The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, April 19, 1999, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, and CRAYTON were present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department Heads were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of April 5, 1999, as well as the minutes of the special meeting of April 12, 1999, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Mrs. Crockett.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING
Mayor Hindman noted that R81-99 was being added under New Business.
Upon her request, Mr. Campbell made the motion that Mrs. Crockett be allowed to abstain from voting on R79-99. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Janku and a second by Mr. Campbell.
1. Presentation of City's Audit Report.
Mr. Beck explained that the firm of Ernst and Young have completed the fourth year of their overall contract to conduct an audit of the City's budget. He outlined the documents that had been submitted as part of the process. In addition, Mr. Beck referenced the Finance Director's report which shows ten year trends in the various departments and operations of the City. In conclusion, he reported that the City continues to be in strong financial condition as evidenced by the audit itself and also by the City's bond ratings. Mr. Beck explained that the audit report had been the topic of discussion at pre-Council dinner.
Phil Hanson, Chair of the Finance Advisory Committee, stated that the Finance Advisory Committee has met and reviewed the audit reports and the management advisory letter. He said the Committee concurred with the reports and were ready to forward them to the Council.
Lori Fleming noted that a review of the general fund indicates that the City's revenues came in slightly over budget and the expenditures under budget. She said that allows for a surplus in the fund balance, which is necessary because the budget process requires that the excess be used as a revenue source in subsequent years. Ms. Fleming explained that all of the internal service funds, except one, had net income transferred to retained earnings. She reported that the financial statement is on the City's Web Site, and is also available in the Library or in the Finance Department.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that they accept the Audit Report. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
B88-99 Authorizing relocation and replacement of water mains along Scott Boulevard at Current
Road; appropriating funds.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained this project is in southwest Columbia wherein the City is lowering a hill to make a safer intersection. In order to do that, the water main in the area needs to be lowered. While doing so, the size of the main will be enlarged to increase capacity. The cost is estimated at $20,000 and will be paid for out of water and electric funds.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B88-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
four parcels of land located north and east of the northeast corner
Lane and Clark Lane: Tract A from A-1 to C-P, Tract B from R-1 to C-P, Tract C from C-P to
PUD-8, Tract D from R-1 to PUD-8.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission had tabled this issue several times in order for the neighborhood association and the developer to work things out. He further explained that there had been some changes made which reduced the number of dwelling units from eleven to eight per acre, in addition to the types of uses that would be allowed in the C-P tract.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Craig VanMatre, an attorney with offices at 1103 E. Broadway, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He noted that the Council had received two letters from him which add to the restrictions proposed for the property. He explained that they are reconfiguring approximately 12.2 acres of presently zoned C-P land to 12.3 acres of C-P. He explained the reason for the discrepancy in PUD-11 to PUD-8 was due to whether or not a portion of the greenbelt acreage could be included for density purposes. Mr. VanMatre reported the applicant intends to deed restrict any construction from occurring in the greenbelt, assuming the density of the PUD tract is eight per acre. He said that would give them the 240 units needed to make this a commercially viable development. Mr. VanMatre commented that they have worked with the neighbors to gain their support for the project, and would meet with them again when the actual plan is developed.
Judy Johnson, member of the Zaring Neighborhood Association, said she was very grateful that Mr. VanMatre and Mr. Kirchoff have been working with the residents. Ms. Johnson said there were still a few concerns, but because this is a PUD project, they felt things could be worked out. She outlined the concerns included that Ballenger Place be adequate for the additional traffic that will be created, and residents would also prefer a lower density in the northern area. She noted the applicant had promised to limit the height of the PUD units as well. Ms. Johnson said residents are very pleased to see the greenspace.
Carl Skala, Chair of the Hominy Branch Neighborhood Alliance, announced that their membership had reached a consensus agreement in support of the pending revised rezoning request. He said the agreement relates to four issues: redistribution without expansion of existing C-P acreage from the southeast to the north area of the tract with additional use restrictions; increased residential density within the 30 acre subject tract to PUD-8 with a limit of 240 total units; a building height limit of no more than two stories; and a minimum of 37% green space set aside to permanently accompany the revised request. He expressed the residents concerns with regard to the lack of formal plans. Mr. Skala agreed with the staff's assessment relating to the proposed development on the 100 year flood plain for Hominy Creek, and the green belt agreement contained in the approved preliminary plat of Thessalia. He also relayed concerns about the potential for excessive lighting within the 12.4 acre C-P tract. Mr. Skala reported residents are also troubled about the issue of pocket densities within the proposed PUD-8 tract. He noted that the Association supports the notion that a well-planned multi-family development can provide some necessary balance for the problems associated with urban sprawl.
John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, member of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission, spoke about their involvement with the Metro 2020 Plan and the Ped Net issues. He pointed out that there is a Ped Net Master Plan in the works, and that they are hopeful it will help address some of the various planning issues that will be involved with the actual project for this location. Mr. Clark commented this particular green belt area is likely to be very important in making trail connections and asked the Council to take that into consideration.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Campbell noted it is nice to see development and neighborhood associations come together.
Mayor Hindman said he was pleased to see a trade-off of some higher density in exchange for green space. He thought that was the kind of approach the Council had been looking for.
B90-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
the construction of a biking and hiking trail at Columbia Cosmopolitan
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the Rhett's Run Memorial Committee was requesting use of the northern portion of Cosmo Park for a biking trail. He noted numerous hearings have been regarding the issue. The projected cost for the trail is $80,000 and it would be paid for through private funds. He asked Mr. Hood to describe the project.
Mr. Hood explained that the Parks and Recreation Department began working with the Rhett's Run Committee in late 1997 to develop a proposal for a mountain bike facility to be used by the citizens of Columbia. The project being presented this evening is the result of a very lengthy, effective planning process which included a series of public meetings. He said the meetings included a design workshop hosted by the Rhett's Run Committee in June of 1997. Mr. Hood reported there had been a public hearing at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting in February of 1998, and the layout and actual flagging of the trail and field occurred in August of 1998. He stated that was followed by a public tour of the proposed layout of the trail. Mr. Hood related that a myriad of concerns have been raised throughout the process and the project being presented tonight is a result of the planning effort.
Mr. Hood explained that the proposal this evening has been significantly scaled back in size compared to the original proposal. The proposed trail was shown on the overhead. He stated the trail would be 2.4 miles in length, with the majority it being constructed to a three foot width, requiring a clearance of approximately six feet. The construction would be done primarily by hand tools and there would be no old growth or mature trees removed. Mr. Hood indicated that staff felt the trail has been properly designed and planned to help minimize erosion, and, in general, he believes it will be compatible with the space available and the existing network within the park. Mr. Hood noted the popularity of mountain biking, and he said they expect it to continue to increase. By properly planning and developing the trail, the City could help meet the needs for this recreational activity while at the same time trying to minimize the impact of the sport on the natural environment.
Mr. Campbell noted that he had received a call from someone concerned about the intersections between the walking trail and the mountain bike trail. He asked how the dangers of such intersections would be minimized. Mr. Hood said that could be done by two different approaches. One was that the intersections will be properly signed so that people on either trail would realize they are approaching an intersection. The second was that in designing the mountain bike trail, the planners purposely created curves or upgrades that will slow the bikers down as they approach the intersection.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Dan Ruether, on behalf of the Rhett's Run Committee, explained that the Committee was formed for the purpose of commemorating a friend of his as well as doing something that would benefit the community as a whole. He noted the planning process had been open to the public and that they had welcomed community input. Mr. Ruether related that community concerns had not fallen on deaf ears, and they had worked with the Greenbelt Coalition, Sierra Club, and the Cosmo Club.
Joanne Whitely, 303 S. Glenwood, spoke on behalf of the Native Plant Society of the Hawthorne Chapter. She explained that the Bear Creek Nature Area was created 22 years ago and it has remained undisturbed since then. She said the area is too small for the proposed mountain bike trail and they felt another site should be pursued. She felt forcing bikers and walkers to use separate trails would be difficult, if not impossible. Ms. Whitely believed the uses are incompatible.
Marion Mace, 1993 S. ElDorado, spoke as a member of the Executive Committee of the Osage group of the Sierra Club. She said the membership does not oppose a mountain bike trail in the Bear Creek Nature Area, but their approval is conditional. Ms. Mace reported they felt the City should take ultimate responsibility for a high level of maintenance and management of the bike trail. She said this would include closing the trails when the surface is wet, posting trail closings at every entrance, and providing a hot line that announces trail closings. In addition, they felt closings should be announced on the radio as well. They are also interested in some patrol and enforcement to ensure proper and safe use of the trail. Ms. Mace explained that because bike trails are steeper, there is more risk for erosion than an average hiking trail would be. Lastly, she said they felt the trail should be moved out of sensitive areas, including the segment that runs along the stream between flags 12 and 32 on the proposed map and the area close to the Wetlands near flag 18. She said these are particularly sensitive areas and are likely to be subject to erosion. Ms. Mace noted that the Sierra Club supports the route called alternative number one.
Jeff Barrow, 1007 Coats, President of the Greenbelt Coalition, explained that their mission is to protect open space. He noted that they have been involved with this project from the start as the Committee had invited them to learn about the project and comment on it. Mr. Barrow reported the Coalition's stance is also neutral, but they have consistent concerns that have been voiced at several public hearings. Some of these concerns include that if the trail is built, the environmental impacts be minimized, as well as minimizing the potential conflicts between the two different groups of users.
Mr. Barrow understood that most of the money for the construction of the trail is being donated, but felt that now is the time to determine the estimates for the ongoing cost of maintenance. The Coalition felt the first part of maintenance, the fact that the trail is well-designed, had been taken care of. However, they are troubled about the construction seemingly going on an ad-hoc basis. Mr. Barrow indicated the Coalition had been told that when construction begins, it will be routed in a way that will minimize environmental impacts. If that is the case, the Coalition would like to have a representative from the environmental community present to ensure the people building the trail are being as sensitive as possible to the environmental impacts. He reiterated other concerns voiced by the Sierra Club. Mr. Barrow stated the Coalition also questions what procedures are in place relating to emergency procedures (extricating a seriously injured user), and they thought it would be a good idea to make helmets mandatory for people using the trail. Mr. Barrow recommended that the trail be built in three phases and offered overheads to explain his plan.
Tom Braker, 504 Crestland, noted Cosmo Park is well-developed to provide access to the youth of Columbia. He said the skateboard park is nearing completion, and mountain biking is becoming an increasingly popular sport. Mr. Braker thought the project was one that would continue to make Columbia a diverse and great place to live.
Arro Froese, 1908 Creasy Springs, said a lot of bike riders have used the park and this project would improve the trail making it more user friendly. Mr. Froese indicated he assisted in installing some of the water sheds in the area when he was a 16 year old Scout with Troop 64, and is well-aware of the environmental impact mountain biking has.
Mrs. Crockett asked Mr. Froese, as a mountain biker, whether he wears a helmet. Mr. Froese replied he did. He said if anyone sees a biker in yellow without a helmet on they were looking at a fool. He noted the Bicycle Club gives helmets away.
Dan Devine, 2709 Pine Drive, spoke as a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission. He had followed this project for three years and reported how impressed he has been with the Rhett's Run Committee. Mr. Devine explained the Committee has listened very closely to all of the people involved, and he was sure they would continue to do so. He thanked the Committee for their efforts.
Mrs. Crockett asked how the Commission would propose to handle the maintenance. Mr. Devine explained that the Committee had said they would probably take care of most of the maintenance. He thought the City would have to step in from time to time, but he did not see that being a major issue.
Mr. Campbell asked about control and how monitoring would be done. Mr. Devine stated his feeling in working with the Committee is that they are interested in doing the work and making the best possible bike trail. It was his impression that the Parks and Recreation staff are happy with what the group has done and felt they could work with them effectively.
Toby Gilkum, an architect with Peckham and Wright, explained that his firm had done the initial evaluation of the north end of the park for the Rhett's Run Committee. They had found, despite the presence of the natural flora and fauna and its proximity to the Wetlands, the north end of the park was not in terribly great shape. Mr. Gilkum reported that many of the existing trails are eroded and the airport lake is a sorry sight to see. He said the site should not be portrayed as a nature preserve in its current condition -- it is not utilized that way nor is it designated by the City for that function. Mr. Gilkum thought it to be a slight misrepresentation to call it such. With regard to the preservation of a trail once it is installed, he said the Columbia cycling community has done an excellent job policing, patrolling, improving and maintaining the existing bicycle trails within the state parks. He felt that they have demonstrated their willingness and their capability to do so, and he has no reason to believe it would be different with this trail.
Mr. Gilkum reported that this site was one of several that was considered for a bicycle trail for mountain biking and was chosen due, in large part, to its proximity to Columbia's population center. He said this park represents a cycling destination that young people who do not have vehicular transportation can access, which makes it a tremendous asset. Mr. Gilkum noted that this project is seen as a no cost opportunity for substantial improvement to City property allowing a greater variety of recreational activities. While there are issues to be resolved with regards to maintenance of the trails, it does represent an opportunity to improve a public facility.
Erica Scanlon, 201 Spring Valley, said she uses the park for recreational purposes and felt a bike trail would destroy the area. She spoke about the wildlife she has seen in the area and felt that a bike trail would scare them away.
Dawn Gatomas, 1506 Wilson Avenue, said it was important to her quality of life to have within the City limits an area that is not developed. She is in support of the project, but objected to the site.
Mr. Coffman asked if Ms. Gatomas encounters mountain bikers when she uses that portion of the park presently. Ms. Gatomas responded she does not, but to increase the trails would alter the landscape greatly. Mr. Coffman asked if she thought it would help with the bikers being on a different trail. Ms. Gatomas did not think a separation would make much difference.
Cammy Ronchetto, 2325 Lake of the Woods Road, voiced her support for the project and explained that she has a ten year old son who mountain bikes and races around the state. She reported she also mountain bikes with him. Presently, she said there is not a place for children to go and mountain bike. Ms. Ronchetto felt it important to encourage youth to be very fit, athletically and physically, and the only other bike trail she knows of is in Rock Bridge State Park, which is not a safe place for the children to get to by bike. She said it is possible for kids to access Cosmo Park without them having to have another adult drive them there. Ms. Ronchetto is certain the Bicycle Club would be interested in aiding with the upkeep of the trails. She noted they provide trail maintenance at Finger Lakes.
Dan Clinkinbeard, a biker, spoke in support of the project as a father and grandfather. He would like to have a place for the next generation of kids to go and ride bikes. He reported people would have to learn how to share the trails so that everyone can use them.
Dan Glover, 808 Broadhead, vouched for the fact that the Columbia bicycle community does do trail maintenance. He noted that he has organized many clean-up events at Finger Lakes Park, and the Park Superintendent is so appreciative of their efforts that he bought them a bunch of tools. Regarding erosion, he said they have found the enemy is not bikes, horses, or people, but water. Mr. Glover said if a trail is built right it gets the water off quickly and there will be no erosion.
Dee Dokken, 208 Sanford, said she spoke to a mountain biker when she had been on the trail, and the biker had told her that the Show-Me State races had been on the sled hill and on the old roads, not on the actual hiking trail. She asked if that was true. Mr. Hood replied that to his knowledge they used the old roads, the sled hill and the trail. Ms. Dokken agreed erosion problems are created primarily by motorized vehicles and horses. She saw mountain bikes as allies in enjoying and protecting natural areas. Ms. Dokken suggested that the bikers be given a separate park.
Kimi Chinn, an architect with offices at 1103 E. Walnut, explained that she has been a mountain biker since 1992. She suggested looking at examples of trails already in place where hikers and bikers are sharing trails, and the work and maintenance of these trails, especially at Rock Bridge State Park, Three Creeks and Finger Lakes. She said if this trail is developed, she did not think it would be inundated by bikers to the point where nobody else can enjoy it. Ms. Chinn did not think the trail would take a lot of maintenance because it is a quarry and there is a lot of rock there. She pointed out that it is good to have mountain bikers on the trails because it keeps them clear.
John Stansfield, an assistant professor of business administration at Columbia College, spoke in favor of developing Rhett's Run because it would be a good investment for the City. In addition, it is the type of amenity Money Magazine would look at in determining whether or not this is one of the best places in the country to live. Mr. Stansfield reported the economic benefit to the City would exceed any costs to the City.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
In terms of closing the trails and setting up a hot line, Mr. Janku noted that there is already a sports hot line that is used to report closings. He asked if it could be used for closing trails as well. Mr. Hood said it could. He said the current hot line is used for all of their cancellations and the trails could be added at virtually no cost.
In terms of site selection, Mr. Janku asked Mr. Hood to give some background on what was reviewed before deciding on the Cosmo Park location. When the process began, Mr. Hood said staff had looked into three or four sites with one of the criteria being that it had to be a large enough acreage. He said they did not look at anything smaller than 90 to 100 acres. He said there is only one other site in the park system that would fall into that size range and that is Grindstone Park. Staff had not felt this to be the best type of facility to be placed in that park. Mr. Hood explained the remaining sites were owned by other City departments, and the evaluation was that Cosmo was the superior site.
Mr. Campbell noted that it had been mentioned several times that maintenance would be handled by the Committee and the bicycle community. He felt it would still monetarily impact the City and asked if that had been budgeted. Mr. Hood replied that ultimately the maintenance of the trail would be the responsibility of the City Parks and Recreation Department. He said they hoped to use volunteers to minimize that cost, but they would include some figures in the upcoming budget. Assuming the trail should be closed when it is wet, Mr. Campbell asked who would post those closings. Mr. Hood said that would be the Parks and Recreation Department's responsibility. He said the agreement, as proposed, indicated once the trail is built, the maintenance and operation of it is turned over to the City's Parks and Recreation Department. He said the Department would make those decisions. Mr. Campbell asked if that would be an additional activity for his department. Mr. Hood said at this point they do not make those decisions on trails, but they do routinely make them on many other facilities. He said it would simply be another facility they would make those types of decisions on.
Regarding the offers to consult about the construction of the trail, Mr. Coffman asked if it would be feasible. Mr. Hood said the Parks and Recreation Department would be happy to meet with any group and work with them. He felt they should make their position known to the Department rather than to the Rhett's Run Committee.
Mr. Janku thanked the Committee and the Walter's family for their willingness to make the project work. He is in favor of the project because it would allow the proper development of the area in terms of planning for trails which are already occurring and will continue to occur. He said they can separate the bicycle, to the maximum extent possible, from the pedestrians. This had been possible on the MKT Trail where a separate walking area was created for pedestrians. Mr. Janku noted another issue that has been touched on is the accessibility of this park to the community, and particularly young people. He said that is seen with the skateboard park and how young people are using it to such a great degree. He realized how accessible this park could be for a determined young person when he saw two individuals riding their bikes while carrying golf bags on their back from the golf course on Stadium Boulevard.
Mr. Campbell said this is a generous offer from the family and the Committee, but he had two concerns. One was the intersection with the walking trail and the other was erosion. He said over time almost any trail would cause erosion, but he thought it would be manageable.
Ms. Crayton said everyone who uses the trail needed to help maintain it, which included both walkers and the bikers.
Mayor Hindman is in favor of the project and thought it to be in the right place. He said not only is it highly accessible through the Bear Creek Trail and the roads that lead into Cosmo Park, but the park itself is highly used. Regarding maintenance, Mayor Hindman noted he had a great deal of confidence in the Parks and Recreation Department. He said they have managed to maintain all kinds of facilities and have demonstrated extreme skill in doing so. He was encouraged by the volunteer effort and said he expected they would follow through. Mayor Hindman pointed out that this facility would be designed by two people who have been key course designers for the 1996 Olympic Mountain Bike Course, they have designed and consulted in World Cup Courses, and they have worked on championship courses in a dozen or so states. He said they would actually be building this trail for the City and it will be a quality job. Mayor Hindman did not think there will be another trail like it and it will have a minimal impact on the environment. He thanked the family for their contribution and the Committee for all of their hard work. Mayor Hindman stated it would be a terrific contribution to the City of Columbia.
B96-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
change orders to the contract with APAC-MO for the Forum Boulevard
Sewer District No. 137 project; approving engineer's report; levying special
assessments; appropriating funds.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this would formally approve the work completed last year on Forum Boulevard and Sewer District No. 137.
In regards to the Forum project, Mr. Patterson reported the item of significance is the extension expansion of the project to accommodate the development at Chapel Hill and Forum. He noted the change orders listed in the report describing the work.
Mr. Patterson explained Sewer District No. 137 was established by the Council in January of 1994. He said the project was brought forward on the basis of a petition from one of the property owners in the area that did not have public access to sewer. After the District was formed, he noted there had been a public hearing on May 2, 1994, at which time the Council approved the project. The project had been bid separately and it was felt the prices came in very high. It was decided to rebid the project in conjunction with improvements to Forum in order to gain some advantage on the economy of scale. The public hearing for the Forum project was held June 19, 1995.
Mr. Patterson reported the project relating to Sewer District No. 137 consisted of construction of a septic tank effluent pump system that serves five separate parcels of property. He said the construction of the force main and the connection to the gravity sewer allows these properties to connect to a public sewer line by installing an effluent pump at the discharge of the septic tank. The gravity flow line was evaluated at the time of the public hearing and it was determined to be five times as expensive as the step system that had been recommended, which the Council ultimately approved to be constructed. The total project cost was $16,887.72, but the assessment had been set at a maximum of six cents per square foot and the tax bills, therefore, would generate only $10,440 of the project cost, with the sewer utility contributing the remainder (approximately $6,500). The individual assessments on the property would range from approximately $800 to $3,780.
Mr. Patterson outlined the primary benefits to be considered would be the ability for the property owners to connect to a public sewer system that would eliminate septic drain fields which frequently fail and discharge effluent to open surface areas and ditches. This would remove from the properties the potential financial and environmental liabilities that they would incur in the event of a failure of the septic systems. If Council finds the benefits of having the public sewer available to the properties is at least equal to the amounts being proposed for assessments, the ordinance tonight should be approved.
Mr. Campbell noted that the Council received letters from one of the landowners raising several technical problems of possible failure. He asked him to address the issues raised. Mr. Patterson explained that one concern had been the depth of the line. During the inspection, staff required the contractor to lower the line in two locations so they now have assurances that it will not freeze. He said the pump issue is the same as it was when addressed at the public hearing -- the 25-feet approximate head on it is not a major technical problem. Mr. Patterson said the reference in the letter continues to be toward grinder pumps. He reiterated that this is not a grinder pump system, but an effluent pump system (it is pumping out the effluent from the septic tank). He said staff felt the system had been properly designed to assure that there would not be the potential for back-up in the houses. In general, he said the concerns were the ones that had been addressed with the design in construction. Mr. Patterson reported staff believes the system will be acceptable and up to standards.
Mr. Campbell asked what cost the landowner would incur in addition to the tax bill. Mr. Patterson said the home owner would be responsible for the installation of the pump itself, which would be approximately $600.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Wilbur Zumwalt, 1508 Mills, explained that he had bought five houses within the subject sewer district 44 years ago. He indicated he had always fought against the step system because of the flaws in it. Mr. Zumwalt read a letter that he sent to the Council. He reported he would never connect to this system and he did not want to pay for it. Mr. Zumwalt was under the impression that he was going to be charged more than what was being currently discussed.
Mr. Patterson explained that Mr. Zumwalt was referring to the cost estimates that had been provided to the Council at the time of the public hearing. He said at that time, three alternatives had been presented to the Council: the step system for a total construction estimate of $16,600.00; the alternative which was approximately five times more than the one Mr. Zumwalt had requested of them and was estimated at $89,300; and a third option of $41,300 that included some other properties not part of this project. When talking about comparisons, it was the comparison of what Mr. Zumwalt had requested of the City and what had been proposed.
Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Patterson to comment on the number of septic tanks in the area. Mr. Patterson said he thought there were four, three belonging to Mr. Zumwalt and one to the Mills property.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Campbell thought Mr. Patterson had adequately explained the problems in the area and the need for additional sewers. He believed this project seemed to be the most cost efficient manner in which to do it.
Mr. Janku noted the staff is generally supportive of gravity sewers, and the fact that they have developed something other than that means it must not have been very practical in this situation. Mr. Beck agreed and said there would have to be a substantial reason to go this route or they would have gone with the gravity sewer.
Mr. Patterson noted that this is the system that had been constructed in The Highlands as there had been no other option. He said they prefer not to put these in unless they are the only viable option. He pointed out that staff also did a 20-year life cycle cost analysis so they were not just comparing the initial cost when presenting a proposal of this nature to the Council.
Mr. Campbell asked about the system in The Highlands and whether there have been any major problems with it. Mr. Patterson said he did not recall any and he thought it had been used for at least six years now.
B103-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
annexation of property located on the east side of Rock Quarry Road,
south of City
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this approximate 22.6 acre tract is located in southeast Columbia. It would allow for a sewer line to be connected to an existing house located on the property. Although the zoning is not part of this request, Mr. Beck said the owner had suggested that they may want to have it permanently zoned A-1.
Mr. Coffman asked if this would add an extension of Rock Quarry Road to City maintenance. If the road is part of the annexation request, Mr. Beck said it would be maintained by the City. Mr. Coffman asked if there was some work that would need to be done (referring to erosion). Mr. Patterson said the County had planned some improvements, but he was not sure if it has been taken care of. He noted there are problems with the road and drainage, and they are trying to address that with some remedial action, but he did not think there has been any major reconstruction. Mr. Coffman asked if plans might be changed because of this annexation request. Mr. Patterson said he was not aware of any and explained that reconstruction of the road would be prioritized by the Council.
Mayor Hindman noted that no action is required at this time.
B93-99 Approving the final plat of the Village of Cherry Hill, Plat 1; granting a variance from the
subdivision regulations regarding street width; authorizing a performance contract.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained the location of this project as being south and east of the southeast corner of Chapel Hill and Scott Boulevard. This approximate 28 acre tract would create about 70 R-1 lots and five lots of common area. He noted that the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 28 foot wide street rather than the required 32 foot street width. The variance received a five to four vote in favor by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Beck also noted that the staff report raised questions relating to parking and street width. He suggested that the Council may want to review the street width policy as they are beginning to see more and more requests for variances with regard to street width. Mr. Campbell reminded the Council that he had asked for that information about three weeks ago.
Roy Finley, 601 W. Nifong, offered to answer any questions regarding the project.
Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Finley to comment on parking and street width. Mr. Finley said he had provided the staff with supporting data regarding street widths. The information supports the idea that narrower streets are a good thing from the standpoint of reducing the speed of traffic and, thereby, reducing noise and enhancing safety. For this concept to work like anticipated in traditional neighborhood developments, Mr. Finley said it is recommended that parking be allowed on both sides of the street rather on one side as the staff is suggesting. He reported this is proposed because parked cars become traffic calming devices. Mr. Finley noted that this particular street has a common area over a long portion of it so it did not have very many lots on it.
Mary Green, 713 Hilltop, asked if sidewalks are planned for the project. Mayor Hindman replied that there would be five foot sidewalks with space between the sidewalk and the curb. Ms. Green said she was pleased to hear that as she was supportive of the walkability issue.
Mr. Campbell said these developers are pioneers in the sense of trying some different things in this development. He thought the Council should grant the request and see if it will work as it could contribute to some of the policies Mr. Beck is talking about possibly revising. Mr. Campbell observed the materials that had been presented suggested that it has worked in other cities.
Mayor Hindman said this would be an outstanding development and he was in favor of it. He said the commercial area looked very innovative.
Mrs. Crockett agreed that it would be a great development, but said she had a problem with parking on both sides of the street if the width was going to be 28 feet. She noted the Council received a letter from the Fire Department recommending that parking be eliminated on one side for safety reasons.
Mr. John commented that the zoning regulations in effect now (wide streets with deep setbacks) have been based on the dreaded automobile traffic. He said that created a lot of the sprawl everyone is worried about. He agreed that the Council needed to go back and look at the ordinances to allow some flexibility in regards to street widths. In this case, however, it is a short street that is open at either end and a fire truck could get in. Mr. John felt that this plan allowed for flexibility.
Ms. Crayton asked if the houses would have driveways and garages. Mayor Hindman said they would. Ms. Crayton assumed the on-street parking would be for visitors. Mayor Hindman said that was his assumption also, although there are people who do not have room in their garage to park a car. Ms. Crayton asked if the sidewalks would be wheelchair accessible. Mayor Hindman said they would be.
Mr. Janku commented that if parking on both sides of the street is found to be a problem, it could be removed from one side after the fact.
B93-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: CROCKETT. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
Chapter 19 of the City Code as it relates to the employee classification
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this amendment would clarify ordinances relating to the employee classification plan and the grades contained within it. He reported it would allow some flexibility through the budget year.
B94-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
Chapter 26 of the City Code as it relates to the license tax on hotels
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said questions have been raised pertaining to how the local tax is computed. He said this bill is intended to clarify the procedure so it is uniformly administered, particularly in Columbia. He explained it would assure the elimination of a lodging tax on the state and local sales tax portion of the bill. Mr. Beck noted that this amendment has been reviewed by the Convention and Visitors Advisory Board and it is their recommendation that this change be adopted.
B95-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
the contract for the construction of Wetlands Treatment Unit #4.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said the bids on this major wastewater project had been excellent with the low bid from Phillips Grading and Construction, Inc. out of Boonville being $2,904,565.09. He said there had been a total of four bids received and all had been below the engineer's estimate.
B99-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
a moratorium on the demolition of structures on the National Register
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that Mr. Coffman had submitted a proposed amendment that would prohibit the demolition or removal of structures in an area involved in the National Register of Historic Places, primarily applicable to the Stephens situation. He said all additional information received has been forwarded to the Council.
Mr. Coffman explained that the intent of the amendment is to limit the moratorium to educational institutions as defined by Section 29-6.
Mr. Coffman made the motion that B104-99 be amended per his amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
David Rogers, an attorney with offices at 813 E. Walnut, spoke on behalf of Charlotte Overby, a home owner in the immediate area on Willis Avenue who would be affected by the demolition of the nearby structures. Mr. Rogers is also representing the East Campus Neighborhood who also opposes the demolition of these buildings. Mr. Rogers said at least twice in the last few years the Council has adopted moratoriums, and the City Counselor's Office had advised the Council that was the appropriate way to achieve the end of suspending operations while legislation was being considered. He believed the Council should carefully review Section 29-6 pertaining to the zoning regulations for educational institutions, such as Stephens College and Columbia College.
Mr. Rogers explained that Stephens is apparently operating on a plan that was adopted in 1981, and he understood there may even be some question as to whether or not the plan was actually adopted. He said the City has simply not been regulating these institutions as the ordinance requires them to. Mr. Rogers commented the regulation of these institutions is pretty vague under the ordinance. He said Mr. Boeckmann's argument that this moratorium is improper because the intention is to allow time to convince Stephens not to demolish the homes on Willis Street is a self-defeating argument. The purpose of the moratorium is to allow the Council time to have the Planning staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission make recommendations as to possible changes in Section 29-6 or other related ordinances. Mr. Rogers reported they are not asking the Council to allow for time to convince Stephens to alter their plans, but asking the Council to give themselves time to order Stephens to do something by means of the zoning ordinance. He noted that 29-6 does not speak to demolition, but thought a new ordinance might. Mr. Rogers related when the College needed the Council's vote to build the new building on Willis, they sent a Vice-President and a lawyer to make certain representations to the Council about their intentions. Tonight, when they want to do away with the houses on Willis and disavow their prior promises and representations, they send a different Vice-President and a different lawyer. Mr. Rogers urged the Council to pass the proposed amendment and pass the ordinance as amended. He suggested this bill may be further amended to stipulate the moratorium will provide the Council with sufficient time to consider amendments to Section 29-6.
Daniel Jordan, 1717 Amelia, Chair of the Benton-Stephens Community Association, addressed conformity with the current ordinance. He believes the College is in violation of 29-6 (b) and thought they should be stopped from further action until they comply with the regulation. He explained that this section requires Stephens to have a development plan, sometimes called a master plan. Mr. Jordan noted the plan that is currently on file with the City is at least 17 years old. He pointed out that the ordinance further requires that if there is a major deviation from the document, the plan shall be amended and resubmitted. He displayed a map of the grounds that accompanied the Stephens plan. He explained that it is divided into 23 sections. By Mr. Jordan's count, there are deviations in one out of three of the sections. He enumerated the deviations which he believed made the map irrelevant. Mr. Jordan asked that the moratorium be passed until Stephens is in compliance with the ordinance.
Mr. Janku asked if Section 29-6 is in the zoning regulations. Mr. Boeckmann replied it was, and added that it is part of the R-1 zoning regulations and under the permitted uses.
Debbie Sheals, 406 W. Broadway, Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, spoke with the College this afternoon and did not see much indication of their willingness to discuss the matter. She did thank Mr. Bryan, Vice-President of the College and said she saw some line of communication at least forming. Ms. Sheals pointed out that another item that has changed since their plan was filed is that the City has a Historic Preservation Program. She explained there has been some confusion in that Stephens was not aware they were next door to a Historic District. She said everyone who owns property in the Historic District receives a letter from the State Department of Natural Resources indicating the consideration of such a district and allows a mechanism by which they can comment. She said no comment was received from Stephens. Ms. Sheals reported that what Stephens does with their property does affect their neighbors, and they are trying to get a little more acknowledgment and input of that.
John Pascucci, 3104 Timberhill Trail, explained that he owns property at 112 College Avenue. He said Stephens sold a parking lot not too long ago off of North College Avenue, and noted now they want to build another parking lot. He was concerned about the affect the demolition would have on the homes on the other side of College that interface with Willis. He reported the City has laws for a reason and Stephens should have to abide by these laws just as any other citizen would have to. Dr. Pascucci explained that he had gone through two of the houses slated for demolition and thought they were beautiful. He passed around a booklet with a map of Stephens on the back which was issued in June of 1998. He said the map showed all of the houses on Willis.
Charlotte Overby, 113 Willis, spoke about fairness. She asked if it was fair for Stephens to refer to whichever plan is most convenient for them at the time, and why they are not held to the same standards for planning that every other institution and developer is. She wondered if this is fair to residents of Willis and Bass and everyone else in the City who works hard to make central Columbia an affordable, livable, nice place to live. She questioned why Stephens College's property rights and goals are worth more than hers and her neighbors. Ms. Overby reported she wants the College to thrive and grow and, in good faith, she and her neighbors want the chance to negotiate and have input into what happens on their street -- to find common ground. She said if the ordinance is defeated, the Council would be saying it is all right for residents to sometimes get mislead by administrators and that planning policy only affects some people. Ms. Overby commented if the Council passes the moratorium, they would show they recognize there is more than one interested party here.
Matthew Harline, 301 McNab, displayed overheads of the 1981 master plan on file with the City. The plan depicting Area B, the area in question, is being held for parking for Area C, the area including the metal shed facility which serves as a gymnasium and maintenance shed. Mr. Harline reported the College had said they did not need parking in Area C in March of 1998. He explained that Area A is across the street and linked by a pedestrian mall. He said that is the reason they need parking in Area B. Mr. Harline noted that Area A also included the new Columbia Independent School, which is not on the master plan, and old South Auditorium which is being slated for possible parking. Mr. Harline said the College also owns houses on Broadway (Area D) which is targeted for parking. In addition, Stephens has built a new parking lot at the corner of Walnut and College, which is shown as a building on the master plan. His point was that it would have been very difficult for any of the property owners to determine which parts of the plan were active and which were not. Mr. Harline believed it is also very difficult for the Director of Public Works to determine how to enforce the ordinance. He felt that rendered the ordinance completely toothless and definitely in need of review because of no protections for people who want to protect their property. Mr. Harline also noted gaps in the map on Willis Avenue -- one of the houses planned for demolition is not on the plan because it was not owned by the College in 1981.
Mark Thomas, 608 Morningside Drive, described a neighborhood meeting about a year ago wherein John Fitzgibbon, former Vice-President in Charge of Facilities Management at Stephens, spoke to their group. Mr. Thomas reported that Mr. Fitzgibbon had spoken at length and answered a lot of questions. He said they talked about all of the issues being discussed tonight -- the historic district, the Stephens plan, and about being good neighbors. He said they talked a little about the new facility Stephens wanted to build and the parking variances they were requesting. When the neighborhood had asked about the properties on Willis owned by Stephens and the potential for selling these, Mr. Fitzgibbon had indicated that the College still liked being a property owner, but if they ever wanted to get out of the business of rental property they would let East Campus know. Mr. Thomas reported they also discussed whether Stephens had any immediate plans to demolish the Willis homes, and Mr. Fitzgibbon had said "we have absolutely no intention of destroying any buildings on Willis -- none whatsoever". Mr. Thomas said residents accepted that assertion on good faith, and as a result, had not raised a big issue about the variance requirements for the proposed multi-purpose facility between Dorsey and Willis. He commented residents had felt they had a verbal agreement with Stephens, and the College had broken their trust.
Elaine Hartley, 1308 Bass Avenue, member of The Friends of Historic Willis Avenue, read a statement written by a Willis Avenue resident who could not be present tonight. The letter was addressed to the Mayor and Council from Erin Baldridge. Ms. Baldridge explained in the letter that she owns the house at 101 Willis that will be left standing in the middle of the parking lot. She said the entrance of the lot would go past her bedroom windows and noise and lights of cars will be passing by on three sides of her house, as well as the lights in the parking lots that will be needed to make it safe. The letter said that Stephens has a long history of broken promises that did not begin with this administration. She asked the Council to make Stephens accountable to the community before finding they have lost history and living space that cannot be recovered. Ms. Baldridge also said that when she had been barred from a press conference last week at Stephens College, she had been approached by Bob Bedal, Vice-President of Student Affairs, who had told her that Stephens was acting on the national level and was not interested in local and community concerns. Ms. Baldridge asked what would be next if Stephens is allowed to proceed further with their block by block approach to planning. She asked the Council to pass the moratorium.
Jay Hasheider, 1403 Windsor, a resident of the Benton-Stephens Neighborhood, explained that he lives one block away from the proposed demolition site. He understood the moratorium would only affect historic districts, and regardless of the Council's vote tonight, demolitions would be allowed to continue. Mr. Coffman said he was afraid that was true. Mr. Hasheider pointed out that the 1981 plan included Area I, which are the tracts that will be demolished in Benton-Stephens, located in the 1400 block of Walnut. He said the current plan indicates that this two block area encompasses the College's major academic buildings, the chapel, two dormitories and five rental properties. No major changes had been anticipated in this location. Mr. Hasheider said if what he read in the paper is correct (the homes on the 1400 block of Walnut are also slated for demolition), he did not see how Stephens could do that according to their current plan.
Christian Els, 11 Willis Avenue, said he and his wife were finally able to buy their first home about 18 months ago. He spoke about the investment in their home and what the impact would be on the face and character of their neighborhood. Because of the pledge made last year by Stephens about there being no significant alteration to the rest of the neighborhood, Mr. Els reported residents had accepted this at face value and have now been let down. He felt they have been used and taken advantage of. Mr. Els explained the reason they are asking for the moratorium is for the opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue with Stephens College to find out what their true plans are, and to determine if there are common ground issues they can discuss. He urged passage of the moratorium.
Mr. Els asked the people in the audience in favor of the moratorium to stand. Approximately five dozen people stood.
Dan Simon, an attorney with offices at 601 E. Broadway, explained that he is the lawyer representing Stephens College tonight. Mr. Simon stated that Stephens is very strongly opposed to this particular ordinance. He said they felt it to be 100% unlawful as it constitutes an attempt to temporarily impose a zoning ordinance without going through the required provisions of Chapter 89 of the Missouri Statutes and Chapter 29 of the ordinances of this city. He said it also constitutes a violation of this city's own building code, which would entitle any property owner under the same circumstances to obtain demolition permits. Mr. Simon added that it constitutes an unlawful interference with the ability of Stephens to implement and follow a plan that has long been approved by the City. Mr. Simon noted that he was appearing with Jim Bowers, a land use attorney from Kansas City, who is probably more capable of answering these legal questions than he. Also in attendance are a number of representatives of Stephens College. Mr. Simon explained that Dr. Marcia Kierscht, President of Stephens College, would not be in attendance because of an illness in the family. She apologized for her absence. He indicated Mr. Bob Bedal, a Vice-President, would try to cover for her.
Mr. Simon reported anyone who lawfully owns property under the existing zoning is entitled to proceed forward. He has heard a lot of talk this evening about Stephens College conforming with the law, and that is all the College is asking -- that the City conform with the law. Mr. Simon commented it has also been implied that people have been mislead, that the College has withheld its intentions that these particular lots on Willis Avenue would be used for parking. He found that impression to be simply false. Commencing in 1976, Mr. Simon said the Council approved a plan that authorized and provided for the placement of parking at these locations, and the issues before the Council now are almost identical to the ones considered in 1976. He related there had been talk about preservation of housing in the central area, talk about preserving the old residences, and at the time the City Council voted 5-1 to approve the plan that provided for this parking. It had been recognized this was a long-term plan, that it would be implemented on a long-term basis when the houses had to be torn down because either the College needed the parking, or because it was no longer economically feasible to continue to use them for rental properties. One of the Council members voting for the ordinance was Clyde Wilson, who was at one time the President of the East Campus Neighborhood Association.
Mr. Simon noted in 1961, the Council adopted an ordinance that provided for campus master plans. He reported Stephens has consistently filed master plans. The first plan was submitted in 1962 and was approved that same year. It was then revised in 1964 and approved at that time. In 1975 and 1976, a plan was approved which dealt with, among other things, Willis Avenue. It shows parking for Willis Avenue right on the face of the plan. Mr. Simon pointed out that since 1976, the homes on Willis Avenue have been slated for parking. In that year, the President of Stephens told the Council that the houses had been acquired to hold for future parking. It had also been conveyed the homes would be torn down when it would no longer be justifiable to retain them for rental purposes.
Mr. Simon observed the 1981 plan that has been consistently referred to does not differ in any material respect from the 1976 plan. Again, the Council proceeded to amend the plan and it had been provided that the Willis homes would be used for parking. Despite what anyone says about there being a misrepresentation, Mr. Simon said there are members of this Council who asked what was going to happen to the houses on Willis Avenue, to which Mr. Fitzgibbon stated that the plan was not going to be changed. He said there were then, in fact, no present intentions to remove the houses, but there is now such an intention. Mr. Simon reported the reason for the change in intention is because the College now has the money to implement the plan. He said that money was raised in reliance of the plan and as a representation of the plan. Mr. Simon stated the 1981 plan is like any other in that once it has been approved, the Council cannot change the conditions. Furthermore, he believed the Council cannot impose, on a temporary basis, zoning ordinances and land use laws without going through the procedures of Chapter 89 of the Missouri Statutes and Chapter 29 of the City's own ordinances. Mr. Simon said that meant hearings before both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. None of those procedures have been followed.
Lastly, Mr. Simon outlined the moratorium represents a violation of the City's own building code. He said it is a non-lawful depravation of property rights of the College. Like the residents, the College simply wants the law followed. Mr. Simon wondered what the Council's next step would be if they approved the moratorium. He asked what they would tell Stephens College, who is in the business of educating people, not in renting houses or rehabilitating them. He questioned whether the Council would tell the College they must keep the houses and spend money they want to use for educational purposes to rehabilitate the houses, that they have to rent the houses when they choose to no longer rent them. Mr. Simon asked if Stephens would be told to sell the houses, and if so, whether the Council was going to determine when or what terms, etc. He reported the Council did not have that authority. Mr. Simon respectfully asked the Council to reject the ordinance.
Mr. Coffman asked why Stephens had referred to the 1981 plan when they were before the Council previously. Mr. Simon said he thought it was neither the College's or the City's finest hour. The belief was that the correct plan was the 1981 plan. He thought the planner himself would say he was of the opinion that the correct plan was the 1981 plan. Mr. Simon said he did not believe it was. However, if one looks at the plans, he did not think there was any material deviation between the 1976 plan, which was amended in 1978, and the 1981 plan. Mr. Coffman asked Mr. Simon if he believed there have been major deviations since 1976. Mr. Simon said he did not, and pointed out that there is a City official empowered to make that decision -- and that is the Public Works Director. He said if Stephens comes in and seeks from the Public Works Department a building permit, and if the Director believes there is a substantial or material deviation from the plan, he can require that the plan be amended. He said it was amended in 1998 for that reason, as it was in 1988 for the same reason.
Mr. Coffman referred to a document and asked why Stephens submitted documents they referred to as updates to their master plan. Mr. Simon said the document was not dated so he could only tell him what he thought happened. In about the 1988 time frame, there was a substantial dispute over the area across from Boone Hospital Center. He said there were several updates that went on at that time and the document might be a part of it. Mr. Simon commented it may also be simply that the 1981 plan was given to the City for informational purposes. He did not find anything inconsistent in this with what was said here, and, in fact, the College did acquire the residences with the hope of protecting its peripheries, but acquired them for parking purposes. Mr. Simon reported the minutes of the 1978 meeting reflect exactly the same issues that are being considered tonight.
Regarding Section I of the 1981 plan referred to earlier (the Walnut Street houses), Mr. Coffman asked under what authority Stephens has to tear them down. Mr. Simon said he was not certain they need any authority to tear down any structure other than a demolition permit from the Public Works Department. He thought Stephens had the right to do that provided it fulfills all of the conditions pertaining to the issuance of a demolition permit. If the College wanted to tear them down and build something else there, Mr. Simon thought that may be a different mater. Mr. Coffman asked if the College could put a parking lot in. Mr. Simon said that was not for him to decide, but for the Public Works Director to decide. He said if the Director determines that is a substantial deviation from the plan, he would have every right to require that the plan be amended to allow for that parking lot.
Mr. Janku asked if the 1978 plan was adopted as an ordinance. Mr. Simon said the 1976 plan was adopted by ordinance, and amended by ordinance again in 1988. Mr. Janku said he assumed it is recognized that the City Council has authority in the area of zoning because it is a legislative decision. Mr. Simon agreed and said that was a given. Mr. Janku asked why the Council would not have the authority to make a determination as to whether or not something is a substantial change to a plan they adopted by ordinance. Mr. Simon responded because the Council, by ordinance, have given that authority to the Public Works Director. Mr. Janku observed there is a resolution this evening that stipulates changes to ordinances have to be approved by the City Council. He was confused by Mr. Simon's assertions. Mr. Simon referred to the language in 29-6 which provides that the Public Works Director determines whether there is a substantial deviation, and if so, he would then require that the plan be amended through the normal zoning processes. Mr. Simon said the issue tonight was whether this City Council will impose a moratorium on demolition permits for educational institutions in historic districts, which is only directed at Stephens College. He said the question is whether the Council has the lawful authority to impose such a temporary moratorium irrespective of all the other business they have talked about. Mr. Simon said the answer to that question, in his opinion, is a flat no. Assuming that is true, Mr. Janku wondered about the other issue relating to the plan -- should the Council make a determination that it has been substantially deviated from, can they require that it be amended. Mr. Simon submitted that the area of the plan they are talking about has not been deviated from and has not been amended. Mr. Janku said he may agree with that just for discussion sake, but he was referring to the plan in general. He said the Council has heard testimony as to the differences between what was contained in the original plan in 1978, and what has occurred in certain locations. Mr. Simon said he did not hear any testimony that would indicate there have been substantial deviations from the plan, but people's opinions can differ about that. Mr. Janku said that was where discretion comes in with a legislative body.
Robert Bedal, Academic and Student Affairs Vice-President of Stephens College, said their Board and administration are steadfast in their desire to enhance parking for the south central core of their campus. He noted a reference made earlier relating to the historic district, which was organized around the time the campus was doing some planning in 1995. He said the question had been why Stephens had not made a comment at that time. He said the then Vice-President for Administration was asked to investigate what meaning or implication a historic district would have on their plan. He passed out a copy of a document to illustrate why the College had not commented. There was a note on it that had been sent to the President indicating that this person had spoken with Steven E. Mitchell of the National Register Coordinator for the Historic Preservation Program, and he made assurances that an historic designation placed no constraint on what Stephens could do with their property. Mr. Bedal commented it was, therefore, not an issue with the College and that is why no comment was given at that time. Mr. Bedal reported that Stephens is not a monolithic institution that is growing and expanding at an ever increasing rate. He said the administrators have been paring and shaping the campus to meet the needs of a modern Stephens College. Throughout that process, they have also been most interested in one thing; providing a compact, functional and vibrant campus environment for students and for the community, whether it is for an arts event, a class, a luncheon, etc.
Mr. Bedal explained what drives the College's desire to improve parking along Willis relates very much to the heart of that matter. He pointed out that Stephens would be spending somewhere between $10 and $12 million in the next several years for the purposes previously stated. He commented that process began when the multi-purpose facility was constructed. He noted the College is not going to be constructing 12 more buildings, and that was really the only major building in the whole enterprise. Mr. Bedal outlined funding would be spent primarily on restoring, beautifying, and updating the physical plant, including some of the most important historic buildings in the City of Columbia. He related Stephens has sold off assets in order to concentrate on the east side of College Avenue. For more than two decades, the College has been waiting to implement this plan on Willis. He said the project is moving forward now because they have the money in place. At the same time, Mr. Bedal stated the College's recruitment efforts resulted in a 27% increase in their incoming class last year, and they are 20% ahead on deposits this year. He reported this is an exciting time for Stephens and he was very sorry it is creating a problem for some of their neighbors, but the reality is that the College is important to Columbia and important to the residents of the East Campus Neighborhood, and Stephens plans to continue to move forward with their program.
Mr. Campbell was concerned about the impact on the remaining houses, in particular, two houses on the northern portion of Willis Avenue. He noted one would be completely surrounded by driveways and a parking lot. He said the value of that house will be severely impacted by the action of the College. Mr. Campbell asked if Stephens was willing to go in and give a fair price for those properties to allow for a compact and contiguous area. Mr. Bedal said nobody in the neighborhood had approached the College about purchasing their home. Mr. Campbell asked if the College had approached them. Mr. Bedal said they did not because they did not want to presume these individuals would be interested in selling their homes. He said there is no question that the College is willing to try to work with the residents with respect to issues such as berming, landscaping, and trying to create an environment that is going to be as friendly as possible to the neighborhood. In that regard, he knew Vice-President Bryan would be trying to communicate with the neighbors on those issues.
Ms. Crayton said she was concerned about the impact on the person whose house will be in the middle of the parking. She thought there needed to be more communication on both sides. Mr. Bedal said he could not speak on behalf of the Board in terms of acquiring property; however, he could and would insist they address the question relative to a possible purchase. He indicated the College would investigate it.
Mr. Janku asked what the plan shows as to the number of parking spaces that will be created by removing the six houses. Mr. Bedal said the maximum estimated number is 80. Mr. Janku asked if there is an actual plan. Mr. Bedal said the College was not at the point of having designed a specific architectural plan. He noted that was obviously something that will have to come with a permit. Mr. Janku asked what the total parking proposal was for the area between College and Willis. Mr. Bedal thought that to be in the area of 150 spaces.
Mr. Campbell said the University of Missouri had found itself in a similar situation last year in Kansas City when they were going to take over a large amount of houses for parking. He said when that was brought to the attention of the Board and President, the whole process was stopped. The President had said the University should go back to the drawing board and work with the neighbors. Mr. Campbell asked if Stephens has considered such a move. Mr. Bedal reported Stephens is very interested in trying to reduce the impact on the neighborhood, but with respect to whether or not the Board has thought about a reconsideration of the demolition, he said the College has thought about it and they are not reconsidering. He said they are planning to proceed. Mr. Bedal indicated one of the reasons the actual design of the parking lots has not gone forward is that they are not opposed to involving the people on the block in helping them figure out how to make it as livable, attractive, and functional as possible. He said that includes some give and take on the number of spaces that will be proposed.
Mr. Janku asked about preserving a structure. He said the schematic that was presented to him depicted driveways, which in essence lead up to another house that will be retained by a home owner with a significant amount of landscaping. He asked why not leave the structure in place to provide buffering rather than tearing down the houses and putting in landscaping. He was sure the neighbors would prefer the house as a buffer rather than landscaping. Mr. Bedal said at this point that was probably an artists rendering. Mr. Janku asked why it was distributed if it had no meaning. Mr. Bedal said because it gives an impression of what the campus will look like. He had stated earlier that this was not an architectural plan and he did not know how else to explain it. Mr. Janku said if Stephens is demolishing the houses because they are old and decrepit, they should just say it. Mr. Bedal said although it is true the houses are not in good condition, that is not the reason Stephens wants to demolish them. He explained they want to tear the homes down so they can accomplish what they have planned to do for over two decades.
Mr. Campbell asked if he understood correctly that Stephens College is not willing to sit down with the neighborhood and work out compatible plans with them. Mr. Bedal said he felt Stephens is willing to communicate with the neighborhood association on matters that the College feels are germane to the neighborhood. He said that is not to say they are willing to allow the neighborhood to set the objectives of Stephens College. Mr. Bedal stated that may be a hard reality for the neighborhood and he realized it is a difficult situation, but he was trying to be frank and honest with the Council. He said the College has objectives and goals that are essential to its survival, and instead of an attempt to prevent the College from proceeding with their plans, the focus could have been shifted to how the residents could influence the final appearance of the neighborhood, which would have perhaps been a more constructive tact.
Mr. Coffman suggested that meeting with the neighborhood prior to announcing their plan might have helped. Mr. Bedal understood Mr. Coffman's point. Mr. Coffman asked if he understood that the number of houses to be destroyed was not on the table, that Stephens was not interested in saving even one home. Mr. Bedal said it is not a matter of trying to save a home or not save a home, but a matter of implementing a plan that has been in place and fully approved and known to the neighborhood and City Council for two decades. He reported he has some difficulty understanding why this is as difficult an issue as it is, and yet he knows why -- because there are people involved in the neighborhood. Mr. Bedal stated that does not take away from the fact that the College has a plan which is very important to its future. Ultimately, what is good for Stephens College is what is best for Columbia. Mr. Bedal commented he was quoted earlier as having said that local things do not matter to Stephens College. What he really said was Stephens is a national college and they have to be competitive on a national basis. He said they also recognize that Columbia has been their home since 1833, and that Stephens was the first institution of higher education in the City. He said the College is very proud of that. Mr. Bedal reported students come to Stephens in part because of the great reputation the City of Columbia has. He said they never take that for granted.
Deb Durran, Dean of Students, Chief of Security, and Director of Athletics, said she is extremely proud of the new building that will open next year providing many activities for their students, and hopefully, the facility can be shared with the City of Columbia and other groups that express an interest in renting it. She spoke out of concern for the Stephens students. Ms. Durran reported that parking is a problem and more is needed for the activities and events that are scheduled in Stamper Commons. She explained that is the heart of student life --where the students eat, get medical attention, and check their mail. Ms. Durran related that a nicely lighted parking lot with security phones would provide many benefits for the students in the way of convenience to take care of their daily business. She asked the Council to take into consideration the safety and security of the many houses that are not currently inhabited on Willis and College. Ms. Durran explained that she receives weekly reports about the kinds of activities that are taking place in those homes nightly. She asked that the College be allowed to move forward with their plans.
Mr. Coffman asked Ms. Durran if she was aware of the study that attempts to show that having residences adjacent to educational institutions actually enhances the safety of the students. Ms. Durran said she believed that could be true, but the houses she is speaking about have no residents in them. Mr. Coffman asked if it was the College's decision not to have people living in them. Ms. Durran responded that the College has not had people living in them for a long time. Mr. Coffman saw that as the problem.
Lindsey Trosper, a third year student of Stephens College, reported that having lived both on and off campus, she could testify to the fact that there is an extreme need for safe parking, not only for the students of the College, but also for the visitors that come to the campus. As a former resident of the campus, she explained that she was frequently forced to park on unlit and unsafe streets. She said that had not only created a fear in herself, but also a fear in her parents. Now that she lives off campus, she is forced to park in unsafe areas on the campus. Ms. Trosper noted that more and more students are bringing cars to campus and there is simply a need for additional parking.
Margaret Herron, Associate Dean of Enrollment Services, spoke as someone who markets the College on a daily basis. She explained that 67% of the students from Stephens come from out of state, and one of the first questions they ask is whether or not they can bring their cars with them. She said 85% of their students live on campus and because there is not adequate parking, many students are forced to cross Broadway to the lot near the Doctors Park. Ms. Herron said if there was a parking lot behind Stamper Commons, it would be much easier for them to sell the College because they would be able to reassure parents that their child would be safe walking from the lighted parking lot across an overpass to residence halls. She pointed out that when looking at a women's college, safety is a major issue.
Karen Wilms, 3460 Woodrail Terrace, spoke on behalf of the Stephens College Alumina Association Board. She read three statements in support of the College and the master plan. The first was a Board Resolution passed April 10, 1999, which endorsed the Board of Trustee's decision to implement the master plan. The second was a letter to the Editor of the Columbia Daily Tribune dated April 16, 1999, from an alumina in Pebble Beach, California who was in support of the master plan. The third statement was her own endorsement of the master plan, and her belief that implementation of the plan would help ensure that Stephens survives and thrives in the next century.
Hank Waters, a member of the Board of Trustees, explained that he is also a member of the Capital Campaign Executive Committee, a group of people leading the campaign all over the country to raise money for Stephens. He said on April 8, 1999, there had been a meeting of the Executive Committee and 18 alums had been present. He read the resolution on behalf of the master plan that they adopted at that meeting, which indicated they are in support of the decision to raze 17 rental structures on the Stephens College Campus as part of the long-range plan for the campus. Mr. Waters related that he has lived in Columbia his entire life, and for as long as he could remember, colleges like Stephens have acquired property on their peripheral areas. He believed it should be clear to everyone that those properties were being held for expansion of the campus -- parking or whatever else might be needed. Mr. Waters commented it was never Stephens intention to be in the housing business.
Regarding the question about the remaining properties that would be left, Mr. Waters said he thought it made sense for Stephens to try to come up with some fair method of evaluating those properties, and the administration should be willing to talk to those owners about buying them. He thought the College could use the properties if the people want to sell them.
Denton Warn, said he lived at 1509 E. Walnut since 1981 up until about a year ago. Mr. Warn still owns the property. He indicated he also worked at the College as a security guard for about two and one-half years, and in that capacity, he had been in several of the houses in question. Mr. Warn reported these homes were never outstanding properties and are not desirable. He said when the University leveled entire square blocks for acres of parking, this Council did nothing. When Columbia College demolished houses for parking and sports fields, the Council again did nothing. Mr. Warn thought that was appropriate because those institutions owned the property and their actions violated no laws or regulations. Now, he asked, when Stephens College wants to get out of the slum lord business by tearing down a few decrepit houses to provide convenient parking, why they would be treated differently than the others. Mr. Warn pointed out that the Council makes changes in plans at every meeting when it comes to Planning and Zoning matters. He thought the neighbors should be happy that Stephens is finally doing something rather than allowing the homes to slowly fall apart.
Waldo Palmer, 414 Alexander, said that the young women at Stephens deserve safe parking lots.
Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway, explained that he is a supporter of Stephens College and he thought them to be a very important part of this community. He urged the Council to support their efforts.
In rebuttal, David Rogers explained this bill would only provide for a 90 day moratorium. It would not be the end of the world. Mr. Rogers believed the main issue is that there are many things that could be considered within the 90 days. He said the Council might consider what is going to be required for a demolition permit because that is not zoning in itself, and this is an issue that needs to be reviewed, especially when referring to homes that are within the historic district. Mr. Rogers reported he had recently been surprised to find out that a parking lot does not require a building permit. During the moratorium, he explained the ordinances could be amended to stipulate that construction of a parking lot would require a building permit. In addition, the College could possibly pursue the purchase of the adjacent properties and perhaps the neighborhood could support the design of some type of parking lot. He commented the 90 day moratorium would allow for time to discuss those issues. Mr. Rogers believed the moratorium is lawful and encouraged the Council to support it.
Regarding Mr. Janku's question about zoning power and the Council's legislative authority, Mr. Boeckmann said when the Council considers a zoning request, they are acting in a legislative function and have quite a bit of discretion. When acting on a subdivision request for example, the Council's legislative discretion is determined at the time the subdivision ordinance is adopted. When a subdivision is before the Council, he said it is a question of acting in an administrative capacity and they have much less discretion. Mr. Boeckmann reported when referring to planned districts, the Council has discretion on the zoning aspect, but it is an open question (i.e., the way the ordinance is structured). The Council can grant the zoning and when it comes to approving a plan, he thought an argument could be made that they have less discretion. The only Missouri case Mr. Boeckmann was aware of that dealt with it in a more traditional PUD, such as Columbia had originally where both issues were considered at the same time, it was considered legislative. What is occurring in this case is a rather odd creature in the City's zoning ordinance. Mr. Boeckmann explained that the Code does not exactly establish it as an overlay zoning district, it is structured as a permitted use in R-1 districts. He said colleges are included, but before a building permit can be issued, they are required to have an approved plan, and the building permits that are issued have to be in conformance with that plan. Mr. Boeckmann reported it was not exactly a planned district, but as close to it as anything. How much discretion the Council has is an open question as well. The plans required by the ordinance are not all that specific and there are a couple of strange things about it. He said there is nothing in the plan that prevents demolition of a building, nothing that prevents Stephens College from acquiring additional land, and nothing to permit the College from selling property within their planned campus area. With that as background, Mr. Boeckmann said the issue is, under the current ordinance, can Stephens simply get a demolition permit and tear the buildings down. He thought the answer to that is yes. Mr. Boeckmann related there is nothing in Section 29-6 that would prevent it.
In reference to the validity of a moratorium, Mr. Boeckmann said issues have been raised on both sides of the question. He has given the opinion that, generally speaking, moratoriums can be valid as long as they are for a sufficiently short period of time and that there is a legitimate purpose for enacting it.
Regarding the issue raised by Mr. Simon pertaining to public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council prior to adopting a moratorium, Mr. Boeckmann said the time involved in that would make it impractical to do so. He reported in this case, he would argue that it is really not a land use ordinance and that the moratorium is geared toward demolishing a building, which is not directly a zoning land use type issue. If the statement that any ordinance that affects land at all comes within the zoning powers in Chapter 89, Mr. Boeckmann believed the City would be in the position where we have an awful lot of ordinances that affect the use of land that have not been enacted through the Chapter 89 zoning process. He thought it a bit of stretch to say that all of those would require public hearing before both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council.
Mr. Boeckmann explained that recently, the Council adopted an Historic Preservation ordinance. He said that would be the kind of ordinance that would deal with this issue before the Council. When talking about the validity of a moratorium ordinance, he said that would pertain to the purpose of the moratorium. Early on, he was told the purpose of this moratorium was to delay things so something could be worked out on the issue. Mr. Boeckmann did not think that delay would be a valid purpose and would not support this moratorium. He said the issue has come up about there being other reasons the Council should look at Section 29-6 as a reason for a three month delay. Based on testimony this evening, he did not think any of those reasons validated the passage of this moratorium. Mr. Boeckmann thought if the properties on Willis were being considered for placement in the Historic Preservation District, that might be another reason to support the moratorium, however, the Historic Preservation ordinance specifically implies that the Council cannot initiate the zoning. The ordinance stipulates the only way it can be initiated is by either the owner of the property in the case of a landmark, or by 60% of the owners according to tax records for a district. That had been the process that was established by the Council. Mr. Boeckmann did not think the residents were anywhere near to having an application filed to establish an historic district.
Mr. Campbell asked if it would be reasonable for the moratorium to be enacted in order to allow the two groups to come together and enact a plan, which would then come back to the Council. Mr. Boeckmann replied he did not think so. He said there has been a plan, an approved public record, identifying a parking lot on Willis Avenue.
Mr. John asked how this moratorium differed from those enacted in the past relating to live adult entertainment and signs. Mr. Boeckmann said the reason for those moratoriums was to prevent people from rushing in and getting permits before the public hearing process could be completed. He said it entails considerable time to do that. Mr. John asked what had happened to those who had already applied for permits prior to enaction of the moratorium. Mr. Boeckmann said one individual had applied for a permit before the live adult entertainment moratorium was adopted and they were able to start up a business.
Apart from the demolition permit issue, Mr. Janku asked if the Council, as a legislative body, felt there has been a substantial deviation from the master plan, whether they could require the College to resubmit a new plan. Mr. Boeckmann said the best mechanism is through the building permit application. Mr. Janku asked about other uses that are different and do not require a building permit. Mr. Boeckmann explained the College has the underlying zoning and a plan. He said it is not that clear to him that Section 29-6 deals directly with uses. If it did, he thought Stephens would have problems when they sell their property -- whoever bought the property would still be subject to the plan. Mr. Boeckmann believed it would be a pretty hard argument to be successful with.
Ms. Crayton asked if the Council would start piecemealing other moratoriums for other entities in the City. She did not want to penalize Stephens and than not have things in place for someone else.
Mr. Boeckmann said there are equal protection issues involved as the bill was amended tonight. Instead of applying to everyone in the Historic District, it only applies to Stephens College. He said that raises equal protection and special legislation issues.
Mr. Campbell asked if there are any City permits besides the demolition permit (i.e., soil disturbance, etc.), which would be required of the College. Mr. Boeckmann said maybe a land disturbance permit. Mr. Patterson corrected that statement and said there would be no permits required other than the demolition permit. He said the property, if it is paved, would be subject to landscaping. Mr. Rogers interjected that a land disturbance permit would be required. Mr. Patterson said that would be true if the area is more than two acres in size.
Regardless of whether the moratorium passes, Mr. Coffman said he was going to ask that the Council send Section 29-6 to the Planning and Zoning Commission for them to review. He will make the appropriate motion at the end of the meeting. With that in mind, he offered another amendment.
Mr. Coffman made the motion to further amend B104-99 by adding a Section 4 reading that, "The purpose of this ordinance is to allow sufficient time to determine the validity of current development plans under Section 29-6, and to consider possible changes to Section 29-6 as it relates to any institution required to submit a development plan."
Mr. Coffman said the purpose is to correct what he felt to be some serious flaws in the ordinance that have been brought out by this debate, and also to clarify what the current Stephen College plan allows for. Up until today, he had been operating under the assumption that the College was working from the 1981 plan. Mr. Coffman noted the plan contains vague and limited information and it is not clear to him what the current plan would allow. He said the Board of Adjustment has denied the College's plans with Hillcrest Hall because of deficiencies in the plan. Mr. Coffman said he is very disturbed by all of the proposals that have been sent to City Planning that have changed the way the master plan looks. He thought these are major deviations and he questions whether or not the plan is valid. Mr. Coffman would like to see Section 29-6 revised to include demolition permits because in his mind, destruction of facilities contained in plans can affect the public interest just as much as construction of new facilities. Mr. Coffman said the point right now is a three month moratorium, which he thought to be very reasonable under the circumstances. He related these homes are historic and a decision would be truly irrevocable. Mr. Coffman is not convinced of the College's need for parking when the Council was, in fact, told a year ago that there was no need for parking in the area. Mr. Coffman said there are seven neighborhoods represented this evening and they understand the benefit of working together with large institutions or developers.
The amendment to further amend, made by Mr. Coffman, was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku said he appreciates the fact that Stephens needs parking. He was one of the four Council members that voted in favor of the multi-purpose facility last year. Mr. Janku added that he had asked about parking at that time. He said if the gym had been linked to tearing down the homes on Willis, he doubted that he would have voted in favor of their request. Mr. Janku reported he would like to see Stephens modify their plan to still allow for a substantial amount of parking, while preserving a number of the structures. The money the College is graciously willing to spend to buy out an existing home owner or two could instead be used to rehabilitate the houses. Mr. Janku commented the Council is accustomed to having developers and institutions sit down and work out compromises so that people come out happy and yet they still accomplish their goals. He believes the same can happen in this instance. Mr. Janku stated this whole neighborhood issue is going to come up again, and Stephens College needed to do something about the situation now.
Mr. Campbell said he did not like the idea that these homes will be torn down, but at the same time, he respects the right of Stephens as a property owner to do some things with their property. He did not like the fact that Stephens and the neighborhood have not worked together. Mr. Campbell was particularly concerned about the two or three houses that would be cut off by the proposed development. He felt Stephens has a moral obligation, if not a legal obligation, to buy the houses if they go forward with their plans. One of the purposes of the zoning ordinances is to protect the rights of property owners from the actions of their neighbors. In this case, the College may not be violating the letter of the ordinance, but he thought it would be a violation of the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Campbell reported he would vote for the moratorium because he would like to see the neighborhood and Stephens work together and come back to the Council with a modified plan that would meet some of the questions of protection for the neighbors to the south that would remain on Willis, as well as addressing questions of landscaping and the other homes in the Walnut Street area.
Mrs. Crockett said the property on Willis Avenue is owned by Stephens College and they have had a plan on file since 1976. She said it has been stated all along that these houses would be used for parking when they needed it and could afford it. Mrs. Crockett had checked into the condition of the houses and was told by a reputable person that they were not in good repair. Mrs. Crockett did not understand putting good money after bad when something is ready to fall down. She said if Stephens is not allowed to tear the houses down, they could board them up to where we would have another situation like the one on Providence Road. Mrs. Crockett stated if the neighbors had checked with the City, they could have seen the plan for parking. She indicated for those reasons, she would vote against the moratorium because that had been the advise by legal Counsel, and she did not want to see the City end up in court over something they probably could not win. Mrs. Crockett agreed that Stephens should work with the property owners when it comes to landscaping.
Mayor Hindman observed the fate of the Willis homes are a great concern to many people. However, Stephens has embarked upon an improvement plan which, if it were not for the homes, most would say is a pretty good plan. He said the approach was probably not to try to balance those two things. Mayor Hindman reported in 1976, the Council approved a plan that allowed for these homes to be torn down for parking purposes. In 1988, the Council approved it again. Mayor Hindman did not think, if the moratorium is passed, there was any reasonable way the Council could change those circumstances. With an approved plan, they as a Council cannot come in and modify it. Mayor Hindman compared it to trying to modify a final plat, which the Council has no authority to do because it belongs to the person once approved. He did not see how a moratorium could change the rights that Stephens College has with respect to this plan. Mr. John also felt there was an approved plan. He said although the College has sold off some tracts that were once on the plan, that did not mean the plan does not stay in effect. Mr. John believed if the moratorium is passed and a modification to the ordinances are made, Stephens could not be held to the changes because they already had an approved plan. He felt the Council would be setting themselves up for a lawsuit they would lose, or there would be a lot of changes to current ordinances that would not affect this particular property. Mr. John indicated he would have to vote against the moratorium.
Ms. Crayton said she had listened to the speakers and heard about the impact the demolition would have on the area residents. She thought it was time for the two sides to sit down and talk to each other like adults. Ms. Crayton reported even though the property belongs to Stephens, the College could meet with the neighborhood to minimize what actually happens to the community. Ms. Crayton said she would support the moratorium because she wants the two sides to work it out.
B104-99, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CAMPBELL, COFFMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: CROCKETT, JOHN, HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.
a conveyance for electric utility purposes from Lou Fusz Properties,
B87-99 Accepting a conveyance; approving the engineer's report and authorizing payment of
differential costs for 8-inch water main serving Heritage Meadows, Plat 4.
B89-99 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.
B91-99 Approving the final plat of The Highlands, Plat 12-B; authorizing a performance contract.
B92-99 Vacating a drainage easement within Heritage Meadows, Plat 4.
B97-99 Authorizing acquisition of easements to construct the Grant Lane improvement project.
B98-99 Authorizing acquisition of easements to construct a recreational trail along Bear Creek.
B100-99 Accepting conveyances for street, utility and sewer purposes.
B101-99 Authorizing an agreement with Boone County concerning road improvements to Grant
B102-99 Authorizing a quit claim in favor of the MO Department of Transportation in connection with
the construction of the Route AC improvement project.
R72-99 Setting a public hearing: storm drainage improvements in the Alton Avenue area between
Seventh and Eighth Streets.
R73-99 Setting a public hearing: street construction on Fourth Avenue from Garth Avenue to
R74-99 Setting a public hearing: improvements at the intersection of Paris Road and Hinkson
R75-99 Transferring funds from the Perche Substation Account to the Route B Project Account.
R76-99 Authorizing an amendment to the Airport Airline Agreement with Ozark Air Lines.
R77-99 Authorizing a grant application to the Missouri Arts Council for promotion of the public art
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
R78-99 Authorizing a local government certification agreement with the Missouri Department of
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this bill would provide for 13 additional responsibilities to the City, four of which would be optional. He noted that the Historic Preservation Commission felt these items could be accomplished with minimum effort.
The vote on R78-99 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
preliminary plat no. 2 of Heritage Meadows; authorizing a variance
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this plat would create 38 lots for single family use and one 16.9 acre lot zoned PUD-8. He said there is a 5.86 acre lot which has not been given permanent zoning to date. The variance request is for the street width from the 32 foot standard width to 22 feet.
Mr. Hancock noted that the staff had made an issue in the staff report about wanting an extension of a street to the south. He said the Commission was presented with an assessment of the extension of Norfolk Court or Chilton Court. He said it was an analysis the applicant's engineer provided for the Commission's benefit. Mr. Hancock reported the Commission chose to approve this request without a condition for an extension to a stub street to the south, and with a recommendation for approval of the variance. He commented that this is the tract that is also subject to future rezoning, annexation zoning, which had been discussed a few months ago.
Mr. Campbell said the Council had previously discussed the possible need for the realignment of Southampton at some point. He asked if the platting of these three lots preclude that, or in any way affect it. Mr. Hancock said as long as a final plat is not approved it would be acceptable. Mr. Campbell indicated he just wanted to ensure that options are kept open.
Mayor Hindman asked where the next north/south street is to the east. Mr. Hancock said the next major street would be Forum Boulevard, a mile or two away. Mr. Rogers said Royal Heritage would be the next street. Mayor Hindman thought it looked like there would be a blockage of north/south streets. Mr. Hancock said there are all kinds of local streets to the east, but he was referring to the closest major street to the east as being Forum. He related that issue had been brought up in the staff report pertaining to there being a stub street to the south, just for neighborhood connection. He said the assessment that was provided was that there are some serious physical limitations in the engineer's mind. Mr. Hancock thought that was why the Commission chose to recommend it as is, but the staff typically prefers to see connections whenever possible, and a stub to the south was their only opportunity. Mayor Hindman asked if the staff is willing to go along with the physical limitations on it. Mr. Hancock said he would rely on the Commission's recommendation to the Council because the staff made their recommendation to the Commission.
Mr. Janku asked where Merefield stubs in. Mr. Hancock said it goes on over to the earlier phases of Heritage Meadows.
Roy Rogers, 1614 Whitburn, explained that he is the developer of this property and he offered to answer any questions. He said the reason there are no streets to the south on the plat they are asking for preliminary approval on is because of a 30-foot bluff that is some 200 feet long. He thought it was inappropriate to design a street stubbed in that direction. The neighborhood street that goes to Southampton is Royal Heritage. He said it is stubbed to the south. Mr. Rogers explained the reason for the cul-de-sac variance is because they want to provide some landscaping rather than filling it in with concrete.
Mr. Campbell asked about the bluff line. Mr. Rogers said it is where the creek is. He said there is green space to the end of his property behind the lots to the east. He noted there will be green space to the lots on the south side also.
The vote on R79-99 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSTAINING: CROCKETT. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
an amendment to the agreement with the Missouri Department of health
comprehensive family planning services.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the City has a contract with the State Department of Health and they have sent notices out to all of the agencies indicating that this amendment needs to be signed assuring that no state funds are expended for the purpose of performing, assisting, or encouraging abortions.
The vote on R80-99 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
a temporary certificate of occupancy for a building on lot 2 of Forum
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this is a situation wherein the applicant is not quite able to get all of the required work done before they are ready to occupy it. In this case, he pointed out the ordinance stipulates only the Council can approve the applicant putting up a bond or letter of credit to assure they will get the berm built with landscaping.
Bob Kilgore, 2509 Lacewood, explained that he had a letter from the developer stating that he would put up the bond to take care of everything. He handed the letter to the City Clerk.
The vote on R81-99 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
The following bills were introduced by the Mayor, unless otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:
private streets constructed during 1998.
B106-99 Authorizing acquisition of easements necessary to construct the B-16 Trunk Sewer, B-17
Trunk Sewer and Bear Creek Outfall Sewer.
B107-99 Authorizing an amendment to the agreement with Burns & McDonnell; approving Change
Order No. 1 and engineer's final report for landfill Cell No. 2 project.
B108-99 Authorizing the construction of intersection improvements at Sixth/Broadway,
Hitt/Broadway, Waugh/Broadway, Eighth/Walnut; calling for bids.
B109-99 Authorizing the reconstruction of Grant Lane; calling for bids.
B110-99 Authorizing the reconstruction of Brown Station Road from Route B northward to Starke
Avenue; calling for bids.
B111-99 Confirming the contract for construction of street improvements at Scott Boulevard and
B112-99 Confirming the contract for street construction on Oakland Gravel Road from the end of
improved pavement north of Smiley lane, 1600 feet north.
B113-99 Authorizing the acquisition of easements for the Worley Street - Again Street West
drainage improvement project.
B114-99 Amending Chapter 27 of the Code to define "minimum bill" clause as the demand and
energy charge for the current month.
B115-99 Confirming the contract for the water main construction project under Route PP.
B116-99 Authorizing a utility relocation agreement with Boone County.
B117-99 Accepting easements for utility purposes.
B118-99 Rezoning property located on the southwest corner of South William Street and Bass
Avenue from R-3 to O-P.
B119-99 Rezoning property located on the east side of South Fourth Street, between East
Broadway and Cherry Street from M-1 to C-2.
B120-99 Rezoning property located south of the eastern terminus of Pendleton Street from R-3 to
O-P; approving an O-P Development Plan.
B121-99 Rezoning property located on the southeast corner of East Broadway and South Ann
Street from R-3 to O-P.
B122-99 Rezoning property located within the Benton Stephens Neighborhood from R-3 to R-1
B123-99 Amending chapter 29 of the Code to establish a $150 processing fee for most rezoning
B124-99 Approving the final plat of The Hamlet, Plat No. 7; authorizing a performance contract.
B125-99 Approving the final plat of Midland Subdivision; approving a variance to the subdivision
regulations; authorizing a performance contract.
B126-99 Voluntary annexation of property located on the east side of Rock Quarry Road, south of
B127-99 Establishing permanent A-1 zoning on property located at 2720 and 2750 Mill Creek
B128-99 Amending Chapter 2 of the Code to add a new provision relating to the purchase of
architectural, engineering and land surveying services.
B129-99 Establishing procedures and guidelines for procurement of architectural, engineering
and land surveying services.
B130-99 Amending Chapter 2 of the Code to establish the Columbia Trust.
B131-99 Appropriating funds for the Columbia Trust.
B132-99 Appropriating funds for the printing of "Awareness of Chemical Hazards" brochure.
B133-99 Appropriating funds for the purchase of police equipment.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Intra-departmental Transfer of Funds.
College Request to Close a Portion of Walnut Street.
Mayor Hindman noted that this request has been withdrawn.
(C) Use of City
Mr. Beck explained that the City's Office of Volunteer Services was requesting the top level of the parking plaza for their second annual volunteer recognition event planned for June 3 from 5:30 to 8:00 in the evening. He also reported that the Boone County Medical Alliance would like to use the Sixth and Cherry garage in October. Mr. Beck said he had asked the staff to develop some policy and guidelines for dealing with these requests so they would not have to be approved by the Council, unless there are some unusual circumstances.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that the two requests be approved as stated. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(D) Proposed Rezoning of Property Located on North Side of E. Sexton Avenue.
Mr. Beck noted that the Council had requested this report which pertains to the downzoning of eight lots on East Sexton, between North Garth and Grand Avenue. The area is currently zoned R-4 and has been such since 1979.
Tom McNab, 104 Clinkscales, explained that the latest plan he has in mind for this property consisted of handicapped housing or barrier free housing. Recently, the neighborhood met with the MHDC people in Jefferson City and persuaded them to deny tax credits for multi-family housing in this area for reasons of increased traffic, higher crime, and several other issues. He said some issues made sense and some did not. Mr. McNab reported there is a need for handicapped and barrier free housing and he would like a little time to put a project together. Mr. McNab said he would also like to meet with each Council person individually and give them a tour of some of the properties he owns and manages. He would prefer to put something together that would be a compromise and less than the R-4 density.
Mr. Campbell asked what density he was thinking of. Mr. McNab replied he would prefer an R-3 zone. Mr. Campbell asked how many dwellings per acre that would be. Mr. McNab believed it to be 17.2 . He explained plans are just in the concept stage right now. He will be meeting with Services for Independent Living and expects that one and two bedroom units will be designed. Mr. McNab did not anticipate any three bedroom units, but was not sure density was the real issue given the type of housing that he wants to construct. He pointed out that he may come back to the City for some help in financing and other issues.
Mr. Janku asked if he was talking about some type of condominium or home ownership project. Mr. McNab said that is correct, he thought there was some merit to owner occupied handicapped housing or condominiums. He explained that he is currently building some condominiums off of West Broadway, at Broadway and Fairview. He said this project would not be identical to that one, but they have done a nice job on those units and he would like the opportunity to show these to the Council.
Ms. Crayton said what she would like to see more single family dwellings because residents are tired of multiple dwelling structures. She reported the Douglass Neighborhood Coalition had talked to HUD in December, and she said there is something they could do. Ms. Crayton stated they could work with Mr. McNab and with HUD to purchase the property so they can put single family dwellings on it. She said they do not want any more projects. Mr. McNab said he did not want any projects there either, and he would be more than happy to meet with Ms. Crayton and was looking forward to it. Mr. McNab indicated he plans to contact each Council member.
Ms. Crayton said she would like to meet with Mr. McNab prior to referring this issue to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
(E) Street Closure
Request and Use of Downtown Sidewalks.
Mr. Beck noted that these requests were for the Twilight Festival and the Columbia Festival of the Arts. The staff recommended approval.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that the requests be granted as written. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Upon receiving the majority vote of the Council the following individuals were appointed to the following boards and committee.
AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD
Shapiro, Nicholas J., 4013 Newport Ct. - Ward 4
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
John, Martha K., 3301 Greenridge Rd. - Ward 3
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Scavone, Edward W., 918 Texas - Ward 2
COMMENTS OF THE COUNCIL, STAFF, AND PUBLIC
Mr. Coffman reiterated his desire to refer to the Planning and Zoning Commission a review of Section 29-6. He thought it would also be appropriate to have the Commission review the current development plans for institutions under that Section for sufficiency, and also to look at whether 29-6 should include demolition permits/building permits as a trigger to determine whether a plan needs to be reviewed to ensure that the action is in compliance with the development plan. In addition, Mr. Coffman would be interested in the Commission addressing the standards, if there are any now, under the ordinance. He thought there probably should be. Mr. Coffman said he would like to see a site plan and perhaps other requirements that would make these development plans more like the plans they are use to looking at, perhaps in the format used by Columbia College. He thought that could possibly eliminate the kind of controversies they dealt with tonight. Regardless of whether this will help the current controversy with Stephens College, Mr. Coffman said it might help avert a tragedy in the future.
Mr. Hancock asked if Mr. Coffman was asking the staff to process an amendment to 29-6 that would require plan compliance, not only for building permits, but for demolition permits. Mr. Coffman said that was one thing he would like for the Commission to look at. Mr. Hancock asked if he would like for them to review the plans the City has on file for all three institutions, looking at every building on each of the institution campuses for compliance with an approved plan. Mr. Campbell said no. Mr. Hancock asked if the third item was to look into asking for more detail on the plans. Mr. Coffman said that was correct, but he was not sure about the second one. Mr. Hancock said they would do the first and third.
Mr. Janku questioned whether Mr. Coffman is asking for a staff report, or if he was directing something to the Commission. He explained normally, the Council starts off by asking the staff for a report. Mr. Janku thought that might help refine the issue and then it could be referred to the Commission. Mr. Coffman said he guessed that was the proper method, but he was suggesting that these issues be sent directly to the Planning and Zoning Commission, considering the three month time limit the Council imposed on Stephens this evening. Mr. Coffman reported he could amend his request to ask for a staff plan about what changes might be appropriate.
Mayor Hindman asked if Mr. Coffman was thinking the City could make changes that would affect what Stephens College can do. Mr. Coffman said he was not sure, but at the least he thought there was some deficiency in this Section that has been brought out by the debate tonight. He wanted to make sure this issue is reviewed to prevent future problems.
Mr. Janku said he thought it was worth looking at, and beginning with a staff report would help to refine the issue, and then the Council could discuss it at the next work session or pre-Council dinner.
Mr. Coffman said he would obviously like to see something reach the Council within the next three months. He said perhaps a staff report would be the best way to go to make sure they have a concrete proposal.
Mr. Coffman made the motion that his request be amended to request a staff report about possible changes to 29-6 per the above conversation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Coffman said that he had received an inquiry from the Bluff Creek neighborhood pertaining to the Job Center. He said there is still some damage from the tornado that tore through the area. Mr. Coffman asked that the staff look into the situation to make sure it is being cleaned up and in compliance.
Mr. Janku said the Council had received information from the Mayor of Hallsville regarding the COLT Railroad and pedestrian access. He passed it on to staff and asked that it be handled administratively if possible.
Mr. Janku commented that he had been contacted by some representatives of the Pedestrian Commission and the Disability Commission. He said they would like to have representatives of the Public Works staff meet with them prior to the public hearing on the Hinkson/Paris Road intersection improvements that will be discussed at the next meeting. Mayor Hindman thought that would be an ideal place for a roundabout. He observed it is one of the few east/west streets through Columbia and nobody can use it.
Mr. Janku said it came to his attention that another community sponsors a lot of senior recreation activities, not only for retirees, but also for older adults. He did not think enough of that kind of thing is being done in Columbia through the Parks and Recreation Department. With the City's interest in attracting retirees, Mr. Janku thought the staff may want to take a look at what type of sport activities seniors might enjoy. He said retirees would probably be able to use some facilities at off-peak times. Mr. Janku reported there are a lot of sports older people still enjoy but they do not play at the same level as a younger person would.
Mr. Janku asked for a staff report on the issue. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
The meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
Penny St. Romaine
© 2016 City of Columbia