection being put upon very heavily by a pocket development where there would be no egress except the intersection of 63 and Stadium. To extend LeMone Boulevard, she felt, would put a lot of commercial traffic into their neighborhood.

Dee Dokken, 804 Again, commented she was concerned about Grindstone Creek and wanted to make sure there was a good plan in place to protect the water quality and the riparian corridor. She also wanted to see a plan before any votes were taken in regards to zoning.

Kevin Kearns, 2700 Woodberry, spoke on behalf of the development group. He stated that they were requesting C-P because they thought it would be the best way to open up dialogue between the City, State, and themselves in regards to the road situation. He also felt it would be best to work with the City and State to determine what would be done regarding roads before deciding on what the final uses would be. He stated that they had every intention of meeting with the neighborhood once all of that was worked out to see if it was even a viable plan. To their knowledge, he commented, no one lived within 500 to 700 feet of this property. Mr. Kearns explained that they were not trying to exclude anyone, but were trying to get through step one first.

Mr. Ash reiterated that this was the time, if they were to approve the request, to indicate what uses would be allowed. Mr. Kearns replied it was his understanding that step one was to get the C-P and then lay all of that out. Mr. Ash stated the uses went with the rezoning. He asked if they would be interested in tabling the issue in order to have time to consider the uses they would need. Mr. Kearns stated he would rather see it tabled than turned down.

Mayor Hindman noted that, with the concern of the neighbors and so forth, there should at least be some sort of outline or statement of intent. He thought it seemed logical that there would eventually be some sort of commercial use at that intersection, but thought there should also be some type of representation as to what was coming.

Leroy Sharp, 3103 Timberhill Trail, agreed that to have some idea of what might be placed at this intersection would give them some comfort.

Mr. Hutton asked if there was a change in the works as far as the zoning request versus the plan. He understood they could ask for zoning without a plan and asked if that would be any different with the proposed changes currently being worked on. Mr. Watkins replied that it would not. Mayor Hindman asked if there would be a requirement for an outline. Mr. Boeckmann was not sure if that would be included or not, but commented that in the past, they had done more than just granted planned zoning. He noted that they had added restrictions based on some preliminary drawings. Mr. Hutton did not recall ever getting one without some type of concept plan. Mr. Watkins felt the goal of the committee was to make it easier to move C-P zoning through the process without having everything nailed down.

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

Mr. Ash understood because of the road situation, the developer would not want to spend a lot of money on a plan for something that might not even happen. He did think it was fair, however, for them to come up with a list of uses at this stage. He felt that a lot of the residents hoped that Stadium would never be extended. He wanted them to understand the City was actively trying to figure out, even if there was no money for it now, how to start acquiring property in order to get it to eventually connect to Highway 70. He also clarified that extending LeMone Industrial Boulevard was another thing the Council wanted to see happen. Developing this property could make those two things easier. As far as commercial at this intersection, Mr. Ash believed it made sense.

Regarding the absence of a plan, Mr. Janku stated there were cases where plans were brought forward. It was a protection for the neighbors that this would be a planned district as opposed to open zoning. Under planned zoning, he pointed out the Council controlled such things as lighting.

Mayor Hindman felt it was time for the developer to work with the neighborhood and stated he would be interested in seeing something amounting to a letter of intent. He thought everyone was entitled to get some idea, within a reasonable degree, of what was headed this way.

Mr. Ash made the motion that B332-04 be tabled to November 15, 2004. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B333-04 Approving the Waffle House C-P Development Plan.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this property as being on the west side of Old Route K, 1500 feet north of Green Meadows Road. The Commission recommended approval subject to reducing the height of the lighting.

Mr. John commented that there was nothing in the packet relating to the signage or the elevations. He also noted that there was discussion in the Planning minutes with regard to screening, which he did not see on the plan. Being 200 feet from Jewel Cemetery, he wanted to see what this would look like next to it.

Mr. Ash asked about the landscaping plan. He noted the report indicated that at the time of writing, it had not been completed. Mr. Patterson replied that it had been approved since the report.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Scott Abrams, a real estate representative with Waffle House Restaurants, shared a drawing with Mr. John who was concerned about seeing a Waffle House sign, while standing at Jewel Cemetery. Mr. Abrams stated the sign was on the north side of the property toward Stoney Creek Inn and was 12 feet high and 64 square feet in size. Mr. John asked about signage on the building. Mr. Abrams noted there would be three signs on the fascia of the building. Mr. John asked if any of them would be on the south fascia. Mr. Abrams replied yes. Mr. John asked what type of screening there would be between the building and the parking lot and the building and the property line to the south. Mr. Abrams replied that no screening was required. Mr. John read a quote from the minutes from the owner of the property to the south and west. It stated that part of their contract was that a privacy fence had to be erected separating their property from any other development next to them. The purpose of that was to make sure that everyone involved realized they would be putting up a nice privacy fence separating their property from the rest of the property. Mr. Abrams explained that it would be put up by that property owner.

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

Mr. John stated that at almost any place else, he would probably not have much of a problem with this, but felt, in this instance, they should protect the historic cemetery. He thought screening was needed across that side and that the wrap around sign should not wrap around to the south side.

Mr. Abrams asked about the C-P designation. Mr. John explained that it gave the Council the authority to make any decision on sign heights and anything else they wished to discuss. Mr. Abrams thought they had met the sign heights. Mr. John told him the pylon sign was not a problem. It was the yellow plastic bezel sign on the building facing the cemetery that was the problem. He wanted it screened so it would not be seen by someone standing in the cemetery. Mr. Abrams asked if they could take it off. Mr. John replied that would be even better. Mr. John stated he also had a problem with a blank concrete wall with exhausts, a sand pit, and transformers sticking out. Mr. Abrams explained it would be a brick wall. Mr. John stated he wanted something between it and the cemetery. Mr. Abrams asked about the neighbors fence. Mr. John replied that he wanted the fence up before the building was occupied. Mr. Abrams stated he would take the plastic bezel sign off and that he did not think the neighbor would have a problem putting the fence up. Mr. John wanted to ensure the screening was put up prior to an occupancy permit being provided. Mr. Abrams agreed to the requirement that no occupancy permit would be issued until the screening was taken care of.

Mr. Janku made the motion that B333-04 be amended by adding conditions 2 and 3 to Section 2 stating no signs shall be placed on the south side of the structure and no occupancy permit shall be issued until an 8-foot high privacy fence is in place on the south side of the lot. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B333-04, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B340-04 Authorizing construction of water main serving Forest Ridge, Plat 2; providing for payment of differential costs.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that there were several ordinances this evening dealing with the City paying for the extra diameter pipe and the developer paying that which was required to serve the subdivision. This project consisted of 1,095 feet of 8-inch water line running along a portion of three streets in the subdivision. The City's portion of the cost was $4,848, which would be paid from Water and Light funds.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

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

B340-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B341-04 Authorizing construction of water main serving CenterState, Plat 3; providing for payment of differential costs.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained in this case the developer would be required to pay for an 8-inch line because this was a commercial area. The City would pay for the differential between an 8-inch and a 12-inch line. The project was 665 feet in length along Vandiver Drive. The City's cost was estimated to be $6,800 to be paid from Water and Light funds.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

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

B341-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B342-04 Authorizing construction of water main serving Hunter's Gate, Plat 3A; providing for payment of differential costs.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that the City would be paying the difference between a 6-inch line and a 12-inch line. The project length was 1,005 feet at an estimated cost to the City of $14,683. The second portion was 1,170 feet of 8-inch line instead of a 6-inch line at an estimated cost to the City of $5,674. The total cost to the City would be $20,357.

Mr. Loveless commented that he could not find the water lines on the drawings provided in their packets. He asked if they could be brought out somehow in the future. Mr. Beck replied that he would follow up.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

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

B342-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B343-04 Authorizing construction of water main serving Oakland Park Estates, Plat 1; providing for payment of differential costs.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck commented that the City's cost would be for the differential between a 12-inch main and a 6-inch main. The project length was 675 feet along Oakland Gravel with an estimated cost to the City of $11,198.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

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

B343-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

(A) Voluntary annexation of property located on the north side of Richland Road, east of the City limits.

Item A was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this tract as 160 acres located in northeast Columbia. The request had been processed through the various entities and agencies around the City. The applicant requested single family zoning. Mr. Beck noted that no action was required this evening.

Mr. Watkins pointed out a corner of the Sapp property recently filed for annexation. He said this tract was actually further east than the farthest east point of the Sapp property.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

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


B295-04 Allowing issuance of a building permit to Liberty Square Properties, LLC for a structure in a utility easement in Liberty Square Subdivision; approving a waiver of claim and indemnity agreement.

The bill was read by the Clerk.

It was Mr. Beck's understanding that the utility concerns voiced by Staff had been worked out since this was tabled. He noted an amendment sheet had been prepared.

Mr. Boeckmann explained the amendment reflected a change in the waiver of claim and indemnity agreement. He said a whereas clause was added, as was a phrase to Section 1.

Mayor Hindman made the motion to amend B295-04 per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ash and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Referring to Ms. McGuire's letter, Mr. Ash asked if Staff received the letters mentioned. Mr. Patterson replied that all of the information was received and what they were trying to do was to verify that all the things said in the letter were true without adding more paper to the packets.

Megan McGuire, an attorney with offices at 813 E. Walnut, spoke on behalf of Liberty Square Properties, LLC. She stated that all of the concerns brought up regarding the retaining wall at the September 20 meeting had been addressed. She noted the site plan included a retaining wall on the east side of the property due to some grade changes from the back to the front of the property. In order to construct the retaining wall, they wanted to be able to preserve a 20 foot easement on the east side of the property and maintain the soil integrity and the requirements around the "H" transmission pole in the 100 foot easement on the north side of the property. She explained, the Water and Light Department and the School District worked with them and they were able to secure an additional 10 foot easement on the school district's bus barn property on Clark Lane. The additional 10 feet was designed to provide the City with the ability to effectively access their utilities next to the retaining wall.

B295-04, as amended, was read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSTAINING: JOHN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B336-04 Authorizing acquisition of land located at the intersection of Keene Street and St. Charles Road for construction of a new fire station.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that some time ago the Council asked Staff to set aside three fire station sites. One had already been acquired in north central Columbia. Staff recommended the site selected at Keene and St. Charles Road be purchased for a future fire station site for the east side of the City. He pointed out the entire tract was about 2 acres. It was determined that 1.74 acres would be needed. The ordinance was drafted for the entire two acres, but the City could purchase a lesser amount.

Margaret Smarr, 800 Cedar Grove Boulevard, explained that when she bought the property, she bought it as a long term investment for her children and grandchildren. She stated that she had no plans to sell it.

Mr. Ash asked Ms. Smarr if she owned any other property in the area. Ms. Smarr replied no. Mr. Ash asked about the zoning and was informed it was C-3 by Ms. Smarr's son.

Mr. Smarr asked if the property on the west side was looked at. Mr. John noted it was under development and added that this search had been going on for two years. Mayor Hindman noted at the presentation earlier this evening it was made clear that this site was clearly the most effective. He suggested the Smarr's visit with the Fire Chief so he could explain why the committee wa recommending this particular site.

Mr. Hutton was concerned about leaving seven-tenths of an acre, referring to the difference between 2.4 acres and 1.7 acres. Mayor Hindman pointed out that often times in a condemnation case they look at that situation and say that all of the value would be taken away from it and the buyer would have to pay for the entire thing. Mr. Hutton asked if the committee exhausted every possibility. Mr. Beck stated that he had raised many questions regarding alternatives before bringing this to the Council. Looking at ingress, egress, and all of the things they reviewed when trying to site a fire station, Mr. Beck commented that they kept coming back to this site. He pointed out that the location of a fire station could save lives.

Mr. John stated that they had presentations for the south side as well as the north side of WW, presentations up and down Keene Street, presentations on putting the highway at Ballenger Lane over I-70 and just using the fire station north of Ballenger and spending the money of road infrastructure instead of a fire station. He pointed out that it was not like they just found this piece of property.

Mr. Ash asked Mr. Smarr how long ago it had been that he had a for sale sign on the property. Mr. Smarr stated it was four or five years ago when he needed some money. He added that now there was no desire to sell it.

Mr. Janku asked if there would be other points when the Council would be told what the price appeared to be and if they could still be out evaluating other sites during that time. Chief Markgraf replied that there were no other sites in that area that were available and would provide the protection this site would provide.

B336-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B337-04 Establishing Sanitary Sewer District No. 148 along South Garth Avenue.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained the Public Works Department had been working towards replacing bad sewer situations in this particular neighborhood. The proposed District included 20 parcels on the east side of Garth, north of Stewart, and south of Broadway. The existing 6-inch line was constructed a number of years ago, some under houses and some under garages. The estimated cost was $92,000 with the City paying half of the cost of rebuilding sewer lines in these areas.

Mr. John understood lines would be left under the houses. Mr. Patterson explained they had talked about this earlier in the year and tried to find alternative methods that would not destroy or disturb the properties. They televised the line and made the determination that they could use the cast in place liner. The property owners were much more agreeable to that than having their yards torn up. It was felt this would be a good project on which to have a trial. They did not like leaving a sewer line under a house, but it was better than the alternative of destroying property. It would also be 25% cheaper to do it this way than it would to go in and dig up a new line. Mr. John was concerned that at some point the line would have to be serviced and they would have to work under someone's house. Mr. Patterson agreed, but stated that if there were to be redevelopment of the area, there would be new lines put in. He added that they thought they could extend the life of this line for quite a while without having any maintenance problems with it. Mr. Beck pointed out that the City would be maintaining these lines as public sewer lines after the work was done. Mr. Patterson noted that they would be putting in clean outs, so that could be done much more readily than it could be done now.

Mr. Hutton asked how many years the cast in place would last. Mr. Patterson replied that the material itself was as good as the original piping. He said the hydraulics on it would be better than that. He thought the life time would be more than 30 years.

B337-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B338-04 Confirming the contract with Columbia Curb & Gutter for repair of runways and taxiways at Columbia Regional Airport; appropriating funds.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck pointed out that the FAA would be paying 95% of the eligible project cost. Historically, he noted, the runways were constructed two inches thicker than what the FAA would normally have approved when the Airport was built. The thought was that they would be used for fairly large planes coming in.

Mr. Hutton asked if FAA paid 95% of the estimate or actual cost. Mr. Patterson responded that they paid 95% of the $990,000.

B338-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B344-04 Appropriating funds for the replacement of economizer tubes in Boiler #7 at the Municipal Power Plant.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Dasho explained the project would replace boiler tubes that had been failing on a regular basis. This project was in the CIP and was moved forward. The project would cost approximately $700,000 to $800,000. In order to fund this amount, they finished the final phase of sales of the SO2 credits and generated about $1.7 million with those sales. The money would be used for upgrading the boiler.

B344-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:


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

B334-04 Approving the Final Plat of Eastport Village Plat 5; authorizing a performance contract.

B335-04 Approving the Final Plat of Spauldin Subdivision Plat 1; authorizing a performance contract.

B339-04 Authorizing a Right of Use Permit with LPBW Development Company, LLC to allow the installation of landscaping, an irrigation system and lighting within a portion of the Cascades Drive right-of-way.

B345-04 Accepting a conveyance for utility purposes.

B346-04 Amending Chapter 17 of the City Code to codify parks and recreation fees.

B347-04 Accepting a donation from the Youth in Action Program for the purchase of recycling bins for the Public Works Department; appropriating funds.

B348-04 Appropriating SEMA State Homeland Security Grant funds for the purchase of personal protective and rescue equipment for the Police Department.

R204-04 Setting a public hearing: renovations to the Gentry Building and Howard Building.

R205-04 Setting a public hearing: construction of storm drainage improvements in the Maupin Road and Edgewood Avenue area.

R206-04 Setting a public hearing: construction of storm drainage improvements in the Concordia Street and Walther Court area.

R207-04 Setting a public hearing: construction of water main serving Oak Forest, Plat 10.

R208-04 Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for maternal child health services.

R209-04 Authorizing an agreement with the WBB Properties, Inc. for acquisition of right-of-way for the construction of the Brown School Road extension.

R210-04 Authorizing application to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources for various sanitary sewer improvement projects.

R211-04 Authorizing a pole attachment agreement with Columbia College.

The bills were given third reading and the resolutions were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON (except R211-04, on which he abstained), LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:


R212-04 Accepting the donation of a vehicle to be used by the Police Department.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Chief Boehm explained they were able to find a 1977 Chevrolet Nova that did at one time belong to the City as part of its Police fleet. This resolution would donate the vehicle to the City. The plan was to have a fund raiser and look for some in-kind services to eventually restore the vehicle and make it a parade and special event vehicle.

Mr. Beck pointed out that Chief Boehm and his wife were donating the vehicle to the City.

On behalf of the Council and Staff, Mayor Hindman thanked the Chief and his wife for their donation.

The vote on R212-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R213-04 Authorizing a Letter of Agreement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency - Emergency Management Institute for participation in the Integrated Emergency Management Course.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Mc Nabb described this as an excellent opportunity for the City of Columbia, Boone County, and other private agencies within Boone County to participate in an emergency management exercise class to be held in Maryland at the Emergency Management Institute. He explained that it would allow them to take between 55 to 75 people from the community to participate in an exercise program that actually assimilated very specific events that might occur.

Mr. Ash noted that the list of participants was extensive. He asked if they would all be going. Mr. Mc Nabb explained the list included suggested participants and added that the exercises were based around the people that were able to make it. They would accept a minimum of 55 participants and a maximum of 75. He noted a lot of volunteer organization groups were very interested in participating and added that there would probably be more people that wanted to go than they would be able to take. Tuition and travel would be paid for. The only expense to the participants was their time.

The vote on R213-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R214-04 Authorizing application to the Department of Natural Resources for partial funding of the Flat Branch Park Phase II Development.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Hood explained the application would enable them to seek additional funding for the development of Phase II of Flat Branch Park. The funds would come from a 45% matching fund grant. The maximum grant allowed was $150,000 and Staff was recommending we apply for that amount. It would require the City to provide a matching share of $183,333. He noted this to be the application submitted last year for which we received no funding. They had since talked with DNR Staff and Mr. Hood understood that the City had been fairly close to receiving funding last year and that it would be worthwhile to resubmit the application a second time. Mr. Hood noted that the Flat Branch Committee was continuing to work to raise funds for the project.

The vote on R214-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R215-04 Selecting an artist for the Percent for Art project at Stephens Lake Park.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Ms. Hunter explained this was the sixth Percent for Art project. For the last several projects, she noted that they had selected the artist and then worked with that person to develop an actual design. She stated that after working with everyone involved they would come back to the Council for the approval process.

Mr. Janku asked if there would be an education component. Ms. Hunter replied that they intended to apply for a grant to the Missouri Arts Council. If that did not work out, at the very least, they would provide signage on site and do at least one program with the artist. She noted that one was included in her contract, but they wanted to do more than that.

The vote on R215-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R216-04 Directing the City Manager to review the feasibility of annexing City-owned property located on the west side of Strawn Road (State Route ZZ) into the City.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as a 102 acre tract located on the east side of Perche Creek, which the City purchased from the Schwabe family for the wastewater treatment plant that was used on an interim basis until the large outfall trunk was constructed through the area.

The vote on R216-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. 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:

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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


(A) Intra-departmental Transfer of Funds.

Report accepted.

(B) Modifications to Donnelly Avenue.

After the public hearing was held and the preliminary design approved for the reconstruction of Donnelly Avenue, Mr. Patterson reminded the Council that they directed Staff to address concerns voiced in a letter. After meeting with property owners and trying to accommodate their requests, they felt they had modifications to the design of the project that would satisfy most of the concerns about the physical construction of the road. They reduced the street width from 32 feet to 28 feet, off-setted the centerline, and moved the sidewalk back to the curb to minimize damages or disturbance of property. Mr. Patterson stated there were concerns they could not address, such as the distribution of special assessments because they were limited by law as to how that could be done. He noted they tried to explain that to the people involved. Although the changes were not substantive and a second public hearing was held, they wanted to bring it back to the Council for direction on proceeding along the lines of the proposed compromise or to continue with the original project. He noted they had all easements necessary for construction and funding was in place for the project.

Mr. Loveless noted almost no sidewalks were in this area. Mr. Patterson agreed and said they would be constructing sidewalks with the project.

Mr. Janku made the motion that Staff be directed to proceed with the modified project as described.

Mayor Hindman asked Mr. Janku why he was supportive of the four foot sidewalk. Mr. Janku replied that it was something they worked out with the neighborhood. When they discussed the street standards issue, they made a point of saying that if they were rebuilding within older neighborhoods, they would not necessarily adhere to the new standards. He felt they needed to be flexible in the older neighborhoods.

Mr. Ash agreed and said because this was an area with low traffic volume there was not as much danger as there might be in an area with a very busy road where they would need a wide, five foot sidewalk.

Mayor Hindman agreed, but was concerned about it being right next to the street.

The motion made by Mr. Janku was seconded by Mr. Ash and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C) Renewable Energy.

Mr. Dasho explained they looked at the options of purchasing renewable energy and found a couple of places at which they could get it for the prices listed in the report. He noted it was available at a very slight premium over what the City was purchasing today. Additionally, they looked at the possibility of what an ordinance might say regarding a three percent cap. He stated the way it was proposed was that there would be a three percent cap based on the entire revenues of the electric utility. They recommended the three percent cap be put on the price of wholesale energy, which they believed to be more reflective of a fair assessment of what the cost should be rather than bringing the whole utility into it. The dollar amount the three percent cap would have would still allow the purchase of green energy they believed would get us to the two percent energy level the ordinance was originally looking at.

Because this issue would be going to voters next month, Mr. Loveless felt there should be no action taken until they saw how the voters felt.

Regarding the opportunity to purchase landfill gas, Mr. Ash asked how that would compare versus the City capturing its own gasses. He asked if it was not feasible to do it ourselves because it was already existing elsewhere. Mr. Dasho explained the landfill gas they were looking at was something they could actually purchase right off the wholesale market tomorrow. He noted no additional work was necessary and that was why they looked at it from that perspective. He commented that they were well aware of the possibilities of doing something here in the City and they were pursuing it with the Department of Public Works. Mr. Ash understood that if the ballot issue passed, this would be feasible. Mr. Hutton pointed out it would be feasible in the short term, not necessarily in the long term, because the requirements would go up.

Mr. Hutton asked if we were a couple of years away from being able to utilize our own landfill gas. Mr. Patterson thought probably one and one-half to two years away. Mr. Hutton asked if that just counted mining or drilling. Mr. Patterson replied no. They were capturing the gas now and getting very close to having the feasibility study completed that would evaluate the three alternatives. One was using it the way they did at the wastewater treatment plant to generate electricity with an internal combustion generator at the landfill. The second was to market the gas to the Water and Light Department and let them produce electricity. They could put on the grids and possibly reuse the heat from the generator for other uses also. The last was simply to pipe and sell the gas to an industrial user, with Columbia Foods looking like the most viable of the alternatives.

(D) Green Meadows and Greenbriar-Trail Ridge Urban Overlay Conservation District.

Mr. Boeckmann explained there to be two procedures under the zoning ordinance. One would be if the Council were to initiate it, which he said happened in the two prior urban conservation districts the City had. The Council could choose whether or not to refer it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an ordinance to be drafted and a hearing held. In this case they followed the second procedure whereby 50% of the property owners petitioned to have an ordinance drafted. At this stage, the Council would have to proceed with having an ordinance drafted and the matter referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a public hearing.

Mr. Ash noted the neighborhoods provided a draft ordinance. He asked if it would be used. Mr. Boeckmann explained that the zoning code did not spell that out, but added that he reviewed the ordinance and thought it needed some substantial revisions. He anticipated he would work with the people who drafted it to try to get something they could present to the Commission. He stated he could not recommend adopting the ordinance in its current form. Mr. Ash was supportive of the concept and was happy to see the neighborhood move forward, but was concerned that everyone did not have a clear understanding of what this could or could not do.

Mr. Boeckmann explained the basic concept, as he understood, was it should deal with land use issues, zoning basically. The other two districts we had went beyond that somewhat, but this one went pretty far beyond it. Mr. Loveless thought it looked more like a neighborhood covenant type document. Mr. John felt they were being asked to become the enforcement agent of a neighborhood. He felt a good portion of the properties in it would not meet the covenants and restrictions.

(E) County Policy on Incorporating Villages.

Mr. Beck explained the Columbia area had been experiencing quite a bit of steady grown in recent years, both in and outside the City. The City had been faced with very restrictive state annexation statutes since the early 1970's, but had attempted to keep as much of the area's growth as possible within the City limits by encouraging voluntary annexation of land, usually as a condition of receiving City sewer service. It had been a central belief of City government that, ideally, growth should occur from the center of the City outward and that this growth should occur under uniform development standards reflective of the community's values. The standards should be established by the elected officials and administered by staff in an even-handed manner. Recently, Mr. Beck noted, the Pierpont residents attempted to persuade the Boone County Commission to incorporate the Village of Pierpont. Their stated purpose was to prevent the City of Columbia from annexing their property. Because annexation could be achieved only at the property owners' request or by voter approval in the City and the area to be annexed, neither was likely to occur in the Pierpont area in the near future. He commented that the City had not been looking at that area with the thought of annexation because it could restrict the orderly growth of our City. Staff felt the County Commission should establish a policy setting forth the standards and circumstances under which it would approve incorporation. Opposition to Columbia annexation by a community too small to properly fund municipal government and services should not be allowed under the policy. Mr. Beck suggested the Council consider whether or not the City should be urging the County Commission to develop guidelines that would, not only be applicable to Pierpont, but any other area of the County considering incorporation.

Mr. Ash felt it was important that the tone of the letter emphasize the negative consequences it could have on the County.

Mr. Janku thought the letter should emphasize the fact that there had been no interest on our part of annexing the area and that our long and public annexation process encourages a lot of public discussion.

Mr. John felt the misunderstanding stemmed from comments made when Rock Bridge State Park wanted sewer service and we asked them to annex the entire park to provide them sewer service. With some state laws, it gave them higher liability costs if they were inside the City limits, so they asked not to annex the entire area, but just the northwest corner of it where the sewer service was actually needed. The City agreed to that and during that discussion, he noted, we were also looking at the north side of town where the County owned several parcels that was blocking the north side. He said we were in discussions with the County about them annexing those parcels and Mr. John thought it would be a good idea, along the public roads, that the State Park allow us to annex along the public roads so we would have conduits, if annexation would ever come. He thought that might be where the idea of us annexing Pierpont came from. He only assumed that at some point they would want to get rid of the lagoons and have a way to hook the sewer up. He felt the discussions on the Crane property could have also triggered it.

Mr. John made the motion that Staff be directed to write a letter to the County Commission urging the establishment of reasonable guidelines. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.


Upon receiving the majority vote of the Council, the following individuals were appointed to the following Boards and Commission.


Tarwater, Douglas J., 1701 Oak Cliff Place, Ward 4 - term to expire 9/30/07


Moore, Mitchell J., 1210 W Broadway, Ward 4 - term to expire 10/31/07

Sohl, David W., 206 W. Briarwood, Ward 4 - term to expire 10/31/07

Yoakum, Michael S., 4802 Thornbrook Ridge, (student) - term to expire 10/31/05


Mr. John made the motion that Bethel Road be designated as an arterial road in order to disallow driveways off of it. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Since they had become so aware of stormwater, runoff, and impervious surface and because soon things would be coming forward where pervious parking surfaces would be needed, Mr. John felt Public Works would need to have some sort of standards. Mr. John made the motion that Staff be directed to look into pervious parking materials and other things in order to have some alternatives ready when the issue came up. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Ash complimented all the people that put on the Shrek showing in Flat Branch Park. He thought it was a neat event.

Mr. Ash noted that several items had been left out of the packet and stated he understood paper conservation and the thickness of existing packets, but commented that he wanted to see the letters and contracts referred to.

Referring to B370-04, Mr. Janku stated he wanted to make sure we were still protecting our investment. He wanted to know what was being released and suggested that maybe not everything should be released.

Regarding the Housing Authority's Retreat, Mr. Janku noted that one issue that came up had been day care and the availability of it at certain times of the day. Mr. Janku made the motion that the day care issue be referred to Staff for them to discuss with the Community Services Commission to see what might be done. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mayor Hindman pointed out that there had been a couple of sewer spills and that he had read in the paper that there was concern about staffing no larger than it was many years ago, yet the miles of sewer had increased. He wanted to be sure the City was adequately inspecting the sewers. If necessary, he thought an extra staff person should be hired with the cost being folded into the rates. Mr. Beck said he would look into it, but added that they were doing everything they could.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that Council adjourn to a closed session on Monday, October 25, 2004, at 5:30 p.m., in the Fourth Floor Conference Room to conduct evaluations of the City Manager and City Clerk in accordance with the authority of Section 610.021 (c) RsMO. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Motion passed.

The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sheela Amin
City Clerk