The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, February 17, 1997, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, and HINDMAN were present. Member KRUSE was absent. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department Heads were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of February 3, 1997, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Mr. Harline.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING
The agenda, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Ms. Coble and a second by Mr. Harline.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Bob Whitlock - Soccer Programs for Non-Traditional Youth Groups.
Bob Whitlock, 2007 Robin Terrace, explained that his group presented their proposal to the Parks and Recreation Commission and they voted to approve the program. He said they were trying to set up two very low cost programs to serve two groups in Columbia that traditionally are under-served as it relates to soccer. The first group was the developmentally delayed/physically challenged youth. Mr. Whitlock noted that Parks and Recreation presently has an excellent Special Olympics program for the older developmentally delayed/physically challenged youth. He said, however, that there was nothing on an organized basis for kids younger than 15. Mr. Whitlock and Ms. Montgomery have for two years, on a volunteer basis, piloted a program for these kids. Mr. Whitlock reported it had been an absolute success because the kids love the game and they can play it. They were asking for money to do a two year pilot program in order to come up with a well-organized, systematic approach to making soccer available to these kids throughout the City of Columbia. Their calculations estimated that it would cost approximately $5,550 per year for each program.
The second group they were interested in providing programs to was minority youth. Mr. Whitlock stated they have received business donations or grants from the Soccer Kick, the National Soccer Association, and a variety of other groups such as the 4th Squad from the Police Department.
Mr. Janku asked Mr. Whitlock if he contacted the Caring Communities program directly. Mr. Whitlock said he had and they also felt it was consistent with their goals.
Mayor Hindman assured Mr. Whitlock that the Council was very interested in their proposal and said they would give it serious consideration.
B389-96 Approving the preliminary residential manufactured development plan of Richland
Heights, Phase 2. Protest petition submitted.
the Preliminary plat of Creek Pointe, Phase 1.
The bill was given third reading and the resolution given second reading by the Clerk.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing and noted that the bills would be discussed together, but voted on separately.
David Rogers, an attorney with offices at 813 E. Walnut, spoke on behalf of Mr. Jack Overton, the developer. Mr. Rogers thanked everyone involved for allowing him to table the issue during his recuperation from a recent illness.
Jack Overton, 1908 Fairview Road, explained that he was the owner of the property in question and added that he would be the developer and operator of the mobile home park. Mr. Overton said his objective was to provide affordable home ownership in a desirable location for working families and retirees. He reported that he purchased the property in 1987 and noted that there had been 30 pads on 48 acres zoned RMH for a mobile home park. At that time, he had an approved plat from 1970 for 325 lots.
Between 1987 and 1994, Mr. Overton expanded the mobile home park to a total of 90 lots in an area that had been approved for 160 to 180 lots. He said in 1988 he had been contacted by the Woodridge Home Owners Association in regard to the vacating of the right-of-way for Berrywood. He and Mr. Rogers met with the group and the residents requested that he not oppose the vacation because it was an area zoned commercial industrial, approximately 300 feet north of his mobile home park. He agreed not to oppose the vacation of Berrywood. At the same time, the Woodridge home owners were informed that the adjacent property would be developed as a mobile home park.
Mr. Overton had been contacted by Terry Skinner in 1993, asking his intentions with regard to the property. Mr. Overton said he told him it would be developed as a mobile home park. Mr. Skinner built his home anyway.
In 1995, Mr. Overton explained that he initiated a meeting with the Woodridge Home Owners Association because he wanted to offer some changes. He proposed decreasing the number of lots from 160 to 84, and the elimination of parking under the power lines next to Woodridge. He also wanted to change the crossing point at the Creek. He had been advised by the Planning staff that if he was going to make those changes, he would have to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Overton pointed out that the six homes which are abutting the mobile home park were all purchased or built since 1990. In 1996, he met with the Woodridge Home Owners Association at the requests of Mrs. Crockett and Mr. Campbell to determine if there could be any attempts for further compromise. At that meeting, he agreed to build a 12 foot buffer fence with a row of evergreens to screen the fence. Woodridge homeowners did not agree to any further compromises as Mr. Overton was continuing plans for a mobile home park. Home owners asked him about the possibility of duplexes. This area can accommodate 85 duplexes (170 families). Mr. Overton pointed out that this is the same area he is proposing 82 single family mobile homes. The density of residents would be less than half than what it would be with duplexes.
During discussion with City staff and engineers from Allstate Consultants regarding crossing Hominy Creek, Mr. Overton said it could be crossed but there were some reservations. Mr. Beck encouraged him to look for a piece of ground to the north where he could have a separate outlet. He found a piece of land and purchased it giving him an outlet for a street going to I-70 Drive Southeast. The Woodridge Home Owners Association filed suit against Mr. Overton and the City of Columbia under the old plan that he had been operating under. Mr. Overton stated the plan he was considering met most of the 1995 ordinances for a mobile home park. He decided to bring his plan up-to-date at that time in order to meet all of the requirements. He said that had been done and in several areas he exceeded the requirements. There were 30 parking spaces per pad, a 50 foot buffer zone instead of 25 feet, and five or six times the amount of acreage required with the density being less than half.
Mr. Overton pointed out that mobile home sites were very needed in Columbia and they provide one of the most economical means of home ownership. All mobile homes in his parks are owner occupied. In addition, insurance companies now allow for mobile homes to appreciate rather than depreciate. Mr. Overton said he intended to be in the mobile home business indefinitely assisted by various family members. Mr. Overton asked for the people in support of his plan to stand. Approximately two dozen people stood.
Mr. Harline asked if this property was all one parcel. Mr. Overton said it was. Mr. Harline asked at what point the City required that Mr. Overton needed to submit a new plan. Mr. Overton said it was late 1994 or early 1995 when the City told him to stop working in the area until he obtained a land disturbance permit. He had gotten one at that time, but by then the strong opposition from the Woodridge Home Owners Association was apparent.
Mrs. Crockett asked Mr. Overton if the plan was approved, whether he would still put in the row of trees. Mr. Overton said he would. Mrs. Crockett remembered discussion about two rows of trees. Mr. Overton said it would be a staggered row. One row of trees was originally planned, but when he spoke to the City Arborist he was told the City would prefer one row closer together and nearer to the fence because of the power line.
Mr. Janku asked how the trees would be maintained as they would be in the easement of the power line. Mr. Overton said the trees would not go above the permitted height and he would maintain it. He planned to keep the area mowed.
Mr. Harline asked how the owner occupied status would be enforced. He asked if the City had a method to enforce this requirement on future property owners, would Mr. Overton agreed to that condition as acceptance of the plan. Mr. Overton said he would. Mr. Overton explained that he also owns High Hill Circle Mobile Home Park and noted that it is single family and always has been.
In terms of landscaping on the other side of the fence in the mobile home park itself, Mr. Janku asked if there were any plans. Mr. Overton said there would be some landscaping on the other side and he encourages tenants to do some of their own landscaping.
Mayor Hindman said it looked to him like the mobile home park was on a hill. He asked if there would be quite a bit of land clearing or leveling required. Mr. Overton said there would be some, but he did not think it would be very much. Mayor Hindman asked if that could lower some of the homes. Mr. Overton said if there was a change it would lower them. Mayor Hindman asked if the proposed green space conservation easement would be available for public use. Mr. Overton said it had been discussed and thought it would be a good idea.
Mr. Rogers said one of the questions that came up significantly at the Planning and Zoning meeting was what affect, if any, the completion of the mobile home park would have on the surrounding land values in Woodridge Subdivision. He called on Jack Blaylock, an MAI Appraiser, to give his opinion.
Jack Blaylock, a real estate appraiser with offices at 8th and Broadway, gave his opinion of the prospective valuation of the properties, specifically the homes within the Woodridge Subdivision. He was well acquainted with the Subdivision having appraised numerous properties in the subdivision over the years. He said it was a self-contained Subdivision that had been growing slowly, a portion by design of the owners. He said a large part of that rate of development has been due to the influences of the surrounding land. He said everything to the west was medically oriented, to the north was C-3 zoned land that abuts the Subdivision, and to the northeast is M-C and A-1 zoned land. There are rather extensive industrial sites located to the north. The apartments constructed along Keene Street have also had some affect on the rate of development. Mr. Blaylock said the Richland RMH zoned tract had been a self-contained mobile home subdivision all these years, as has Woodridge been a self-contained subdivision. He did not believe that the Richland Heights Mobile Home Court, developed as proposed, would have an adverse affect on the value of the homes in Woodridge Subdivision. As an appraiser, Mr. Blaylock said he had never penalized a home in Woodridge, nor had any member of his firm, for being adjacent to land that was zoned for residential mobile homes, nor did he expect to do so in the future. These were separate neighborhoods buffered primarily by the easement area of the high voltage electrical transmission line that parallels the eastern boundary and by the difference in elevations. He said some of this could not be altered measurably, particularly the area beneath the easement. Any additional buffering in the form of trees or fencing would be an enhancement to the greenbelt area.
When performing an appraisal, Mr. Blaylock explained that one of the first things done is to define the neighborhood, just as buyers and sellers do. He said future appraisals of homes in the Woodridge Subdivision would be defined as being in the Woodridge neighborhood. He said there would be a separate, self-contained neighborhood in the RMH zoned area to the east. Woodridge Subdivision should not be depreciated by the abutting neighborhood as developed under the RMH regulations.
Mrs. Crockett asked when doing an appraisal for a new home or for refinancing and there is RMH zoning in the area, whether this was indicated on the appraisal. Mr. Blaylock said he would if it was within the neighborhood and affected it as such. In this specific instance, RMH zoned land was perceived as being in an adjacent neighborhood.
Mr. Rogers said this was a self-contained neighborhood and if there has been a reduction in value to Woodridge Subdivision, it had already been done. At the northern edge of the Woodridge Subdivision, there is a street named Sugar Tree which has multiple buildings that have not been kept in terribly good repair. On the northeast, there is commercial zoning of various types, and to the west there was office zoning. Mr. Rogers said Woodridge is a very nice neighborhood which is not greatly affected by influences that are immediately outside of it. He thought it was interesting that residents chose to close off Berrywood as it extends to the east. He said this was done in 1987 or 1988 and City staff had been opposed to it. Mr. Overton stated that City staff felt for the better development of the City, this particular street should not be closed off. He believed the only reason the request for the street vacation went through was because Mr. Overton lent his support to it. Mr. Rogers reported that Mr. Overton would obviously be affected by the closure and yet he understood the home owners' concerns about the land uses to the east, regarding the completion of his mobile home park, and agreed to it. Mr. Rogers said it would have been a lot cheaper for Mr. Overton to get access to the land to the north if he had Berrywood. Mr. Overton, however, did not think this was a proper use, which would involve going through the middle of this self-contained neighborhood.
Mr. Rogers reported there were only six lots in Woodridge Subdivision that are adjacent to the mobile home park. He noted that this particular plan exits to the north and meets every single requirement of the ordinance. Using a map, he showed the organized playground equipment, swings, slides, etc. He said this particular area is about six or seven times what the ordinance requires. He displayed the open space area and indicated this was not required by the flood plain nor by the ordinance, but it was to give an area of more open space for the subdivision. He pointed out the open space on the drawing that was required by the plan, in addition to what was previously displayed. He said there was 10 or 15 times as much open space as the ordinance requires. Mr. Rogers noted that the entrance to the far north was to a break-out gate and an easement over Mr. Sapp's land so that emergency vehicles could have another exit out of the area for emergency needs.
Mr. Janku asked about the easement. Mr. Rogers said the easement was across the Sapp land. He pointed out the location of the gravel easement, over the Sapp land to I-70 Drive, which would enable any emergency vehicle access to both entrances into the subdivision. He said it would be legal to have only the one entrance, but it was decided to have two. Mr. Janku asked if there were any plans to develop the entrance in the area of the easement. Mr. Rogers said it was almost inevitable that another road will be built. It would be built in phases, not one fell swoop. Mr. Janku thought there might be a better location for a potential entrance. Mr. Rogers said it was the area that best lies for putting in equipment. If it ever develops as a natural road, he thought it was logical that it would be fenced. Although, he said that was a long way off at this point. Mr. Rogers showed an area that could be mowed for a ballfield as long as there were no trees or damage to the creek. He pointed out a heavy stand of trees and said Mr. Overton had done a particularly good job in carving in the existing part of the subdivision and saving a great number of the trees.
Mrs. Crockett asked if every tree possible would be saved. Mr. Rogers responded yes. He said Mr. Overton had a good track record in that regard. He said the Chapel Hill Subdivision at the end of Fairview cannot be seen coming from the east on Chapel Hill because Mr. Overton elected to save that stand of trees and carved in his streets. He said Mr. Overton had put a great number of trees in to the mobile home park in addition to the ones he saved. Over 100 trees had been planted in the subdivision.
Kevin Weatherspoon, 923 Yale, is the owner and operator of two mobile home parks and developer of Northland Acres Subdivision. He said that people need this type of affordable housing badly. Mr. Weatherspoon stated that his two parks will not accommodate the newer mobile homes and people needed to have a place to put them. Mr. Weatherspoon said that Mr. Overton's developments speak for themselves.
Mayor Hindman asked why some of the parks could not handle the new mobile homes. Mr. Weatherspoon said a lot of the newer homes were much larger. He said some of the older parks have to give up two lots in order to meet setback requirements for one 16 x 80 home. He pointed out that residents of Northland Acres have to drive by a mobile home park to get in the subdivision. Mr. Weatherspoon said he was currently building R-1 spec houses in this location. He is selling them for $100,000 and up and potential owners have to drive by a mobile home park to get there. His point was that they were selling these homes and residents were happy with them. These owners did not have a problem with having a mobile home park nearby.
Kerry Hawkins, #8 Richland Heights, said he has had the privilege of living in Richland Heights for the last 6 1/2 years. Before that, he lived at Broadway Village and chose it because it was well-managed, efficient, and well-run. He discovered that Steve Wendling and Jack Overton do a similar job in managing their parks. Mr. Hawkins said as long as the Wendling's and Overton's were managing the park, he had every confidence it would be well maintained.
Maxine Cromwell, #219 Richland Heights, said she has lived there for about four years and before that she lived in a 5 bedroom home in a subdivision. She said when their children left home, they decided they had no need for that much room so they sold it to another family that had children. She said she felt safe where they were and had no problems with her grandchildren coming to visit her. She was very comfortable with them playing outside with the other children and they had not experienced any problems. She said if anything needed to be done, Mr. Overton or Mr. Wendling would get the job done.
Chuck Boram, #204 Richland Heights, said that in the 1 1/2 years that he has lived there Mr. Overton had made quite a few improvements. He had seen him plant many trees and was confident Mr. Overton would continue with similar improvements to the new section.
Kerry Ann Cowgill, 2503 Black Oak Drive, explained that she was a University student and that she did not live in a mobile home park. She came from an upper class nuclear family which has substantial significance to Columbia's history. She said not everyone has the opportunity to live in a $150,000 plus home. At the rate Columbia is growing, affordable housing was in great need. She felt the entire issue dealt with the Woodridge Subdivision relating to stereotypes and what is aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Cowgill thought the real issue should be the decency to allow the residents of Richland Heights establish affordable housing.
Denise Cordra, #47 High Hill Circle, explained that she moved to Missouri in 1989 as a single mother. She said a mobile home park was her only alternative for affordable housing and since moving here she has lived in four parks. She said High Hill was the best maintained park she had lived in. She said more well-managed and well-maintained mobile home parks were necessary for people that need affordable housing.
Paul Denton, 5200 High Hill Circle, said he has lived there for seven years and could vouch for Mr. Overton and his word. He said he takes very good care of the park and is fair with everyone. He said it was also true that all trailers are owner occupied.
Tom Quadry, another resident of High Hill, explained that he helps manage the park. Regarding the trees, they were well-maintained and none were taken out unnecessarily.
Skip Walther, an attorney with offices at 700 Cherry Street, spoke on behalf of the Woodridge Neighborhood Association. Mr. Walther believed that if this was a traditional rezoning request to RMH, he assumed the request would be turned down. He did not believe putting a trailer park next to this type of subdivision represented good planning. He said this was certainly not because there is a difference in the quality of people. He said there seemed to be an undercurrent that somehow this is a "rich man/poor man" dispute, or that somehow the people of Woodridge are prejudice against people who live in trailer parks. Mr. Walther thought nothing could be further from the truth. He said there was absolutely nothing in this case that has anything to do with the difference in people. He said the problem they have was with property values. Mr. Walther reported the people in Woodridge respectfully differ with Mr. Blaylock's opinion. He said they believed their quality of life and aesthetics will be adversely affected if this proposal is approved.
Mr. Walther said when the original Rebel Hills plan was approved in 1970, Columbia ordinances did not allow for RMH zoning without a plan first having been approved. He said that changed the next year, but in 1970 the plan had to be approved before zoning was attached to the property. Today's ordinance works the same way. The law required the 1970 plan to indicate whether the development was to be done in stages or whether it was to be done all at once. The Rebel Hills plan said nothing about staging and the law required development to begin within one year or the plan was void under the ordinance in effect in 1970. Mr. Walther said the development on the tract in question, the property north of Hominy Creek, never took place and has not to this day.
Mr. Walther displayed aerial photographs of the tract in question taken from 1974 to 1980 showing Woodridge growing significantly and Rebel Hills not changing at all. He showed another map from 1986 with Woodridge having added a number of homes and Rebel Hills showing no change. He said this was the year before Mr. Overton bought the property. The last photograph was from March of 1992 where he pointed out that a lot of difference could be seen. There were a lot more trailers and trailer pads on the property. Except for the U-shaped area, Mr. Walther said the south tract was not touched from 1974 until Mr. Overton bought the property in 1987. On the overhead, he displayed a time line from 1961, when the Woodridge Subdivision was first platted, until present. It showed that in 1973 and 1976 the property was sold at foreclosure. His point was that the foreclosures were good indications that development did not proceed on the property as expected. Mr. Walther believed that the owner at the time broke the law when he had not developed the tract of ground all at once like the plan indicated. He said if that voids the plan, as the ordinance in 1970 says it does, what happens to the zoning.
In 1971, Mr. Walther said the RMH ordinance was changed. The ordinance required that if development was not complete in five years, the City had the right to rezone the property. He said in this case, development is still not complete 27 years after the fact. Mr. Walther compared this situation with the trailer park plan that was defeated in 1993 when Mr. Rogers spoke on behalf of the Northland Acres Neighborhood Association. He reviewed the parallels of the two cases. He said he was there to tell the Council they had a choice to make and the right to make a land use decision. He said the Council was not obligated to pass this application simply because it was presented and the developer complies with the lines on a piece of paper. He said the Council sits as a legislative body and has the right to make an informed decision and to exercise their discretion.
Mr. Walther said if the Council believes that the use of a trailer park next to Woodridge is inappropriate, he requested that they not approve this particular application. He said not only was this a land use issue, but a fairness issue. He said Mr. Overton has the right to develop his property and the right to expect to make a profit. Mr. Walther said this was a reasonable position, but Woodridge residents also have a reasonable position in wanting to protect the integrity of their neighborhood, aesthetics, and quality of life. They believed there might be a middle ground. He said homeowners would support a senior citizens retirement RMH plan with double wide mobile homes, instead of single wide mobile homes, that might provide for an end-to-end distribution of mobile homes rather than side-to-side distribution. It would be a less dense development, but he assumed a larger home would need a larger lot, which could go for a higher rent price. Mr. Walther said they had not been able to compromise with Mr. Overton for a variety of reasons. He said both sides had been interested in pursuing their own agendas.
Mr. Harline asked Mr. Walther to describe the threat to the neighborhood that would be caused by the expansion of the mobile home park. Mr. Walther responded by passing around pictures of houses in Woodridge and pictures of parts of the Richland Heights development. Mr. Harline said he had taken an extensive tour of the area and he thought he had looked at it from every angle. Mr. Walther said it was a visual pollution argument. In the morning, the sun reflects off the metal roofs and sides of the trailers. He said there was significant glare that was objectionable to many people in the neighborhood. Mr. Harline said the objection of the Woodridge Neighborhood to the expansion of the mobile home park was a matter of architectural aesthetics. Mr. Walther said that was part of it. He said in a trailer park there were no garages so all of the cars and trucks were parked outside. He said Richland Heights did not have any sidewalks and everything is clustered quite closely together. He said it was not a pleasant appearance and there is a significant difference in appearance between the Woodridge Subdivision and Richland Heights Mobile Home Park. Mr. Harline said he did not disagree with that statement.
Mr. Harline asked if the appearance of the mobile homes, not the value of them, which was the most objectionable. Mr. Walther said he thought the value of the trailers would have an adverse affect upon the value of the homes. He said if a home has a particular value and other homes come in the neighborhood that are less valuable, that has a tendency to draw down the value of that property. He thought that was the general feeling. He said if there is a property value reduction, it would affect not only the six people who live on the road adjacent to the development, but all of the residents that could see it because Woodridge rises away from the development. He said as you get higher on the hill, one could view more of the trailer park.
Mr. Harline asked how, as a Council, they were to zone and approve plats for a community if they have to put a higher value house next to every house that is built. He asked how the Council could plan a city around something like that. Mr. Walther said it seemed to him, as a layperson, in planning the City would want the relative qualities to be a step down. He said it would not be desirable to build a one million dollar house next to a $10,000 house. He said there should be a gradual rise in the levels, either up or down. What they believed was occurring here was a radical change in the value of the properties in the neighborhood. That was the primary objection. Mr. Walther said that was why a double wide residential retirement community would be less objectionable because they are more expensive.
Uless Reeder, 3804 Evergreen, explained that he had lived at that address since 1977, and asked the Council to deny the request by Mr. Overton for the Richland Heights plan. He was concerned about property values and the wildlife in the area.
Shirley Delbert, 3704 Evergreen, said she had probably lived in the neighborhood longer than anyone, since the early 60's. She said her house would probably price in the $80,000 range. She disagreed with Mr. Blaylock in that she did not believe the mobile home park would not have an effect on the value of their homes. She said the issue had nothing to do with one neighborhood being better than the other, it had to do with the inappropriateness of placing a mobile home park next to an R-1 neighborhood.
Glenda McGrath, 3815 Evergreen, said the road that is being proposed would be within 45 feet of her backyard. She said she has a view of Carl's Garage right now. She said the garage was supposed to put up trees to provide a privacy fence, but that has never happened. She found it hard to believe that trees would be put in to protect her house from this new road. Ms. McGrath explained that she had been dealing with the power line people for years and said when she was told that there would be no problem with putting trees under the power line, she did not believe it. She had signed a contract with the power company saying that she would maintain the trees she had put under the line. She said they accidentally cut them down.
Charles Stuth, 506 Arbor Drive, was in support of the Woodridge neighborhood proposal. He said the submitted Richland plan may be labeled Phase 2, but his feeling was that it was a new plan not an existing plan. He said any ordinances would be difficult to enforce because part of the mobile home park would have been built in 1970 and part in 1995. He said it would be helpful if the new plan were considered as meeting all of the 1995 requirements, but said it did not do that quite yet. He said in reading the present RMH ordinance, it appeared that there was not enough playground for the north side in Phase 2, nor was there enough storage and additional parking.
Don Schoengarth, 3612 Arbor Court, noted that he was a member of the School Board. He explained that there are 18 grade schools in Columbia, with half of them being Title I schools. He said those are schools that have a low socioeconomic status, with a high number of free or reduced price lunches. He said that seven out of the nine schools were north of Broadway. His point was that the City did not need more low income housing north of Broadway. He said they were trying to balance the schools and that was hard to do when the City keeps approving these types of developments north of Broadway.
Mrs. Crockett asked where the children in this neighborhood would go to school. Dr. Schoengarth replied that right now they would attend Shepard, Oakland, Lang, and Hickman. Mr. Harline said the children would be attending school south of Broadway. Dr. Schoengarth said that was true right now, but it was a general rule that there is nothing south of Broadway.
Jane Addison, 2407 Shepard, a board member of the Green Belt Coalition, explained that her comments would be made from a greenbelt protection point of view. On the south and east side of the development, there would be approximately 100 feet between the trailer pads and Hominy Branch Creek itself. She indicated this was a good thing. She said they were happy that the 100 year flood way is designated on the map as a green space conservation easement and will not be built over. She said, however, that they questioned the wisdom of building 24 trailer pads on the south and east side in what is actually a 100 year flood plain. She said they were also pleased that the creek's good condition would be maintained during the building period and thereafter, as there would be no bridge built over the creek and construction materials will be brought in through the two roads on the north side. Because landscaping and stormwater management plans are not required at the preliminary development plan stage, Ms. Addison said they hoped any landscaping would not destroy undergrowth trees and general vegetation that support the banks and adjoining edges of Hominy Branch Creek. She commended Mr. Overton for recognizing the value of green open space. The dedicated conservation easement, playgrounds, walking trail, and the intact creek should provide an environmentally healthy area. She wondered if landfill that would be trucked in to support construction of the trailer pads that lie in the flood plain, whether it would be possible to prevent the fill from washing down into the creek. Another concern was about the stormwater that presently soaks into vegetation to filter before draining into the creek. She said after development it would run off from concrete roads and trailer pads. She wondered how that drainage would be taken care of.
Mr. Harline asked if the Greenbelt Coalition objected to any type of bridge on the property, like a foot bridge. Ms. Addison said they were just noting there was no bridge and presumably the children would run across on rocks when they wanted to cross the creek. She said there was to be no construction of a bridge, which would help the integrity of the creek.
Kenny Hafner, 1121 Scott Station Road, Jefferson City, explained that he and his wife own 29 acres of land adjacent to the present mobile home park. Regarding the allowance of the trees under the power line, he pointed out that the substation belongs to Central Electric in Jefferson City and that the power lines belong to Boone Electric. He said the City had nothing to do with it. Mr. Hafner said the right-of-way crews are not to let any trees grow under the power lines. He said they only allow plantings to the edge of the right-of-way. Mr. Hafner said he was ready to develop his A-1 property into a residential housing area, but if this plan was approved he did not think he could get that done.
Bill March, 3814 Evergreen, said the new road being proposed for the Creek Pointe Subdivision would be in his backyard also. In order to build the road, all of the trees would have to be removed and he would be looking at two wrecker services with wrecked and abandoned cars on these properties. He said it would be an eyesore and would decrease his property value.
Mayor Hindman understood Mr. March was concerned about the street going through and opening up the view to the east. He said he thought it seemed inevitable that the property would develop somehow, either in connection with the street or some other way in the future. He did not see how this would be more devastating than any other development that might occur behind his property, assuming the natural progression of development. Mr. March said his point was that some kind of screen needed to be put up so he would not be looking at a salvage yard.
William Rosen, 3813 Evergreen, said the Council would not be able to please everyone. He said whatever the Council decided, he would still be on their side. Terry Skinner, 3716 Lansing, President of Woodridge Neighborhood Association, said he had not called Mr. Overton in 1993 prior to building his home. He had never talked to him on the phone and 1995 was the first time he had ever met him, which was in a meeting in David Rogers office. Mr. Skinner built his home without contacting Mr. Overton, but after his home was built he saw them moving dirt. At that point, he asked what was being done and was told they were going to expand the trailer park. He said 12 of the neighbors remembered Mr. Overton saying, in a meeting in 1988, that he had no plans to cross the Hominy Creek because a bridge would be too expensive. Based on that information, he said people started building their houses feeling that the property would not be developed RMH. Residents thought they had a verbal assurance there would be no development of RMH.
Mr. Skinner did not agree with Mr. Blaylock's opinion about their property not being affected by a trailer park. Regarding Mr. Blaylock's comment about a neighborhood that is self-contained not being affected by anything that is built around or outside of it, Mr. Skinner said he had passed around a study to the Council from the University of Georgia and LSU. He said two professors conducted a study that indicated within a quarter mile of a trailer park, property values probably decrease about 15%. He said it was very possible that it could occur in this case. Mr. Skinner explained how property devaluation works. He commented that people said as long as Jack Overton owns Richland Heights, it will be well-kept and owner owned. Mr. Skinner trusted that was the way it would be, but he said Mr. Overton may very well sell the trailer park next year to someone who may not take care of it and the mobile homes may not be exclusively owner occupied. Mr. Skinner asked if Mr. Overton had compromised whatever right he may have had to develop the north tract as on two occasions he disregarded the law in developing the south tract without any formal prior approval.
Mr. Skinner wondered if the passage of 27 years and the change of conditions around this undeveloped tract gave the Council a fair opportunity to question this plan in today's context. He said Woodridge residents thought it did. Mr. Skinner said they had no problem with the current trailer park and the people who live there. He said it was unobtrusive and on the other side of the Hominy greenbelt. He said what they had problems with was this new proposal to put 84 metal trailers 61 feet from their backyards. He said the issue was not about neighbors, but about a developer who is putting his business next door to their neighborhood. He said Woodridge home owners tried to compromise in that they offered to purchase property and discussed zoning alternatives, but the developer had insisted upon a trailer park.
In early December, Mr. Skinner wrote to the City Attorney asking if this was a rezoning issue. He said they received a verbal response last Friday that the Council could discuss land use issues, but not zoning and rezoning. They believed the response gave the Council latitude to work with the neighborhood and the developer on a solution as which occurred in 1993 in the Northland neighborhood. He said they did not have the opportunity to negotiate an RMH compromise. He said Woodridge residents realize there were new RMH guidelines in place, but that this was the wrong place for 84 metal trailers. They requested that the Council deny the request or table the plan to give the two groups an opportunity to reach an RMH compromise, if the Council believed that was the proper zoning for this tract of land.
Mrs. Crockett noted under the RMH ordinance there was a requirement for an eight to ten foot fence. She thought it was the neighbors that wanted the fence so she recommended a 12 foot fence. She said if residents did not want the fence, she was certain that Mr. Overton would be happy not to go to that expense. Mr. Skinner said they did want the 12 foot fence. It was his opinion, however, that if a fence had to be put up between neighborhoods, this was an implication that the zoning might not be appropriate.
Mr. Harline asked if they had been able to discuss any of the compromises. Mr. Skinner said their attorney contacted Mr. Rogers Saturday and the response had been something like "too little, too late". Mr. Harline understood that the neighborhood's stance, to this point, had been no mobile homes period. Mr. Skinner said that was correct because residents felt there was a more appropriate zoning for this property. He said they were trying to make that legal point with the Council, but did not get a response until very recently.
Mrs. Crockett asked Mr. Boeckmann when he had responded to the group's letter. Mr. Boeckmann said he did not recall the exact dates, but he talked to their attorney, Mr. Walther, shortly after receiving the letter. He said Mr. Walther had called him and asked if he had the chance to look at the letter and review the cases they had given him. Mr. Boeckmann said he told Mr. Walther that he had not, but before the hearing he would certainly have the chance to do that. He spoke to Mr. Walther a few times since then. Mr. Boeckmann said his initial indication was that he was not convinced that the Council had as much complete discretion as Mr. Walther thought they had. Subsequent conversations had been along those same lines. Mr. Skinner said that was how Mr. Walther had related it to him.
Mr. Janku asked how the neighborhood's RMH proposal was different from what was before them. Mr. Skinner said their first preference was for the Council to vote this plan down and conduct a feasibility study for a more appropriate zoning for the area. If the Council decides either they do not have the legal right to do so or the votes are just not there, then Woodridge home owners would like to talk about an RMH compromise that would include double wide trailers and a retirement community. He said the Manager at Crestwood Mobile Home Park had told him that they have a waiting list for retired people who want to put a mobile home on a pad. He said a retirement community would not have nearly as much impact on property values or the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
Ms. Coble asked what would not have the impact, double wide mobile homes, or the age of the people involved. Mr. Skinner said both would not have an affect, but mostly the double wides. He said double wides were now around $50,000 to $60,000, where a single wide is approximately $30,000. Mr. Skinner stated he was not referring to people that live in the trailer park.
Mr. Rogers noted that three speakers in opposition to the plan live on Evergreen Lane. He said those were the lots farthest to the north of the subdivision. These homes were well over 1,000 feet from the area in question. He said the homes that are close to the commercial zoning (zoning which existed when these homes were built) would not be affected at all by the mobile home court. Regarding the Northland issue, Mr. Rogers pointed out significant differences between the two issues. Regarding the road coming in from I-70 southwest, Mr. Rogers said it would provide a full City street entrance to the area. To ensure there was little objection by the people that own these lots, they agreed that only the trees in the streets and the utility easements would be removed. Mr. Rogers pointed out an unbuildable strip to the west of the road that is zoned C-3. He said they have initiated a request to rezone it back to A-1 so there would be no suggestion that it remains as a billboard or sign site. He said the only lots created in the subdivision were just where the streets themselves have created lots.
Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Rogers to address the issue regarding the trees under the power line. Mr. Rogers said they contacted the power line people and the City's Arborist. He said the Arborist provided them with a list of 11 different types of trees that will grow to a height less than 15 feet. He said the power line company indicated that as long as Mr. Busteed, the Arborist, will warrant that these are the type of trees that grow to that height, they would not take them down. Mr. Campbell asked, with the destruction of trees in the right-of-way and a greater exposure of those houses to the auto yard to the east, if the developer would be willing to put additional screening or fencing along this area to protect the home owners. Mr. Rogers said he would not. He said the development was a lot depth away from their backyards, and most of the trees were in the edge of the power line easement. He thought that would be a very unnecessary request. Mr. Rogers stated this would designate land, purchased for the purpose of putting in a road, must be preserved in some sort of a condition to separate Woodridge residents from someone else's commercial zoning that was there when these houses were built. Mr. Rogers imagined the lots would be for sale and they would own them.
Mayor Hindman understood the developer was agreeing to public use of the green space conservation easement. Mr. Rogers said that was correct and added that this mobile home park would have many times the required open and playground space. Regarding Creek Pointe, Phase 1, Mayor Hindman understood the plan called for sidewalks. Mr. Rogers said that was correct.
Mr. Campbell understood it would take considerable time to complete the mobile home park in its entirety. He said the playground was planned at the far end, but that would probably be the last area to be developed. Mr. Rogers agreed with this assertion. Mr. Campbell asked when the playground would be developed. Mr. Rogers said the playground would probably be at several different temporary locations before they reach the northeast corner of the plan. Mr. Campbell asked if they would be willing to stipulate that there would be a playground in place with the first development, even though it may be moved at a later time. Mr. Rogers replied they would.
Mrs. Crockett asked at which end they anticipated starting the trailers. Mr. Rogers said he imagined they would be up in the northwest corner where the road comes in.
Regarding the owner occupied lots, Mr. Campbell asked if they would be willing to make a deed restriction that, if sold, this development would remain an owner occupied mobile home park. Mr. Rogers said they would be more than willing to do so, but he did not think it would be worth the paper it would be printed on. He said Mr. Overton currently has the second generation of his family working in the operation, and the third generation will begin mowing lawns this summer. Mr. Rogers did not anticipate that Richland Heights would be sold, and did not think they could limit it to owner occupied lots. He said there were not all owner occupied lots in Woodridge Subdivision.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing on both bills.
Mr. Campbell asked about the legal status of the area in terms of rezoning and the approval or disapproval of the plan. Mr. Boeckmann's opinion was that RMH zoning was in place on the property and the only question was how much discretion the Council has in rejecting or approving the plan. He gave examples of things that the Council considers where they have no discretion as it relates to the Charter. He said there were other things the Council does that they can either do or not do, such as the Charter amendment placed on the ballot for this April's election. He said that was totally at the Council's discretion. Most things fall in between those extremes. In the area of land use planning, Mr. Boeckmann said the two most common things the Council does would be rezoning property and approving subdivision plats. He said the courts, in recent years, have held that cities do not have much discretion when it comes to reviewing subdivision plats. He said the Council exercises its discretion in passing the subdivision ordinance and in setting up the rules. When it relates to an individual plat and someone comes in and meets those rules, the Council does not have much discretion in approving it. In the area of zoning, he explained that the Council has more discretion. In Missouri, unlike in some other states, rezoning is considered a legislative act. He said that was not the final answer on rezonings, but the Council does have more discretion when it comes to zoning property than when it comes to approving subdivision plats. He said the City has in its zoning ordinance a number of planned developments, one was the RMH. He said the ordinance was clear that when someone has, for example, land zoned A-1 and wants to get RMH zoning on it, they must present a preliminary development plan to the Council. Mr. Boeckmann said the approval of that plan places the RMH zoning on the property. When the Council considers an original plan, it is tied in and is an integral part of the zoning. He said then the question comes back as to what kind of discretion the Council has when someone comes in with a different plan. Since it is tied into the zoning, Mr. Boeckmann said he thought they had more discretion than they would have with, for example, a subdivision plat.
Mr. Boeckmann said the problem with the situation before the Council was that they have a plan that does not begin to meet the modern requirements adopted a couple of years ago. In replacing that, the developer is presenting them with a plan that does meet the requirements. Regarding zoning and how much discretion the Council has, Mr. Boeckmann said they have legislative discretion, but would be faced with particular facts and may have more discretion in some cases than in others. He said if someone has property that is zoned R-1 which is surrounded by commercial property and the traffic is heavy such that it is not reasonable to develop it as R-1, the Council really did not have as much discretion in denying more intensive zoning. He said the basic criteria the Council has for zoning is reasonableness, how reasonable is the plan or the proposed rezoning. He said if they have a situation where there is not much development, the Council has more discretion, although it is limited to the facts in front of them. Mr. Boeckmann thought when the Council looks at this case, they have to decide whether it is reasonable to deny a plan on property that is already zoned RMH, and the proposed plan is an improvement and meets current standards recently adopted by the Council. If they choose to deny it, he guessed the next logical question would be what to do next. It would be a question of the Council examining the surrounding area to see if there was some other zoning that would be more appropriate.
Mr. Harline asked if they found this development to be inappropriate for the area and rezoned the property, whether the entire property would have to be rezoned. He wondered if the existing mobile homes were zoned R-1 or R-2, would they become legal non-conforming uses. Mr. Boeckmann said he supposed it would be possible to rezone only a portion of the property, but he did not want the Council to think they would not have a problem if they tried to rezone it. Mr. Boeckmann said it would be undesirable to split the zoning, but it would be legally possible.
Mr. Campbell asked if the plan before them met all of the current requirements for RMH. Mr. Hancock replied it did.
Mr. Harline asked about the built out density as proposed. Mr. Hancock said it would be 2.6 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Harline asked if that included the already developed portion or just the new portion. Mr. Hancock said that would be on the new portion containing 31.8 acres.
Mr. Janku said there was a suggestion that the plan would not be subject to the 1995 RMH requirements even though it meets the 1995 requirements. Mr. Hancock said they would be subject to the 1995 requirements and Mr. Overton was aware of that.
Regarding the Northland RMH proposal, Mr. Campbell said Northland Drive was then, and still is, an unimproved residential street. It is narrow without any sidewalks or shoulders on the road, and there is a school bus route with several driveways opening onto the street. He said it was barely wide enough for two cars to meet and the proposed rezoning would have considerably increased the traffic on Northland. He said the issue to him at that time had been for public safety. Mr. Campbell thought that by adding considerably more traffic, it would endanger children waiting on school buses or walking along the roadway. In such cases, it was his opinion that public safety should take precedence over the right to develop property for uses that might create additional dangers for the people. He said the proposed RMH would not open into the Woodridge neighborhood, or any other neighborhood. He said the proposed development would create additional traffic on a street which is basically commercial and serves as a collector street. No one has raised an issue of public safety from increased traffic for this proposal. Mr. Campbell thought it seemed inappropriate to try to compare the two developments.
Regarding the report from Louisiana which suggested that a mobile home park will reduce the values of neighboring homes by 15%, Mr. Campbell said the people in Woodridge were, in many ways, the victims who have been caused undue concern by bad research. He said the report was a single case study of real estate sales in one location at one time, specifically East Baton Rouge, Louisiana during the early 1990's. He said there was absolutely no evidence that similar studies in other locations, at other times, will find the same results. He said they may or may not. He said it was inappropriate and dangerous to attempt to generalize it to Columbia, Missouri. He said the report was inadequate and incomplete because it does not provide any background from the East Baton Rouge community. He said we do not know the zoning controls, or any other controls, on mobile home parks there. Mr. Campbell stated the size or age of such parks, or the type of nearby housing, was not known. An even greater problem was the inappropriate use of logic and statistics in the study. He said the statistical techniques used in the study measure only association amongst variables. He said such techniques do not indicate cause and effect. He said the writers of this report have assumed that mobile home parks cause lower housing prices without giving evidence to support that assumption. Mr. Campbell could make a logical argument which has the cause and effect going the other way. He said mobile home parks take considerable land area, 20 to possibly 80 R-1 lots, and if a mobile home park was to be built, it would not go in an area where houses are selling well. It would go in an area where they are selling cheaper. He said there were other technical, but important, problems that invalidate the results of the study. He said the findings of this flawed study have been misunderstood or misused in Columbia. His conclusion was that the City really does not know what, if any, the impacts of a development of a mobile home park will be on an adjacent neighborhood. On both sides of this issue, Mr. Campbell said there would be single family, owner occupied homes in each development. He said there seems to be the belief that people who live in mobile homes are less desirable or their homes do not look as appealing. Regarding Council discretion, Mr. Campbell felt the Council had relatively few degrees of freedom and that it was going to be RMH zoning regardless of the decision made this evening. He said the only option he thought the Council had was whether they would vote for this plan as is, or try to find some other plan. Mr. Campbell did not like his choices, but felt all people, regardless of their income level, should have access to good housing. He said there was a very distinct shortage of affordable housing, especially mobile home housing, in the City. Mr. Campbell said he would vote in favor of the plan.
Mr. Harline agreed with the Woodridge Neighborhood Association in that their issue was sincerely not about rich versus poor. He believed it was about protecting an aesthetic quality of their neighborhood. He said preserving historic property was a very high priority in his neighborhood; however, in the need to preserve architectural and community values within the Woodridge Neighborhood Association, the Council had to be careful when it is taken to the extreme as to deny other people entrance into the home ownership market. He said affordable home ownership was a very difficult issue for this Council. Regarding the study, he said the property values in Woodridge should not be affected because this is a mobile home park that is simply expanding. Mr. Harline said this was distinctly different from Northland Acres, this is RMH zoning which is already built upon. In addition, the area does not have a large number of this particular type of housing. His view was that mixing zoning to avoid concentrating one type of use in one area of town made good transportation sense, good community sense, and good planning sense. He did not accept the argument that this was a bad place for RMH zoning. He said he was sorry he could not support the Woodridge Neighborhood Association.
Mrs. Crockett said she was sure that some of the neighbors knew, before they built their homes, that this area was zoned RMH. She said for those individuals who purchased their homes and were not told about the RMH zoning, her heart went out to them. She received a lot of letters and understood their concerns. Mrs. Crockett said she asked Mr. Boeckmann his opinion after listening to Mr. Rogers and Mr. Walther. She was told the property was zoned RMH. She then asked the Planning Director if the plan met all regulations. She was told it did. Mrs. Crockett said her decision was based on the oath she took when becoming a Council member in which she promised to "support the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Missouri, and the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Columbia, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office, so help me God". From what she could determine, this was RMH zoning, the plan met all City requirements, and, as much as she hated going against the neighbors who purchased their homes not knowing about the RMH zoning, would have to vote for the development.
Mr. Janku said there had been a lot of discussion previously about the mobile home development in Columbia and whether or not it should be allowed. This was the first opportunity for development under the new ordinance. He said if it was done correctly, there may be opportunities for future developments in appropriate locations. The community would be watching closely as this moves forward and if there is any development that is not of the quality promised, there would be a grave doubts about any future RMH development. Regarding the Northland issue, Mr. Janku thought the key difference was a land use decision. In this case, the area is bordered on one side by industrial zoning and has RMH to the south. In the Northland case, the entire area surrounding the tract was single family or A-1 County zoning developed as single family. Clearly, there is quite a bit of difference between the two situations. Mr. Janku said the industrial zoning adjacent to the property and the existing RMH development really does restrict the Council's discretion as to what is possible to propose for this particular property.
Ms. Coble said if the legal term they were supposed to consider in making their decision was what is reasonable, then she found it was very reasonable indeed to allow an RMH development on a tract of land that is zoned RMH.
Mayor Hindman said he was confident that if this was a new zoning request, the area would not be zoned RMH in a similar situation. He said, however, it probably would be zoned in some other higher density. He felt the Council had little choice and they were obligated to support the zoning ordinance and request.
B389-96 was read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
The vote on R185-96 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
from A-1 to R-2 property at 2968 Northland Drive.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this was a 1.1 acre tract of land recommended for approval by the Planning staff, and the Planning and Zoning Commission on a 5-2 vote.
Mayor Hindman asked about the acquisition of greenbelt space. Mr. Beck thought it was moving forward and this rezoning should not have any effect on the acquisition of the property from the value standpoint.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Ed Calvert, 1809 Katy Lane, spoke on behalf of himself and the property owners. He said this property had been used as rental property for a long time and he thought the R-2 zoning would be appropriate and reasonable. He noted that the plat showed a tier lot and he said that was what had been worked out with Parks and Recreation as green space.
Mayor Hindman asked if this was a duplex. Mr. Calvert replied that it was a single family home. He said it had trailers on it, but they have been removed.
Mr. Campbell asked how many duplexes would be built on the lot. Mr. Calvert said he would be building two duplexes, a total of four units. Mr. Campbell asked if the duplexes could be built outside of the flood way. Mr. Calvert said they could. Mr. Campbell asked if they could be built outside of the 100 year flood plain. Mr. Calvert said that could not be done. Mr. Campbell commented that some filling would have to be done. Mr. Calvert said that was correct.
Kevin Weatherspoon, 923 Yale, explained that he was the owner of the property directly across the street from the proposed development. He said he had no objections and knew of none from anyone else.
Harold Anderson, 2900 Northland Drive, said he had lived in the area for about 25 years and was not opposed to the R-2 zoning as such, but was concerned about safety because of the street and the flood plain. During construction, he asked that the cement truck drivers not be allowed to dump any excess on the property by the creek.
Paul Albert, 2703 Parker, said the street is very narrow in that area and that there was no place for a sidewalk.
Annette Weaver, 2738 Northland Drive, noted that this piece of land is on a blind curve with almost no visibility. She said whatever is allowed would have to be built very carefully because there would be an entrance and an exit on a portion of the street where there is literally no visibility. She said currently there are tracks in the ditch across the street made by a vehicle that did not make it around the curve. Ms. Weaver also spoke with the homeowner on the piece of property adjacent to the site. She said their small house was less than six feet from the property line and this home is already lower than this particular tract of land. Because this property already floods a lot, she said they would have to import dirt which would make the land in question still higher than the piece next to it. She said the property owner told her that at present they did not have any problems with the water coming up to their house, but it does come up in their yard. The neighbor was concerned that runoff would affect their house because it is a small house built on a slab. Ms. Weaver noted that because of the nature of the street, there would not be an area for a school bus to stop. She said the children would have to wait in the street. She stated residents were not opposed to the zoning, but were concerned that whatever is built needs to be done very carefully as to not wreak havoc with the neighboring pieces of land.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Campbell asked about the fill affecting the flood water on the adjacent property. Mr. Patterson explained that filling in the flood plain fringe area is permitted by City ordinances. There would be no filling in the flood way which is basically used for passage of the flood. In this particular case, the property owner will not be required to have a land disturbance permit or stormwater management plan since it is less than two acres in size. Mr. Patterson reported they would, however, have to have a flood plain development permit. When this permit is obtained, the engineer for the developer will have to present information indicating that construction will not be a violation of any federal regulations regarding the increase in the 100 year flood. Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Patterson if he thought there was any probability that it will increase the possibility of water damage on others. Based on its location and the size of stream and the quantities of water that come through there, Mr. Patterson said he doubted very seriously that the two lots would even be able to distinguish a difference. He pointed out that during development, the lots would be subject to the requirements for erosion control and stabilization of topsoil.
Mr. Harline said this tract of land was obviously in an awkward place for access onto Northland and is right next to Bear Creek. He thought there were a number of issues, even though the tract was small, that would lend itself to be a planned district. He asked if that had been suggested at any point. Mr. Hancock said it was not too small, but on the Land Use Plan, staff designated where they would like to see planned districts and this area was designated for medium density residential development. He said they had not seen a lot of issues relative to off-site improvements that were not already being addressed. Mr. Harline said the issue he was talking about was trying to come up with the best place to put an entrance on to the road and the protection of the greenbelt. He supposed, if the Council approved the plat, the third tiered lot would provide some of that protection. Mr. Hancock said that was correct. There would be a lot that Mr. Patterson's land acquisition people would be working on with the developer.
Mr. Janku thanked the owner for working with the City on the tiered lot and green space. He reported, unfortunately, that he could not support the request for open R-2 zoning. He said the south side of Northland Drive, extending to the east of this lot, has been developed as single family. The three homes in the corner had been upgraded recently and he felt to put in two duplex units, with the potential of 12 bedrooms with 12 automobiles trying to back out onto that corner, would adversely impact the three homes. He had a lot of concerns about the street because of the curve and the flood plain. He said the other big issue to be addressed was the extension of the water line this spring. There is a large quantity of open space that will come up for development or rezoning and the Council should not made a decision regarding this tract until a determination is made concerning the entire area. Mr. Janku thought a precedent would be set without thinking through what would be done with the area to the east. He stated the potential was too dense and that there would not be any controls on the access points.
Mayor Hindman understood the open space to the east was zoned RMH. According to the map, Mr. Campbell saw this spot being sandwiched in between two RMH zones. Mr. Harline said one of the RMH areas was across the creek. Mr. Janku pointed out the area marked A-1 was above the subject tract. He said if they allowed this R-2 development, the Council would clearly be setting a precedent that it could be dense development. Mr. Janku was not comfortable with open R-2 zoning given what area home owners have done to improve their properties.
Mrs. Crockett pointed out that there would be some off-street parking. Mr. Calvert said it was required.
Mr. Campbell asked about the A-1 zoning near the subject tract. Mr. Hancock said the plan called for medium density. Mr. Janku thought that was something that probably needed to be revisited.
Mrs. Crockett asked if the people living in the A-1 area were notified about the potential of this rezoning. Mr. Hancock said everyone within 185 feet of the boundaries were notified. Mrs. Crockett asked if any of those people were present in opposition. They were not.
Mr. Campbell said he was concerned about condensing areas into flood plains, as would be done here, on a dangerous curve. He asked if they were pushing things too far by trying to put that many units into what is basically an undesirable site.
Mrs. Crockett asked how many off-street parking spaces there would be. Mr. Calvert said there would probably be four to six spaces. He pointed out that this piece of land was not one tract, but two. Mr. Calvert reported it was zoned A-1 and believed, as of now, he could get building permits for single family dwellings on it with a flood plain improvement.
Mr. Janku asked how driveway access and other similar issues would be handled. Mr. Patterson said there was no regulatory requirements on R-1 or R-2 zoning for residential entrances. He said there were regulations that would govern commercial entrances and public street intersections, but in this instance it would be up to the building permit plot plan to indicate the location of the proposed driveway. He said there was nothing to keep them from accessing the street.
Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Calvert if he owned the property immediately north of the subject site. Mr. Calvert said he did not. He said the tract they were requesting zoning on extends up Northland Drive. He said there was a considerable amount of frontage on Northland. Mr. Calvert thought the problem with that particular curve and the access as not being driveway access, but the configuration of the downward slope and people sliding off the roadway.
Mrs. Crockett said she saw a few problems with the idea, but two residential homes with three bedrooms could also be put in this location. Those homes tend to have several children whereas the duplexes could have students. She said they would have to weigh the number of cars versus the number of children. She said Parks and Recreation would have the back end of the property. She stated there was access to this back area. Mrs. Crockett said as none of the neighbors were protesting this request, she felt that two new homes would be an enhancement even if they were R-2.
Mr. Harline reported if the developer builds two duplexes with three bedrooms in each duplex, there would have to be 12 off-street parking spaces. He said it may not be possible to squeeze all of this parking in, but once an open zone is passed that would be a potential. He was reluctant to vote against someone who has worked out a very amicable agreement regarding the greenbelt, but he would have to agree with Mr. Janku about it being a lot of potential building in this particular corner.
B39-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: JANKU, HARLINE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
engineer's final report and tax billing for work performed on Brighton
Ripley Street to William Street.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Patterson explained that this street maintenance tax bill work had been authorized by the Council in 1995. He said the work had been delayed until 1996 because of ongoing apartment construction. He said it had been deferred at the request of the property owners so the maintenance work would not be torn up. He explained that the project consisted of wedging pavement and resurfacing and resealing. He said staff also did some work to improve the open ditching. The total cost of the project was $3,435.96 with approximately $1,800 of the assessment being tax billed at $2.00 per abutting foot. Mr. Patterson said the work would provide smoother roadways which minimizes damage to vehicles that travel on them, and would also provide for better access to the properties that are adjacent where driveways currently exist.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B42-96 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
RCC Consultant's report on telecommunications and adopting a plan to
implement some of the recommendations.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that an amendment had been prepared to the ordinance and the implementation plan for Council consideration. Since the last Council meeting, Mr. Beck and a few members of his staff met on at least two occasions with GTE to discuss problems they have perceived regarding this issue before the Council. Previously, the Council had a public presentation by the telecommunications consultant. Mr. Beck said the consultant had been hired some time ago as a result of the rapid changes occurring in telecommunications, not only in Columbia, but throughout the country. The consultant felt the City needed some type of blueprint in place to address these kinds of issues as they arise. The problems GTE had with the original ordinance dealt with the number of fiber optic strands that were to be in the cable in the first phase of the overall implementation plan. This would extend the cable from the Power Plant to the Bolstad Substation. He said the City was building a new substation along the way and staff felt it needed to be connected as soon as possible as construction will be completed this spring. The anticipated expenditure for the first phase is approximately $249,000. Mr. Beck said this was not the $2.5 million plan before the Council. After meeting with the representatives of GTE, Mr. Beck said they suggested reducing the number of strands from 96 to 24 in the first phase of implementation. That is consistent with what has been installed. Under the implementation plan, GTE had concerns with some of the wording. One was the statement regarding cost and it would depend upon whether any drops were required, or whether or not band width was required. The plan also stated that others could be served at this point to a limited degree. Mr. Beck said the suggestion from GTE was to remove these two sentences under Step C, and these issues could be addressed at a future point in time when the City is ready to look at the implementation of that portion of the overall plan. The other sentence GTE had concerns with was in regards to Step D, the northeast loop, in which City services could include county services and industry. Since at this point in time the City is not proposing to serve anyone in that area and this would require a separate agreement between the City and any users of our facility, it was felt that this should be examined at the time an agreement is considered. Quite frankly, Mr. Beck did not feel that the City should agree to any kind of language which says we would not be supplying those kinds of services at any point in time in the future. He pointed out that when the consultant was hired, staff asked that they look at all aspects of how service might be provided in Columbia which included serving City facilities and actually getting into the retail business like other cities are doing throughout the country. Mr. Beck said some were looking at doing it in the State of Missouri also. GTE's recommendation was that the City not get into handling services in the individual homes and commercial/industrial establishments, such as telephone service and that type of thing. The plan did not include any of these issues, but it was looked at. Mr. Beck thought that was probably part of the confusion that had been circulating around the community. There had been some questions asked of some of the users in town as to whether or not the City was getting into the retail business with those types of services. Mr. Beck said the answer to that was the City did not.
In order to move this project forward in the northeast part of the City, Mr. Beck recommended that the Council approve the amended ordinance. The Water and Light Department could then proceed with the implementation of Step A, which includes installing a 24 strand fiber cable, instead of 96, from the Power Plant to the Bolstad Substation. The sentences mentioned earlier would also be removed from the implementation plan. Mr. Beck said there had been a request from the School Board for the City to work with them in planning some telecommunications services. Passage of the ordinance would provide for that. The Library also had an interest in stepping up the COIN system and staff is currently working with them on it. In addition, the ordinance would accept the consultant's report and authorize payment.
Mayor Hindman asked how this would be used in connection with Water and Light, what would be going back and forth from the Power Plant and the Bolstad Station. Mr. Malon said the loop would connect both to the Bolstad Substation and the new Blue Ridge Substation. The transmission protection scheme operates the transmission system and all of the protective devices. He said these things speak to each other, end to end, continuously. Mr. Malon reported there is a supervisory control in the data acquisition system where staff can monitor all of the functions in the station, open and close circuit breakers, raise and lower voltage, and even determine if someone is breaking into the substation. He said they will also have telephone communications back and forth that will operate over this same system. This particular system is kept separate from other communications of any kind that would ever be on that system.
Regarding the number of strands, Mayor Hindman said he understood the reason a 96 strand cable was proposed was to ensure that Columbia stays out front and on the leading edge of potential when it comes to communications. Mayor Hindman said the City has many institutions that are on the leading edge in their fields, and he understood that we wanted the 96 strand cable so it could be assured that this investment would be made. He asked if the City did not put in the 96 strand cable, what assurance would there be that the investment is in fact made for the City of Columbia. Mr. Beck said he asked GTE that very question. Mr. Beck reported GTE stated that they have made major investments in our community and that all of their plans indicate they would continue to do so. GTE felt Columbia was on the cutting edge because of what they have already installed in Columbia and what they continue to install. Mr. Beck said he was not sure how the City would obtain some real assurances. Mayor Hindman felt that was a very legitimate concern for the City. He said the City was not trying to move into the field of private enterprise, but on the other hand, he thought they had the responsibility to assure that we are where we should be. He said maybe this was a point of leverage and, at this point, the City could get some assurances that the necessary investments would be made. Mayor Hindman asked how much more it would cost to put in the 96 strand cable than to put in the 24 strand, and whether it was primarily the matter of the cost of the cable or labor. Mr. Malon said they had estimated, for this part of the loop at 24 strands, the cost would be approximately $150,000 as opposed to the original $249,000. Mayor Hindman asked if the 24 strand cable was installed and then the City decided additional needs were not being met by some other company and had to add another cable, he supposed that would be relatively expensive. Mr. Malon said it would mean that they would have to string a second cable. It would be somewhat more expensive than putting in a larger one now, although the City would also be delaying the investment for some period of time so there would be some offset. Mr. Malon said the City would still have the flexibility to do it. Mr. Beck said since the meeting last Friday with GTE, they did share information with the staff as to where some of their current cable is located. He said it was not down the same alignment as the City is proposing, but it might be the type of situation that would not be too difficult to work together on. In fairness to GTE, Mr. Beck said they had done some substantial work in the area, but out of our alignment.
Mr. Campbell asked whether it would be fair to estimate that if a 96 strand cable was installed at a later date, it would cost an additional $50,000 or more. Mr. Malon thought it would be somewhere in that neighborhood.
Mrs. Crockett asked if the City had only the two choices of either the 24 or 96 strand cable. Mr. Malon said a 48 strand cable would be another option. Originally, they chose the 24 strand cable because it was an industry standard cable that could be acquired and it would still give some excess capacity.
Mrs. Crockett asked what this report had cost the City. Mr. Malon said he thought the total cost, which included a lot of research on the franchise for DTI, had been about $50,000.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Dennis Kastens, General Manager for TCI Cablevision, 901 N. College, said that TCI would strongly recommend that anything done along these lines be tabled over to the Cable TV Committee so that they can discuss them and get them worked out. He did not think the first phase would concern them, but said as the telecommunications business expands, he was sure they would get involved.
Mr. Janku asked if TCI had any plans to lay any fiber optics in Columbia. Mr. Kastens said currently they do not. He said they just finished a complete rebuild in the Jefferson City area where they do have fiber optics laid in the system. Mr. Janku asked why Jefferson City had been selected over Columbia. Mr. Kastens said it had to do with the age of their system. He said Columbia went through a rebuild in 1990 whereas Jefferson City had not been rebuilt since the late 70's.
Mr. Kastens said there had been discussion about tying the access channel into Capital/Falcon. He reminded the Council that TCI has been here all of the time and they have maintained a line from the City to the TCI building at their own expense.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
In today's world, Mr. Campbell said he had watched GTE expand from being a local company, to a Missouri company, to a Texas company, to a global company. He said he was not suggesting that they have neglected us, but said we had become a smaller "blip" on their horizon. He said that was true of all companies. He said that makes it more incumbent upon us, at the local level, to make sure that we have adequate facilities available to us. He thought the City should proceed and then watch our options. He said it may cost a little money, but he was supportive of the proposed changes with the recognition that it may be necessary to come back and make some additional expenditures in the future.
Mr. Harline said he thought the comments received from GTE made some good points. He said if the City was at some point going to consider pursuing the full blown plan, which might approach something like the figure GTE quoted, we needed to make some careful calculations. He said private industry has worked at the level of the US Congress to make sure that we are all thrown in there together. Mr. Harline said we needed to guard our interests and keep in mind that the City has an excellent municipal power supply and distribution system here. He said one of the reasons the City was thinking about this was to provide a unique niche and to help Water and Light utilities stay competitive in a very fast changing market. He hesitated about the 24 strand cable because he did not want to see the City cut out any options.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that B45-97 be amended per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved by voice vote.
B45-97, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B38-97 Approving the Final Plat of E. A.'s Acre.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck pointed out that this was unanimously recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
B38-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows; VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
funds for priority medical dispatch software.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this was a joint effort between the hospitals, city/county fire departments, Boone County and the City of Columbia to place new software in the JCIC operation. He thought the total cost was $40,000, with $5,000 being the City's contribution.
Mr. Sanford reported approximately 20 years ago a decision had been made to improve response time to medical emergencies. He said this amounted to sending a fire truck and an ambulance on each medical emergency call. The reason for doing so is because there are more fire trucks and fire stations than there are ambulances and ambulance bases. He said a fire engine can get to an average location more quickly than an ambulance can. Over time, this has saved a lot of lives and has become a very popular service. Mr. Sanford said the fire department runs more medical emergencies than fires. Many times, more help is sent than what is actually needed because there was not a way of sorting out the minor incidents from the more serious problems.
The priority medical dispatch software, with appropriate training included, would allow the dispatchers to ask structured questions. As a result, the answers to those questions will then precipitate other questions, which will allow the operators to give pre-arrival instructions to victims and will also assign priority to calls. At system maturity, which is thought to be in about three years, it was felt the system would advise dispatchers on whether to send both a fire truck and an ambulance, whether responding vehicles should be sent in emergency mode, etc. The software will save a lot of time in the long-run.
Mr. Campbell asked about the error rate. Mr. Sanford said he did not have that information, but he was certain that it did not function flawlessly. He said the systems they have been looking at have been well-tested and were in place in many communities. He said those communities that utilize the software continue to do so. Mr. Campbell said he had a concern about the software because he could imagine an emergency call being received in which the dispatcher may not really knowing what is going on, or a problem could potentially be misdiagnosed. As a result, victims may not get the type of help that is needed. Mr. Sanford was confident that if there was any uncertainty involved, the dispatcher would always err on the side of sending too much help rather than too little.
Mr. Janku asked what was meant by system maturity. Mr. Sanford said that was when all the training would be complete and they had sufficient confidence in the system to let it do the work it is supposed to do. He said it would not do a complete job the first time it is activated because training will need to occur, as well as the inexperience with the software. Mr. Janku asked when it would take effect. Mr. Sanford said the system would be used immediately, but the "nitty-gritty" decisions about what type of equipment is to be sent, emergency, non-emergency, or both, would come later down the road. He said it would probably be initially utilized for pre-arrival instructions.
B40-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice to hire two additional
and appropriating funds.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that he and the Police Chief discussed this grant prior to finalizing the budget for this year. The plan was to hire two police officers if the grant is received. He said they planned on hiring one officer if the City did not receive the grant. Mr. Beck said the City did not have to worry about federal money being eliminated and, as a result, having more officers than needed. This will not occur because of ongoing police retirements and the fact that Columbia is a growing City.
Mr. Harline said the East Campus neighborhood policing program had been funded originally through a grant. He asked if this program was going to continue. Chief Barbee said there was still some time left on that grant. He said the officer assigned to the program had been moved because his time was up, but the functions of that position would be continued by the community policing squads. Mr. Harline asked if grant money was eliminated, would the program continue. Chief Barbee said it was not a requirement that the City do that, but at this point he said it would continue because they want to remain involved in community policing. Mr. Harline said it was a very popular program in the East Campus area.
B41-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.
a right-of-use permit allowing the University to install utilities
through the Hitt Street and University Street right of way.
B44-97 Accepting water utility conveyances.
R16-97 Setting a public hearing regarding construction of a 6-inch water main along Oakbrook
Drive in Morris Subdivision.
R17-97 Setting a public hearing on the amendment to the Consolidated Plan.
R18-97 Authorizing an agreement with the Department of Health for regional AIDS services.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
R19-97 Authorizing the demolition of a dilapidated structure at 1501-1503 West Worley and tax
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the administrative procedure had been held in order to move forward with the removal of the structure. He said it would be preferable for the owner to remove the structure; however, since that had not occurred, a call for bids was initiated. The removal cost will be $3,000 and, if the Council authorizes acceptance, the work will be done and tax billed to the property owner.
Mr. Janku said the City removed property before and he thought it had been a great success until weeds started growing up on the abandoned property. He hoped there was some attempt made, in the contract, to seed the property and initially keep it looking somewhat attractive.
Mr. Campbell asked at what point the City steps in and takes a property when the tax bills on it keep increasing and becomes more than the value of the property. Mr. Boeckmann said the City does not take it over as such. He said they basically go through the same kind of procedure one would go through on a foreclosure, it is offered for sale at a public auction. Mr. Campbell was concerned with whether or not the lot was worth the amount of the tax bill.
Mayor Hindman felt that the City should be able to recover all of the monies expended, including administrative costs and staff time. Mr. Patterson thought the City typically assessed the contract cost for demolition when they have arrived to this point. He was not sure there were provisions in the ordinance as to how they would account for it. Mayor Hindman thought it needed to be looked into and that this kind of thing should be discouraged.
Along with the Mayor's suggestion, Mr. Campbell said he thought they also needed to address the fact that the City was going to get abandoned property. He said they would need some way of systematically dealing with it.
The vote on R19-97 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
R20-97 Authorizing an agreement with Horner & Shifrin to evaluate and develop a plan for the
Police/Fire and Armory buildings.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this would enable the City to hire an architect to begin work on a plan. A decision is needed soon as to how the Council wants to proceed with the Armory.
Mayor Hindman said he would like to get some public input regarding the issue. He did not see anything mentioned about public input in the instructions to Horner & Shifrin. Mr. Beck said they discussed having a committee or a public hearing. He said if the Council wanted to establish a committee, it probably needed to be done so when the architects come to Columbia they can work on both buildings at the same time. Mayor Hindman said either would be fine, just so it receives decent public input.
Mr. Janku asked if the landscaping for the parking area would be done by City forces. Mr. Beck said comments had been received from staff that were working on the landscape plan. He said the City needed some sort of master plan for the block, or at least for the immediate area around the building. Mr. Beck stated alternatives are being worked on.
Mrs. Crockett asked if they had given up on using the back parking lot for a skateboard park. Mr. Beck said they were temporarily using it for additional parking.
The vote on R20-97 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
the preliminary plat of Thesalia Subdivision.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this was a 120 lot subdivision on 61 acres. He said it had been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as by the staff.
Mr. Campbell asked if the City would be providing the water. Mr. Beck said they were presently working on alternatives.
Mr. Janku was pleased that the developer was going to convey and fee the greenbelt area to the City. He said it was not clear to him what the access from the subdivision would be. He suggested that if the City was going to get the property, it might be an appropriate area for a neighborhood park. He said the distance was significant from the Indian Hills Park and the McKee area park. Mr. Beck said staff could compare it to what the Master Plan for Neighborhood Parks calls for.
The vote on R21-97 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
City-owned property south of the MKT parkway and east of Scott Boulevard.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Comments were called for with none received.
The vote on R22-97 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
an amendment to the agreement with Andy Davis and James Calvin for
courthouse square art project.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said this would only change the payment plan, not the amount that had been agreed upon.
Mayor Hindman commented that the studio in which they were working on "Jamboree" had burned down.
The vote on R23-97 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
an agreement for City sponsorship of the Community Resource/Volunteer
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this would be the City's first Community Resource/Volunteer Fair. He explained that it would be held on April 19th. This bill would provide for the City to be a sponsor. The City would pay $1,000 toward the event.
The vote on R24-97 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: KRUSE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
The following bills were introduced by the Mayor, unless otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:
annexation of National Benevolent Association of the Christian Church
(Tract D) and establishing O-1 zoning.
B37-97 Voluntary annexation of National Benevolent Association of the Christian Church property
(Tracts A & B) and establishing C-1 and O-1 zoning.
B46-97 Approving Change Order No. 1 and the engineer's report for the airport fencing and
automatic gates project.
B47-97 Approving Change Order No. 1 and the engineer's report for the Little Bonne Femme force
B48-97 Accepting sanitary sewer and drainage utility conveyances.
B49-97 Accepting streets that were privately constructed in 1996 for public use and maintenance.
B50-97 Accepting water utility conveyances.
B51-97 Authorizing payment for a 6-inch water main in Morris Subdivision, and appropriating
B52-97 Rezoning from C-3 to A-1 property on the south side of I-70 Drive Southeast, east of
B53-97 Approving the final plat of EDI Subdivision, Plat 1.
B54-97 Amending Chapter 25 of the City Code regarding administrative plats and minimum widths
for non-residential lots.
B55-97 Appropriating funds to purchase playground equipment for Cosmo Park.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Intra-Departmental Transfer of Funds.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Upon receiving the majority of the Council, the following individuals were appointed to the following boards and commissions:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Clark, Kerry, 401 N. Ninth, Ward 1 - term to expire 11/1/99
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
Jones, Graham D., 2017 Martinshire, Ward 4 - term to expire 6/1/97
FIREFIGHTER RETIREMENT BOARD
Fieklin, Nathan C., 3501 Clark Lane, Ward 3 - term to expire 12/31/98
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Campbell-Carter, Dee Anne, 114 Pinewood, Ward 2 - term to expire 3/1/99
Glaze, Marie A., 710 King, Ward 1 - term to expire 3/1/00
Naylor, Monica R., 3805 Frontenac, Ward 4 - term to expire 3/1/00
Galenes, Alex A., 2718 Cimarron Drive, Ward 5 - term to expire 6/30/97
BOONE COUNTY MU EXTENSION COUNCIL
Baker, Andrew J., 2216 Maricopa, Ward 6 - term to expire 3/1/99
TREE PLAN TASK FORCE
Rother, Rick, 411 E. Broadway, Ward 1 - term to expire 5/31/97
Scherubel, Devin M., 304 Sanford Avenue, Ward 1 - term to expire 5/31/97
COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC
Regarding the Creek Pointe Subdivision, Mrs. Crockett said that when the street is constructed going into the subdivision, it would be a 32 foot wide street in a residential area. She said it would be next to Mr. McMeans commercial property. Her concern was with a 32 foot wide street coming off of commercial property. She said Mr. Patterson told her that it was City policy if a piece of land is under one ownership, the zoning of the majority of the land dictates the width of the street. Mr. Patterson added that this is a Planning Department policy that had been established in 1985. Mrs. Crockett understood that it would not be an issue in the case of Creek Pointe, but thought staff needed to examine this particular policy for possible revision. It was decided that the staff would report back on the issue.
Mrs. Crockett reminded everyone that they needed to give some thought to a skateboard park.
Regarding Rollins Street near Brady Commons, Mr. Campbell said the area was very congested with lots of pedestrian traffic going back and forth. Recently, drivers have gotten into the habit of parking in this area and leaving their hazard lights on. He asked about the City policy for establishing a zone for no parking or waiting. Mr. Patterson said that would require an ordinance to remove parking on a City street or to limit the time of parking. He said this would provide the Police Department with clear enforcement powers. Mr. Patterson asked about provisions for waiting or standing. Mr. Patterson said there were provisions for temporary loading and unloading zones. Mr. Campbell said there were "No Parking" signs posted that were being universally ignored. Mr. Patterson said that would be an enforcement issue. Chief Barbee agreed. Mr. Campbell thought perhaps the University Police could do something about it.
Mr. Harline reminded everyone about the Neighborhood Convention on Friday, February 21st at Dulaney Hall beginning at 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Janku said Mr. Whitlock made a very nice proposal this evening about a sports program for a lot of people who do not otherwise get an opportunity to participate.
Mr. Janku made the motion that staff be directed to follow-up on Mr. Whitlock's suggestions in two different areas, not limited exclusively to soccer. He wanted staff to contact Caring Communities and explore what could be worked out with them cooperatively. Mr. Janku also wanted the staff to consider, as part of the City's budget process, looking at this option. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku said he had read an article about O'Fallon, Missouri, a rapidly growing community. He said this City undertook, through a special process, having a new census completed. He said the City had to pay for it, but it significantly increased their revenues. He had also seen where Sioux City, Iowa recently did the same thing. Mr. Janku would like staff to explore these options and see what would have to be done. He said there would be a cost involved, but if we could speed up the census process the City might be able to increase revenues to deal with some growth issues.
Mr. Campbell cautioned the Council that this was a relatively expensive process. He wanted to make sure the benefits would be worth it. Mr. Janku said he just wanted to find out what options would be, and what the payback could be.
Paul Albert, 2703 Parker, talked about an iron manhole that he wanted checked out on north side of Bear Creek at the bridge.
Henry Lane 1816 E. Broadway, again asked that all affected utility users be given the opportunity to have a refund of their overcharge. He said the overcharging would continue beyond October 1st, when the computer system goes in, because the new computer would be initially programmed to charge the full minimum monthly charge on every utility bill, just like it is presently being done on the old system. He realized that right now it would not be practical to prorate charges by computer, but said it would be possible to do it manually. Mr. Lane again offered to volunteer his services to take applications. He submitted an application to volunteer to the Office of Volunteer Services.
Mayor Hindman replied the City was trying to do that which is most cost effective in the long-run. He believed the best thing to do was encourage the staff to concentrate on getting the system up-to-date and mechanized. He thought the City would probably need to examine the policy regarding refunds. It was his opinion that the City was probably subsidizing the cost of terminating and opening these accounts. He said it may be that there needs to be a surcharge at the beginning or end of services that does not currently exist. With Columbia's transient nature, the City incurs significant extra expense in opening and closing accounts.
Mr. Campbell emphasized that the Council had already made the decision and all they were discussing was the time of implementation, not whether or not it will be done.
The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
Penny St. Romaine
© 2016 City of Columbia