DECEMBER 20, 2004


The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, December 20, 2004, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN and CRAYTON were present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department Heads were also present.


The minutes of the regular meeting of December 6, 2004, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. John and a second by Mr. Janku.


Mayor Hindman noted that Report F would be added under Reports and Petitions. Mr. Ash requested that B412-04 and B413-04 be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed under Old Business.

Upon his request, Mr. John was allowed to abstain from voting on B410-04 by a motion made by Mr. Janku and a second by Mr. Loveless. Mr. John noted in the disclosure of interest form that he was involved with planning for the development of the Philips Tract.

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

Mayor Hindman also announced that B386-04 and B406-04 had been withdrawn by the respective applicants.


Recognition of Vic Winn and Steve Ebert, Water and Light employees, for their assistance to residents of the State of Florida during hurricane season.

Mayor Hindman, Mr. Beck, and Mr. Dasho were joined at the podium by the two gentlemen being recognized for their efforts in aiding the residents of Gainesville, Florida, who were without power for seven days due to the hurricanes. He explained that the two men joined line workers from Fulton, Kirkwood, and Trenton for the 1,000 mile trip to Florida. While there, they worked 15 hour days clearing away debris and repairing downed power lines. Mayor Hindman voiced pride in the City's dedicated line workers because they were not only willing to fix the City system rain or shine, day or night, but also willing to travel half way across the Country to help other communities in need. Mr. Winn and Mr. Ebert were presented with plaques. Mayor Hindman also noted that Mr. Winn had been with the City for 35 years and would be retiring after the first of the year.




B401-04 Voluntary annexation of property located on the west side of Roger I. Wilson Memorial Drive; establishing permanent M-1 zoning.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted that this property was owned by the Missouri National Guard and had become an island since the area around it was annexed into the City. Both the Planning and Zoning Commission and Staff recommended approval.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

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

Mr. John asked that Staff follow through on the pre-annexation agreements for surrounding property. Mr. Beck replied that Staff had been in communication with those property owners whose properties would now become contiguous.

B401-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B402-04 Rezoning property located on the north side of Broadway, south of West Ash Street, between Fairview Road and Park De Ville Avenue from R-1 and C-1 to C-P.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mayor Hindman noted a proposed amendment had been made by the proponent that would modify the amount of land involved in the rezoning request. According to Mr. Boeckmann, if the amendment was adopted, which Mayor Hindman expected to happen, they would have to continue the public hearing to the January 3, 2005 meeting. He explained the procedures for the public hearing and noted the subject to be, not whether or not there would be a Wal-Mart, but what the plan would be, i.e. the planned zoning which was being sought or the 17 acres without planned zoning.

Mr. Beck reiterated that a proposed amendment had been received. He also pointed out key information from the staff report.

Mr. Watkins explained that the original site contained 30.28 acres with C-1 zoning to the south and R-1 zoning to the north. The requested zoning, as amended, was C-P. The site was annexed in 1966 and at that time zoning was set. The Metro 2020 designation was a neighborhood district with street access being West Broadway, Fairview Road, and Park De Ville. The affected neighborhood association was the Park De Ville Neighborhood Association. All public utilities were on site. Parkland and greenbelt were not issues according to the Parks Master Plan.

In regards to existing conditions in the C-1 zoning, Mr. Watkins explained that Staff believed they could provide for a 183,000 square foot Wal-Mart on the existing 16.75 acres. Staff also noted that open zoning did not allow for off-site improvements or public hearings on the site plan. With C-1 zoning adjacent to 12 acres of R-1 within the subject tract and no access to Park De Ville Drive, the traffic burden would be placed on the Broadway/Fairview intersection. Staff also pointed out that signalized intersections on Broadway lacked pedestrian facilities. Another concern was that the school pick up/drop off issues on Park De Ville would not be addressed.

Mr. Watkins explained the initial request for 30.28 acres of C-P zoning included a 203,000 square foot Wal-Mart and some retail and out lots, a greenspace buffer of about 4 acres to the north, and an out lot access to Fairview. The new West Ash Street alignment was with the school driveway and did not address school traffic issues. The proximity of Wal-Mart was about 400 feet from the building to the school.

The amended request of December 14, Mr. Watkins explained, included a 183,000 square foot Super Wal-Mart, 17,000 square feet of retail, and 19,460 square feet of retail on the out lots. The entire site would be about 22.7 acres. No uses were proposed for the area to the north. The proximity of the structure to existing residences on West Ash Street was about 350 feet and the proximity to the school was about 500 feet from the building to the school property. Using the overhead, Mr. Watkins showed a comparison of the initial site diagram to the amended site diagram. He noted specifically the difference in West Ash. He showed slides depicting the redistribution of traffic from the existing site and the proposed site. He also showed pictures of traffic currently going through the Paxton-Keely area and pointed out it would be difficult to get an emergency vehicle through.

He reiterated Staff's conclusion was that the existing 16.75 acres C-1 zoned tract could accommodate a 183,000 square foot Super Wal-Mart. He noted that Staff believed that planned zoning was preferable to open zoning and that the West Ash Street extension was needed for traffic circulation and to create a boundary between commercial and non-commercial uses. They felt the area north of the West Ash Street extension provided for land use transition that was appropriate for the neighborhood. Staff believed O-P was an option, but some neighbors had indicated a preference for R-1. With the extension of West Ash Street as proposed, they believed school access would be improved. The proposed uses were all C-1 uses with ten exceptions, which he commented were listed in the report. Staff recommendation was for approval with the conditions listed in the staff report for the amendment.

Mr. Beck summarized the staff report prepared for the amendment sheet.

Mr. Hutton made the motion that B402-04 be amended per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr. John.

Mayor Hindman asked if the developer, with C-1 zoning, would be entitled to seek a building permit and occupancy permit to proceed to build a Wal-Mart on the 17 acres. In reading the purposes provision in the C-1 language, Mr. Boeckmann replied that one might assume something of this scale to be inappropriate for C-1 use. He pointed out the language read that the district was intended to provide commercial shopping and services facilities in or near a residential neighborhood. The principal land use was a small shopping area with sales and services oriented toward the needs of a local population. Looking at the zoning map incorporated in the Zoning Code and at the different areas that were zoned C-1, you would see areas like the Rockbridge Shopping Center with its current Wal-Mart and the former Nowell's store along with the other related buildings. Referring to the map Mr. Watkins showed earlier, he noted the substantial areas to the west and south of the subject property, to include the Hy-Vee complex, that were zoned C-1. He pointed out that none were what would be considered neighborhood commercial. With that history and the list of uses permitted in C-1, Mr. Boeckmann stated he felt there was no limitation on the size of the store in C-1. It was simply that retail sales were allowed. He felt there was no question that the Super Wal-Mart could go in on a C-1 zoned property.

Mr. Ash stated he had heard comments about Hy-Vee and the others mentioned by Mr. Boeckmann as being dwarfed in comparison to the size of what was being proposed for this location. He understood Mr. Boeckmann to say that it was not the size, but the type of business and the fact that no one had ever done one this big before did not mean they could not. Mr. Boeckmann explained that if they were talking about limiting the size of something, that should be done in the zoning process. If that was the intent of the C-1 district, he felt there was no reason to have all that property shown on the map zoned C-1 because there was no way all that commercial was needed for a small neighborhood. The only distinction between zoning C-1 and C-3 was the listed uses, not the area that was zoned. Mr. Ash asked if there was anything currently on C-1 zoning that was considered a big box store. Mr. John replied that K-Mart would have been because it was 120,000 square feet before they cut it in half. He pointed out that was done 40 years ago, when 30,000 square feet was large.

Mr. Janku asked if the 10 exceptions given in the staff report were listed in the amendment they were considering. Mr. Boeckmann replied it did not and clarified that the amendment sheet included all C-1 uses plus lawn and garden sales, fast food restaurants, and the sale and installation of tires, batteries and lubrication for motor vehicles.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Craig Van Matre, an attorney for the applicants with offices at 1103 E. Broadway, provided handouts to the Council. He reiterated that they had reduced the size of the site to 22.91 acres and pointed out that they intended to be bound by or incorporate within the ordinance the amended application and everything stated tonight. Using a slide presentation, he showed the existing C-1 zoning on which, he commented, his clients could build a Super Wal-Mart. It was his client's belief, as well as Wal-Mart's, that this was a suitable and appropriate site, particularly because of what was anticipated for the future in the form of a bypass ramp that would carry traffic off of Stadium Boulevard and down to Broadway via the new proposal the MoDOT experts were recommending. Mr. Van Matre noted that by carrying traffic away from Stadium and putting it onto Fairview, the Fairview/Broadway intersection would become a major intersection.

Mr. Van Matre commented that if the rezoning was not granted, they had a default plan. It was not what they wanted, but it was their default plan. He showed slides of what would result if they were not granted the rezoning. He explained the low part of the site would require an extensive retaining wall and the lack of C-P would mean they would not be able to use the topography or berming and landscaping to provide the attractive store people wanted. It would compromise the manner in which the development occurred. He commented that he regretted that they were unable to convince the neighbors to sit down with them to give their input regarding the process. Mr. Van Matre noted substantial reductions and changes had been made to their plan after Staff got a hold of their proposal. They reduced the retail space and the size of the store to the exact same size as the store which could be built on the presently zoned 16.75 acres. They eliminated the pad site at the northeast corner and redrew West Ash Street to connect south of Paxton-Keely School. Staff, as a result of the changes, recommended approval of the rezoning request. The Commission turned it down, but since the Planning meeting, further modifications and reductions had been made to the plan. Each of the changes were being made with the idea of encouraging less hostility towards the plan and eventual Council support of it. The latest changes showed a reduction in the acreage, down to 22.91, to be rezoned. Mr. Van Matre commented that this did not mean they were unwilling to rezone the north seven acres of the site and noted that they would probably go along with whatever the Council recommended. He felt that could be greenspace, office space, or parking lots and added that it had been their desire all along to have neighborhood input as to what should be done with the seven acres. He noted that they eliminated the gasoline pumps originally proposed for the southwest corner of the site and reported that Walgreens was no longer interested in the southeast corner of the site. He explained that they had planned the streetscape and would now have substantial pedestrian friendly improvements on Broadway. Mr. Van Matre presented slides as to what they felt would be a great enhancement to the neighborhood. The site plan showed all of the things he talked about and a proposed berm shielding the view of the development from the neighbors to the north. It showed a fence and landscaping so that the neighbors to the east were not faced with any type of unattractive view. In the northwest corner of the site, they proposed constructing a parking lot at his client's expense to alleviate school parking problems. That, plus a raised crosswalk, he felt would enhance safety for the school. They were willing to make more improvements for the school, including fencing, security cameras and the like, in connection with the development, assuming the zoning was granted. They intended for all architecture within the site to be of a consistent design and consistent with the appearance they would show tonight. Mr. Van Matre stated they were committed to building the store in the manner shown on the slides. He passed around a sample of the brick that would be used. He showed a slide of the rear of the store reflecting the landscaping and berming that would be seen from the perspective of someone standing just on the north side of the new Ash Street. He reiterated that they were willing for the Council to tell them what to do with the north portion of the site, be it office, greenspace, parkland, or maintained at the developer's expense. He noted that the landscaping plan, which was not final, had been distributed to the City. He explained that they wanted it to reflect the plantings and the green shown on the slide when it was grown out. In the connection with this development and the TDD they would form for the development, Mr. Van Matre noted that they would fix the jog in Fairview Road, build the parking lot, fence the school playground, do the landscaping and buffering as mentioned, restrict the uses of the land to north to those approved by the City, and remove the portions of existing West Ash Street so that the privacy of the Park De Ville neighborhood was assured. He went on to say that they would install the streetscape consistent with the slide shown earlier and they would require consistent architectural design features for all buildings within the site. The buildings would be completely wrapped in brick of the type that was passed around. They would restrict the site so that there would not be any outside storage trailers and would protect against runoff from pesticides or herbicides. They would also protect against noise generating activities or special events such as automobile sales or deliveries between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. He reiterated that they would be happy to negotiate with the Council on anything in the context of developing the final plan for this development.

Dave Bennett, Engineering Surveys and Services, 113 Faye, explained that they were the civil engineers on the project. Regarding stormwater management, they would manage both the quality and quantity of stormwater from this site. In managing the quality, they would install storm sewer inlet filters, which would filter out sediment, debris, trash, oils, greases, and petroleum products. With regard to the quantity, they would install subservice stormwater detention facilities, which would probably be built underneath the parking lot. They would be designed so they could control the runoff to be no more than the pre-development conditions. During the construction phase of the project, Mr. Bennett commented that they would be handling the stormwater runoff and the sediment movement with sediment traps and silt savers. He stated that they felt their research had also found a parking lot inlet filter that would substantially reduce the potential adverse affects of parking lot runoff from the site, which he pointed out the City had no standards on at this time. Mr. Bennett noted that the developer was doing this voluntarily and understood that they would need to be maintained. They were committed to complying with all the manufacturers requirements for maintaining the filters. With regard to lighting, Mr. Bennett explained that all the poles would be a maximum of 25 feet in height with the fixtures being full cut-off, shoebox type with flat lenses. The illumination of these fixtures would be such that along the north, east, and west property lines, there would be zero illumination at the property line to eliminate spill over into adjacent properties. If the default plan was constructed, he pointed out that the adjacent roadway and pedestrian improvements would meet only minimum City requirements and the realignment of Wet Ash Street would not happen. He noted that the default plan would remove public input from the process. In summary, he explained that they felt the C-P zoning and C-P development plan process provided a greater benefit to the public and more opportunity for input.

Dustin Reichmann, Traffic Engineer with Crawford, Bunte and Brammeier, St. Louis, gave a brief overview of the roadway improvements that would be proposed under either plan. With the default 17 acre plan, there would be the required improvements to accommodate the development. That would include a right in/right out access drive on Broadway with a deceleration lane, a northbound left turn lane on Fairview at the site driveway, and three lane widening would continue to the existing Ash Street. There would also be a southbound right turn lane at the intersection of Fairview and Broadway and a west bound left turn lane on the proposed driveway on the north side of the site. Those were the projected levels of service, which were graded A through F. To put it into perspective, he noted the two signalized intersections, Broadway and Fairview and Broadway and Park De Ville, would be at service levels of B and C. That was the same as the existing level of service there today. With the almost 23 acre site plan, Mr. Brammeier explained that there would be three-quarter access opposite Hy-Vee, aleft in, but no left out, a deceleration lane, the three lane widening on Fairview would be continued from Broadway all the way to Worley Street, and the intersection of Worley and Fairview would be realigned to form a single intersection as opposed to the offset T intersection that was there today. Ash Street would be relocated to form a single four legged intersection with the existing east side of Ash Street and would swing down and intersect Park De Ville, south of Paxton-Keely Elementary School. At the intersection of Broadway and Fairview, there would be a southbound right turn lane included, and at the entrance on Park De Ville, there would be a northbound right turn lane and a southbound left turn lane. He reiterated that the developer would provide a school parking lot in the northwest corner of the site to accommodate the school's parking needs as well as a raised cross walk and any other enhancements they could provide for pedestrians and school children.

Mr. Janku pointed out that the City anticipated the need for a stop light at Ash and Fairview in the future. He asked, since they would be extending the street, why that was not addressed in their plan. Mr. Brammeier replied that they recommended the intersection be designed, at this time, to accommodate a signal in the future and added that it would have lengthy turn bays and the correct geometrics. He noted an acceptable level of service under today's conditions and stated that was why they saw no need to provide a signal at this time. Mr. Janku noted that they recommended no pedestrian, or otherwise, improvements on Broadway, east of Fairview or south of Broadway on Fairview. Mr. Brammeier replied that they were proposing pedestrian facilities completely adjacent to the site and within the site. They were also proposing the two major signalized intersections of Broadway and Fairview and Broadway and Park De Ville. In addition, he commented, there would be raised islands where there were none today, as well as a raised median that would be a refuge island for pedestrians to cut their crossing time and provide protection for those who could not get across in the given amount of time. He also noted there would be a separate push button at that location to get them across Broadway.

Mr. Van Matre pointed out the detailed plans of the pedestrian intersections would come to the Council with the development plan. He stated that they intended for them to be model intersections. They were exploring and were willing to consider installing recessed lighting and safety devices so the crosswalks would be lit at night and so that the pedestrians would not be trapped before the light changed. He explained that they had to work through some of the details with MoDOT, but noted they already had a preliminary meeting. He explained that they were not unwilling to work with them, particularly if the City and the developer assumed responsibility for those improvements within that section of Broadway. He assured the Council that they wanted the intersections in this development to be something people were proud of. They continued to explore ways to make the intersections safe models and attractive. When trying to negotiate with the neighbors and in trying to put this debate in perspective, Mr. Van Matre noted that at one point in time they had said they would allow enough rezoning to turn the store, but no additional retail space. What he was asking for, in addition to the store itself, was another 35,000 square feet of retail space. If they turned the store, based on the safety configurations of the traffic engineers, they could only move the proposed store 20 feet to the south because the driveways would need to be 500 feet north of the Park De Ville and Broadway/Fairview intersections in order to allow for the distance between driveways and the major intersections that were part of the safety standards of MoDOT and the Public Works Department. Deleting the additional 35,000 square feet of retail space would not result in any measurable benefit to the neighbors. Mr. Van Matre stated that this was not a question of whether there would be a Super Wal-Mart at this location, but a question of whether the City wanted to join with the developer in making this the best plan for the site that it could. If it was confined to only the C-1 portion, he noted that it would benefit no one, least of all the five property owners with homes on the northwest corner of the site who would have their houses purchased from them if the rezoning was granted. As Mr. Boeckmann stated earlier, Mr. Van Matre thought the same uses under C-1 as they contemplated for this could be used, regardless of which store was built. If the Council wanted to make sure it was an "apples to apples" comparison, he indicated that he would be glad to make that change tonight. He did not feel it was important either way.

Kelly Veach, 508 Vieux Carre, a proponent of the rezoning and development of the property, felt his home would have increased market value based upon the aesthetics if the rezoning were to be approved. He commented that he had children who walked to both schools in the area and reported that he had worked with the developers to correct school safety deficiencies that resulted from building Paxton-Keely on an inadequate lot. He noted that since the first meeting, the developers had made concessions. He did not see this as a Wal-Mart issue, as he thought some of his fellow association members did, but as an opportunity to work with one developer who had the experience and financial resources to create a quality development. He reminded everyone that Wal-Mart just happened to be the tenant and said he did not think we would ask another developer in Columbia to spend six to seven figures on amenities just to prove something to the community. He felt rezoning would be a plus for the community, school, and the immediate neighbors.

David Evans, President of the Park De Ville Neighborhood Association, asked the Council to vote no on the amended rezoning. He said the proposed project was too big for this piece of property. He took exception to the statement made about them not meeting with the developer. He noted that every proposal they asked them to consider was rejected. He stated that they were left with either supporting the larger rezoning or getting the 17 acre project crammed down their throat. When they suggested changing the larger rezoning to include many of the amenities now included because the Council requested it, they were rejected. He explained that they had asked if they would consider building a store like the one in Fort Collins, Colorado and the answer was that they were not building that store. Consequently, they did get to the point where they did not want to meet with them any more because they were not getting any positive response. When the neighborhood was approached four years ago, they met with Mr. Van Matre and Mr. Maly numerous times because they had a reasonable, responsible project. They were proposing 168,000 square feet of retail space on about the same amount of property. Now they wanted about 220,000 square feet of space on the same property. The neighborhood did not believe the present proposal to be responsible or reasonable. Mr. Evans explained that the building they were proposing would fit the Hy-Vee, Gerbes, and Schnucks grocery store inside. It was as big as their portion of the neighborhood, which was north of West Ash, east of Fairview, west of Park De Ville, and south of Worley Street. He pointed out that the vast majority of people in the community were against this rezoning. He stated that the artist's rendering of the store showed a more attractive building than the familiar red, blue and gray store would on the 17 acres. They also agreed the developer had made improvements to the plan from the first one presented to them as well as the first one presented to the Council, however, that did not diminish the fact that they started too large and remain too large. Mr. Evans stated that if they would propose something smaller like they did four years ago or somewhere in between that and what they were proposing now, they would probably get some support from the neighborhood. He noted that if they built in the front 17 acres, they could live with it even though they did not want to. If they choose to come back with a more responsible development for this piece of property, they would work with them to accomplish what they were asking for. He stated they were not anti-development and not guilty of soft bigotry, just firm believers that this was not a good location for the development they were proposing. They preferred to keep the property zoned the way it was, with the 12 acre buffer of R-1 property between the store and the neighborhood.

Terry Baker, 304 Vieux Carre, a neighborhood resident and mother of a child attending Paxton-Keely, spoke as President of Community First. The decision to be made by the Council, she said, was a critical one that would have broad implications for the community. The decision would set the tone for the City's commitment to the safety of school children and would set precedents for the future of their neighborhoods. It would have an impact on everyone in the community that might reside near vacant land. She felt a responsible commercial development could be built on the currently zoned 17 acres of commercial property and that they had never had a problem with that plan. Ms. Baker felt that opposition to using this particular location would exist toward any big box retailer or development with a proven history of being a high density, high traffic, regional draw with the accompanying tractor trailers, RV parking, noise, light pollution, and increase in crime. She stated the position of Community First was that it was logical and reasonable to expect that such a high density, high traffic development such as this one, be built in a highly commercial area. The fact that Walgreens was no longer part of this development did not mean that the out lot went away. It would just have another name. Ultimately, Community First was asking the Council to show by its vote that the citizens of Columbia and the City government could work together to discourage and eliminate such inappropriate development of this type. They asked that the City hold the developer responsible to the larger community, the neighborhoods and schools, for what they build and where they build it, and that we, as a community, use any means at our disposal to accomplish these things.

Ron Hansen, 4311 S. Pinebrook, saw no compelling reason to rezone the R-1 property to C-1 and spoke in opposition to the request. He asked why they could not put a nice Wal-Mart on the existing lot. He noted that 5,000 people had signed a petition saying they did not want the property rezoned and that seven neighborhood associations had gone on record unanimously opposing the proposition. He pointed out that he was not anti-Wal-Mart and that he was concerned about the homes on the opposite side of Ash Street losing property value.

Dave Madsen, 114 Park De Ville, explained his property was one of the five houses adjacent to the west edge of the northern half of the developer's property, making him one of the five homeowners most affected by the development being proposed. He preferred the property behind his home remain an open field, but also believed that the owners of property had the right to do what they wanted with their property as long as they complied with all laws and ordinances. Because the zoning had been in effect since 1966, he felt objecting to the commercial development of this land being like building a house next to an airport and then complaining about the noise created by the planes. Mr. Madsen explained that since 2001 the developers had communicated to the Park De Ville neighborhood their intent to proceed with the development. Some people opposed to the development believe the developer might be bluffing about building on the C-1 property if the rezoning request is defeated. Mr. Madsen called that wishful thinking. He commented that it was going to happen and asked that the Council approve the rezoning request because he felt it was better.

Russell Geen, 4 Shad Bush, President of Smithton Ridge Neighborhood Association, expressed solidarity with the Park De Ville group. His association felt as though they were as much affected by this development as Park De Ville. Mr. Geen explained the reasons for their continued opposition as clogged streets, the increased probability of accidents, a general loss of value to their residential property, and the potential danger to the children. He stated that no amount of landscaping, buffering, or altering of the exterior of the building would change any of those concerns. He felt they were being asked to concede to the slow demolition of their neighborhood environment. He pointed out that he and his neighbors bought their homes in good faith assuming that zoning codes would keep inappropriate businesses out of their residential areas.

John Quincy Adams VI, spoke in support of the rezoning.

Katherine Park, 413 Thilly, spoke as a 30 year resident of Columbia in opposition of the request. She noted that Wal-Mart was politically and environmentally unfriendly to the City and asked the Council to vote against the proposed request.

Linda Hawes, 3007 Yorktown, President of the Fairview Neighborhood Association, explained that she was speaking on behalf of 69 homeowners. She stated that they had met with Community First and agreed unanimously not to support the amendment. Their main concern was the safety of the children in the neighborhood. They bought their homes knowing what the zoning was and that R-1 generally remained that way unless there was an urgent need to rezone. She did not consider this to be an urgent need.

Tonya Heath, 3113 Appalachian, explained that she had talked to several of her neighbors in the Broadway Farms area and they had asked her to request that the Council vote no on the rezoning. They felt the traffic created by the Supercenter would be hazardous to the children. She also felt this could have a detrimental affect on downtown businesses. Ms. Heath asked if this was approved, how they would know what was going to happen on the site four years from now.

Marta Holmes, 5800 Driskill, explained that she had a sixth grader attending Smithton Middle School. She noted that traffic was already a problem before and after school with parents picking up their children. Ms. Holmes also pointed out that the big box stores were not easy to get in and out of quickly and that for the elderly something on a smaller scale would be much better. She asked why another grocery store was even needed in this part of town. She saw no need and asked why we would want to make it more difficult for the established stores by adding competition to the area.

Meg Pochet, 3008 Hal Court, explained that she and her husband had moved here from Houston, Texas to spend their retirement years. She commented that they moved here, after much research, because the city was so well planned. She felt that Columbia was not great today because it plunked Wal-Marts in the middle of residential areas, but because the City did not sell out to developers. She suggested the facility be constructed by the highway. Rick Hawks, felt the developments of the 70's through the 90's were the epitome of what made Columbia a good place to live. Recently, he felt we had a lot of mega-development in our town, which was disturbing development to a lot of people, especially those who had grown up here. He agreed with earlier statements by those in opposition of the development and felt it was way out of line with what was appropriate for this particular property. He liked the amenities being offered, but did not like being blackmailed.

Irene Haskins, 1307 Park De Ville, commented that Wal-Mart was coming and they would build on the 17 acres zoned commercial, whether anyone liked it or not. She commented the issue was not whether we could keep Wal-Mart from building a store at Fairview and Broadway. The sticking point was how big and how many acres it would require. Ms. Haskins felt it would be advantageous for everyone if the request were to be approved because the City would have some control over the land. She especially liked the developer's promise to include a parking lot for Paxton-Keely School.

Rebecca Bergfield, 116 Park De Ville, stated she was one of the five homeowners directly affected by the development plan. She noted that traffic had increased tremendously over the 10 years that she has lived in her home, but nothing more prominent than with the opening of Paxton-Keely School. Since the school had opened, Ms. Bergfield reported that her trash has not been picked up, her driveway was consistently blocked, and her mailbox has been knocked down. This was all because of the cars parking around her neighborhood. Lately, she explained that the City had placed no parking signs on her side of the street, but that has not affected people picking up their kids because they continue to ignore the signs. There are no crosswalks on Park De Ville so parents and children cross anywhere, increasing the potential for someone to be hit by a car. She spoke in support of the proposal and said she believed the City should have a say in what goes on in the development of Columbia. She believed today's proposal represented a compromise that had both positives and negatives for all people associated. She felt the positives outweighed the negatives and that the amended plan made more sense for the area. If the proposal did not pass, she noted the traffic issues would still be present.

Toni Duwster, explained that she was the parent of two school age children and one that would be in school in two years. As a member of Community First, she spoke in opposition. She believed that people opposed to the plan were believers that bigger was not always better and believed this development was not right, no matter what kind of brick it was wrapped in, when it was surrounded by a day care, a church, an elementary school, a neighborhood, and Off-Broadway Condominiums. Ms. Duwster noted that they had been looking across the nation for such a huge development containing a big box retailer open 24-7, directly across a residential street from an elementary school and could not find one. They were either regular Wal-Mart's or near a high school.

Diane Meeker, 2401 W. Broadway, spoke in opposition of the rezoning. She felt that 17 acres was plenty and did not understand why it had to be a Super Wal-Mart when a regular store would work.

Craig Steester, 4710 King Salmon Way, spoke as a father of two sons, in opposition of the request. He said the Council and its predecessors had done a fine job of protecting Columbia while allowing commercial growth. Recognizing the developers had the right to develop a Wal-Mart on the already zoned commercial property, he asked that the R-1 remain just that. He was concerned about the traffic nightmare that would be created for the school and daycare. He noted that the developer had made some efforts to curb the traffic from affecting Paxton-Keely, but contended it was not enough to ensure the safety of their children due to the additional volume. According to the plan, traffic wanting to go east on Broadway would be required to turn on to the school's road, diverging only several feet away from the school property. Although traffic was his primary concern, Mr. Steester noted the additional concern of crime. He explained that Columbia's crime statistics showed an increase in relationship to size and types of box stores like this one. Additionally, overnight squatters posed an element of threat closely located to two large schools full of young children.

Mike Holden, a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, explained that he had voted against this when the proposal was for 30 acres, but was very much encouraged by the changes this developer had made. He noted the Commission had continuously encouraged the planned zoned district whenever possible, especially for commercial zoning. If this plan could happen in a planned district, Mr. Holden felt it should be done. When the six members voted against the plan, he said they had simply been scared of the size and scope involved. He commented that the Council had the power to fix that. His feeling was the most appropriate thing to do would be to make an amendment to the proposal limiting the amount of floor space allowed to be retail space. He gave examples and suggested an amendment saying the maximum amount of floor space would be no more than 169,000 square feet. He explained the number to be a split between what was across the street from this site and what they were asking for. He said that would result in a 16.9% floor area ratio.

Dean Yarwood, 304 Mumford, an officer in the Rothwell Heights Neighborhood Association, pointed out that they had voted unanimously at a neighborhood meeting to oppose the request. Mr. Yarwood explained that he had taken a petition around his neighborhood and had found that no one was against signing it. He did find a lot of skepticism as to whether their feelings made any difference. He commented that he had attended the Commission hearing and was appalled at the procedure used because there had been no mention of an amendment or new plans ahead of time. Mr. Yarwood did not think there should be a big box store in this neighborhood because of the schools in the area. He suggested the Council take the advice of his predecessor and downscale it, if it was going to be a Wal-Mart.

Mark Livesay, 3401 Teakwood, explained that he and his family lived approximately four miles away from the proposed development and that his ten year old daughter attended Paxton-Keely. He felt many families would be trying to transfer their students out of the school if this was approved. Mr. Livesay noted that he was more concerned about the effect this could have on Columbia and the precedent this could set. He felt the threats made by the developer were very irresponsible and that they should be taken into account on any approval, even on the C-1 property. He agreed with Mr. Holden's recommendation.

Mike Lynch, 2708 Lacewood, gave an example of a situation that occurred 20 years ago and noted the neighbors did not own the view. He reminded them that in this situation, they had the power and suggested they use it to amend the development to what they wanted it to be. He commented that they could not stop it, but they could influence what they ended up with. He was hopeful they would do that with some discretion.

Janine Steester, 4710 King Salmon Way, disagreed with the speaker that stated that if this was another development they would not have these concerns. She commented that their concerns were based on facts, clarity, being attuned to their neighborhoods, and worrying about the future of those neighborhoods with development, traffic, and safety. Because there was no change in the letter grade level of service, she was unclear as to how the bigger plan would be more pedestrian friendly. She noted it was difficult for the citizens to support any of the proposals, if they were not clear on the facts. She was also unclear how Hy-Vee could build an aesthetically pleasing and community friendly development and this developer could not on their currently zoned commercial property.

Alan Bergfield, 116 Park De Ville, asked the Council to vote in favor of the rezoning because it was a logical solution to the problem. He noted the importance of everyone working together to come up with a good plan, even if that meant downscaling the plan.

Jim Castor, 4006 Damson, referred to the earlier discussion as to whether or not the plan would qualify for C-1 zoning. He noted this was not a small, retail store, but a huge store. He felt the line needed to be drawn at some point as to what was too large for C-1 and what was intended to be next to a residential area. Mr. Castor felt this had nothing to do with Wal-Mart, but the size of the footprint this building would place on the property.

Linda Karl, 3508 Hedgewood, explained that her typical route to get anywhere was down Fairview and Broadway and noted this would impact her travel. She spoke in support of rezoning from R-1 and C-1 to C-P. She commented that it was a given that this would be a 24/7 Wal-Mart, but without everything the developer had promised the City and the School Board if they got the rezoning, she was fearful we would end up with something nobody wanted. It would be a big box Wal-Mart with aesthetic value, landscaping, sidewalks, and the safety of the school children, if they went with the C-P rezoning. She wanted the property owners to have the buffer zone, fencing, security cameras, extra parking for Paxton-Keely, and a Wal-Mart that looked nice in her neighborhood. She also wanted restricted delivery times so they could all travel safely on Fairview, Broadway and Park De Ville.

Ken Baker, 304 Vieux Carre, a member of Community First and Park De Ville Neighborhood Association, questioned that there was precedent for the development in this location on C-1 property. He explained that Community First has maintained a reasoned and disciplined message throughout this year long struggle to bring responsible development of the appropriate scale to the property at Broadway and Fairview. They were not anti-commercial development and embraced the need for commercial development, if Columbia was to be a thriving community. He commented that it was the very scale of the proposed development that was the issue. Although it might be legal to shoe-horn in this development, Mr. Baker stated that it was wrong. The alternative plan was intended to incentivize the developer to make improvements, which he purported should be made any way. Although it had allure to most reasonable people, it exacerbated the single number one problem with the whole development, the scale was too big. The improvements, while helping with particular traffic flow problems, would invite more traffic and compound the overall traffic problem in the aggregate.

Alyce Turner, 1204 Fieldcrest, described this as a quiet neighborhood and felt this development was way too large and much too inappropriate for this neighborhood. She asked the Council to hold the developer's feet to the fire like they did with Famous Barr.

Mark Evans, 1510 Amelia, a former resident of the Park De Ville neighborhood, stated that he was pleased to see how the area around his old neighborhood had developed. The Council's blueprint had allowed the area to blossom in a fashion that was both intelligent and aesthetically pleasing. He noted that he would welcome Wal-Mart or most other businesses to the neighborhood, provided they build within the zoning framework established by the City. Mr. Evans felt it was not impossible for both residents and commercial interests to live together, but that there needed to be a buffer zone between the two.

Chris Hayday, 106 Rockingham, spoke as an affected neighbor and on behalf of the Osage Group of the Sierra Club. He asserted that the proposal had nothing to do with Wal-Mart. He noted the perception that it was actually the developers who called the shots in Columbia, not the City. He asked that the Council make the right decision.

Kim Stonecipher-Fisher, 3305 Talent, explained that several years ago she was before the Council encouraging a bike lane on Fairview from Broadway to Worley. From a safety aspect for children, bicyclists, and pedestrians, she believed it would be foolish not to accept the enhanced plan for rezoning. She pointed out it would provide a much needed parking lot and raised walking for the school. She noted that she had talked to School Board Members and Staff and found that they were in favor of the additional parking for Paxton-Keely, something their budget could not afford. She also pointed out that this would promote small business because small businesses could be placed in the out lot area.

Dennis Vettenhausen, a resident five miles east of Columbia, said he came to observe because the City was considering growth toward his area. He commented that he was bothered by the threat and history that the zoning districts were not followed.

Becky Hawks, a resident living about two miles away from the proposed site, asked the Council to consider things in the proposed project, which were completely unseen because they were unknowns at this point. She asked where all the water would go if too much concrete was put on the land. She asked about the neighbors trying to sleep at night with 18 wheelers going past their homes. Ms. Hawks felt this was not an appropriate place for a huge Wal-Mart Supercenter. When the property was zoned in 1966, she noted that supercenters had not been envisioned. When making a decision on this request, she suggested taking into account the commitment the City had already made to the schools and the residential neighborhoods. She noted that what was legal and what was right was not always the same thing.

Nancy Ankenny, 112 Park De Ville, stated that they had been dealing with the rezoning of this property since 1999. At first she was against it and thought the developer could be discouraged from putting a Wal-Mart at the location. Through the years, she noted it had become inevitable that a big box store was coming. To force the developer to build on the 17 acres, she felt, was not in the best interest of anyone. She noted the concessions made by the developer. She asked the Council to vote in favor of the rezoning request.

John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, spoke on behalf of the North Central Columbia Neighborhood Association. He said they had not had time to vote on the issue, but the Association had asked him to express their concerns and views regarding the proposal. He suggested the Council listen to what the neighborhood associations had to say. These people were not against development, they just felt the development was too large. He suggested the Council take the issue to court and request a declaratory judgment or recommend that the neighborhood people get some money together to hire an attorney to sue to stop the development.

Deanna Walkenbach, treasurer of Community First, stated that she learned that the Council had the right to limit the square footage of this development. She encouraged the Council to take advantage of that. She noted that she did feel the C-P zoning would be a better thing, but she also thought they should make it the very best thing they could. The smallest square footage she found for a super center on the Internet was in Tampa, Florida and it was 99,000 square feet. This center opened in August of this year. She encouraged the Council to limit the amount of square footage to land and parking, to have more greenspace, to not allow any drive through restaurants outside of the Wal-Mart store, and to take full advantage of their ability to make this a good proposition for all people involved.

There being no further comment, Mayor Hindman continued the public hearing to the January 3, 2005 meeting.

The motion to amend B202-04 per the amendment sheet, made by Mr. Hutton and seconded by Mr. John, was approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Janku commented that he had asked Mr. Boeckmann to prepare an amendment earlier today addressing the issue of all commitments made being included in the ordinance so they would be enforceable.

Mr. Boeckmann pointed out the rezoning process included two stages. One was the approval of the actual rezoning and the second was the approval of the development plan. He noted that no construction could begin on the project until the Council approved the development plan. Part of what was in the ordinance the Council just approved was a statement that the development plan for the property shall be consistent with the representations set forth in the December 14th amended and restated application for rezoning and with representations made by the property owners' representatives at the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission and before the Council. He reiterated that was in the ordinance right now so everything that was handed out tonight and promised by the developer's representatives would have to be included in the plan or in the ordinance approving the plan that might be brought before the Council later.

With the assistance of Mr. Boeckmann, Mr. Janku made the motion that B402-04 be further amended by adding the language stating the ordinance approving the C-P development plan shall provide that no building permits shall be issued for any building on the property until the applicant demonstrates that all necessary governmental approvals have been obtained and construction financing is in place for all street improvements and other improvements referred to in the December 14, 2004 amended and restated application for rezoning. Further, that the ordinance approving the C-P development plan shall provide that no occupancy permit shall be issued for any building on the property until all street improvements and other improvements referred to in the December 14, 2004 amended and restated application for rezoning have been substantially completed. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton.

Mr. Ash interpreted the amendment to mean the developer could not claim they could not get their TDD approved and therefore would not have to do it. Mr. Janku said that was part of it, but there could be other types of approvals necessary.

Mr. Van Matre pointed out they had no control over whether the jog in Fairview Road and the necessary right-of-way that would be required could be obtained without a TDD or without the direct involvement of the City to acquire the right-of-way for them, or the additional right-of-way they would need at all four corners of the intersection. To pass the amendment and then find themselves in the position where the TDD was not approved and the right-of-way was not granted would mean they were totally paralyzed. Mr. Janku replied he was not suggesting the City would withhold its appropriate role in the process and understood that a TDD itself had certain authority to acquire property. He just wanted to make sure things like the jog and things that were prominently mentioned as benefits were taken care of before the store opened.

Mr. John understood that if they could not form a TDD, they would not have the power to do the condemnations, which would put them in a situation that would make it impossible to meet the standards they set forth. However, those standards were the ones they needed to meet in order to build the building. He noted the City not getting in the way or even helping with condemnation for right-of-way was one point, but the rest was something they would have to do. Mr. Van Matre commented that they wanted their feet held to the fire, but did not want to be mouse trapped into finding they could not accomplish something because of circumstances beyond their control. Mr. Van Matre stated they would immediately petition for the formation of a TDD and arrange for the financing Mr. Janku was concerned about, but added that it was entirely possible that MoDOT would refuse to grant some permission on something. He also noted that it was also entirely possible that DNR or the Army Corps of Engineers would find some reason to delay them as they have in the past. He felt we would have to work together on this. Something reasonable the City Staff and the developers could come up with, they were happy to agree to, but he added that they did not want to be put in the position where they had, by virtue of having gone through this process, suddenly converted their developable piece of property into something undevelopable because of circumstances wholly beyond their control. Mr. Janku noted that he was not trying to suggest that they, as a Council, would turn around some day and not approve something they normally would approve or that Staff would turn down some permit they normally would approve, but he did think they needed to be sure the developer could accomplish these things before the store opened. He commented that to have the store built, and then not be able to get an occupancy permit, would be even more ludicrous. If someone had a friendly amendment to his motion that would say the City would not somehow try to trap them, he stated he would be amenable.

Mr. Ash felt if some unforseen thing came up and the Council could be convinced that it was truly beyond the developer's control, that the C-P plan could be amended. Mr. Janku agreed.

The motion to amend, made by Mr. Janku, seconded by Ms. Crayton, was approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mayor Hindman stated that Mr. Van Matre mentioned during his presentation that the applicant was requesting the allowable use of the property following its rezoning be all uses allowed in zoning C-1, as well as any use which was usual and customary within a Wal-Mart Supercenter. He suggested it be amended to provide that the uses would only be those uses allowed in C-1. If they did not do that, Mayor Hindman felt they would, in effect, be increasing the zoning.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that they further amend B402-04 by limiting the uses to just C-1 uses by rewording that portion of Section 1. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku.

Mr. John asked what uses enumerated would not be allowed in C-1. Mr. Boeckmann replied that the uses in C-1, C-2 and C-3 were pyramided. They were not lengthy enumerations of uses so there was a lot of administrative application on what was and what was not. Regarding the lawn and garden sales center, he was not sure what they had in mind, but noted, in a C-1, those kinds of articles could be sold. On the fast food restaurants, the zoning ordinance did not distinguish between fast food and any other restaurants and restaurants were a C-1 use. In regards to the sale and installation of tires and batteries and lubrication of motor vehicles, he noted the application of that had been that it was not allowed in C-1 as a primary use. He stated that there had been situations where people have come in for a tire store, which would install tires and batteries and do lube jobs, and those had been considered C-3 uses. He added that some people had gone through rezoning to do that. He gave K-Mart as an example of a C-1 use where it was considered to be a customary accessory use. Assuming the ordinance was applied in the future as it had been in the past, Mr. Boeckmann felt that would also be allowed as part of a Wal-Mart. If this was challenged in court, Mr. Janku noted that they would determine whether or not it was permissible based on whether or not it was C-1. He thought the point was that they were saying they could build this with the current C-1 zoning, so it should be just C-1 zoning without the other enumerated uses that might be considered additions to C-1 zoning. Mr. Loveless understood Mayor Hindman would change the last sentence to read that the property may be used for all C-1 uses. Mayor Hindman said that was correct, and noted he would cut out the enumerated additions. Mayor Hindman's motion to amend, seconded by Mr. Janku, was approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. John had reservations about overnight RV parking because of its location being near the school and noted there were other Wal-Mart stores around the Country that did not allow overnight parking. He also stated that he did not want to see any drive-thru facilities on any of the restaurants. In addition, he commented that he wanted to keep delivery truck traffic off of Park De Ville.

Mr. Van Matre responded that they could live with the no RV overnights, but said they had been limited to C-1 and did not understand why anyone would start chipping away at that. As far as the deliveries taken off of Park De Ville, he stated that they could also live with that.

Mr. John made the motion to amend B402-04 by changing Section 1 to include a statement noting the property may not be used for overnight recreational vehicle parking or for a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru and by changing Section 3 to include a condition that no deliveries may be made from Park De Ville Drive. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Hutton noted in the 22.91 acres, there would be 997,960 square feet. This would be a 0.22 floor area ratio. The ordinance called for it not to exceed 0.245, which he noted was greater. He asked why the ordinance would exceed the square footage they were requesting.

Mr. Hutton made the motion that B402-04 be amended to change item 2 in section 3 to read a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of no more than 0.22. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Ms. Crayton reiterated that she wanted to see the traffic improvements worked out before construction began. Mayor Hindman pointed out that the letter went into considerable detail about what would be done in regards to traffic improvements.

Over the long run, Mr. John felt this development would increase traffic on Broadway beyond what the TDD was currently anticipating paying for. He suggested maybe having the TDD on this and possibly, if the developer wished, to add it to other places on that side of town, for the City to pick improvements as needed over the life of it for a set amount of dollars out of the TDD for "West Broadway Improvements". He suggested saying the developers TDD would fund an "X" dollar bond and fund an "X" dollar amount for improvements of West Broadway that would go towards the City. Mr. Ash was fearful that many of the propositions the developer was offering to do would mainly be fixing local traffic problems, some already existing, but some they would be creating by coming in here. He thought Mr. John was suggesting broadening this to not just fix local traffic problems, but maybe make it a little broader in scope. Mr. John replied that was correct. Mr. Janku noted that it would be like a contingency fund. Mr. John stated that they would be rebuilding and realigning Ash Street, realigning Fairview, rebuilding the intersections as part of their TDD. This would provide some funds towards potential improvements or sidewalks along part of that and on back towards Columbia, or if we were working with the State to the west on anything on Broadway, we would have some money to work on that a little. Mayor Hindman suggested they think about this issue and discuss it again at the next meeting.

Mr. Beck asked if the improvements were contingent upon a TDD. Mr. Janku stated he did not make it explicitly contingent upon it. He thought they might have other financing options, although he had no idea what they would be. He felt everyone was anticipating a TDD. Mr. Beck asked if they had thought about the TDD costing more than the one-half per cent they had been using. He felt it could be some other number they might not like. Mr. John stated that he would drop the subject for now.

Mr. Janku mentioned the staff report and certain uses, which were exceptions. He asked if Mr. Boeckmann felt those were not C-1 uses anyway. Mr. Boeckmann replied that they did not make it into the ordinance because they were either C-2 or C-3 uses.

If they would want to lower the square footage, Mr. Janku asked if they would need to adopt the amendment tonight or if it could be offered at the next meeting. Mr. Boeckmann suggested it be made tonight. Mr. Ash felt lowering the square footage was something that he thought could lead to some meeting in the middle.

Mr. Janku suggested either capping the size of the supercenter somehow or limiting the total square feet. Mr. John noted another option might be maximizing the supercenter part of it and then allowing them a total square footage as well. Then, if they wanted to build a smaller supercenter and more out parcels, they might be more comfortable with that.

Mr. Van Matre stated that they were willing for the supercenter to not be one square foot larger than 183,000 square feet and were willing for the total square footage they could build out to be not one square foot larger than 220,000 square feet in aggregate on the development. But if it was cut down below that, Mr. Van Matre commented that his clients would not have the incentive to do all of the other stuff. Mr. Ash asked how they would feel if it was moved some where between the two figures. Mr. Van Matre pointed out that Wal-Mart had indicated that they wanted 183,000 square feet. They had a tenant that had given them marching orders to a certain extent. They did not have the ability to tell the Council they could do less than 183,000 square feet and they knew they could do that on the C-1 zoned property. He felt they might be getting backed into a corner where they would have to do it on the C-1 and just say they were sorry.

Mr. Janku commented that he had done some limited research on supercenters and understood they were all different sizes, but that they tended to want to be at a higher level.

Mayor Hindman suggested they mull the issue over and deal with it on January 3rd. Mr. Boeckmann felt if the square footage was the only thing they would change, he did not think it would need to be held over again.

Mr. Janku commented that if the same square footage was worth more in one particular part of the development, maybe as an out lot, that was something by which they could increase their value, but reduce their size.

B403-04 Rezoning property located east of North Tenth Street and north of Park Avenue from M-1 to C-2.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as a 0.41 acre lot where the applicant wanted to construct a new Columbia Photo facility with apartments above it. Since apartments were not allowed in M-1 zoning, they needed C-2 zoning in order to put in a mixed use development. The Planning Staff recommended C-P because of parking requirements. The Commission recommended approval of the request.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Jay Gebhardt, A Civil Group, explained that Tom and Scott Atkins owned the property. He noted that they had the right to build a new Columbia Photo upon the property, but did not have the right to build seven apartments above it. He stated that C-P had been recommended, but pointed out that option was not on the table. If they did not get the C-2 zoning, Mr. Gebhardt explained that they would not build the apartments. In reference to the parking issue, he noted they would have 59 parking spaces on the site when finished with the new building. They felt that was adequate.

Scott Atkins, 3909 Day Lilly Court, pointed out that they had received approval from the North Central Neighborhood Association.

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

Since they would be down zoning, Mr. Ash stated he had no problem with C-2 as opposed to C-P. He noted Staff asked for more parking because of policy requirements, but felt no one would have a problem with sharing the parking.

Mr. Janku referred to this as an example of downtown sprawl which he thought was great. With respect to parking, he thought they were taking a risk, but added the renters could be people without cars that just wanted to live downtown. He noted the availability of on-street parking.

B403-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B404-04 Rezoning property located on the north side of West Broadway (State Route TT) and east of Silvey Street from R-3 to O-P.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted a request to table this issue had been received.

Mayor Hindman made the motion to table B404-04 to the January 3, 2005 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B405-04 Rezoning property located on the east side of Providence Road and north of Campusview Drive from A-1 to C-P; approving the Providence Home Center C-P Development Plan; granting a variance relating to sidewalk construction.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this 1.36 acre property as being located along Providence Road with access onto Carter Lane. The request was to rezone 0.32 acres from A-1 to C-P in order for the entire tract to be zoned the same. The plan was for a single 13,000 square foot structure with a 42 space parking lot. They were requesting a sidewalk variance along Providence Road adjacent to the southern 0.32 acres. The Commission and Staff recommended approval of the request, but the Commission's recommendation was subject to improvements to Carter Lane and the maximum height of the lights being 20 feet.

Mr. John thought they had approved a site plan at this location and understood this was just the addition of the 0.32 square feet for their driveway. Mr. Watkins replied that was correct and explained that this small piece had been acquired and needed to be added to the C-P plan. He stated that it would not change the building much and reiterated that they just needed it rezoned and added to the C-P plan. Mr. John asked if the conditions requested by the Commission were part of the original plan. Mr. Watkins replied that they had already received a variance on the sidewalk for the first part. He added that he thought the Carter Lane requirement was in the initial plan as well. The height in lighting, he stated, was standard.

Mr. Loveless asked about the signs noted on the plan. On the schematic diagram, Mr. Watkins pointed out a section labeled signage and stated it would be included as part of the C-P Plan as approved. Mr. John asked what kinds of signs were there before and if they were now moving them around. Mr. Watkins did not believe they were adding signs, only moving them around.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Wes Bolton, an engineer with Allstate Consultants, explained these to be the same signs as those shown previously on the north tract. He stated that they had just shifted them to the south. He also pointed out that they had accepted the recommendations of the Commission.

B405-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

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

Item A was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as a 20 acre tract in northeast Columbia. The applicants were requesting single family zoning. It had been reviewed by all departments.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Dan Brush, an engineer with Brush and Associates, offered to answer any questions. He noted the stormwater matters brought to their attention at the Planning and Zoning meeting and stated they were looking into them and trying to work out something with the neighbors to address the concerns.

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

(B) Reconstruction of Hope Place street project between West Boulevard and Hardin Street.

Item B was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Patterson explained the proposal to be the 500 foot reconstruction of Hope Place between West Boulevard and Hardin Street. The recommendation was for a 28 foot wide street with a five foot sidewalk adjacent to the back of the curb on the north side. He described this to be slightly different than the new standards in that the sidewalk was only on one side and at the back of the curb instead of having the normal four foot separation. In meeting with property owners and discussing the project, he stated they felt the highest priority to be the minimization of disruption to the properties. The proposed design would attempt to do this. The estimated cost was $150,000. Because this was a CDBG eligible project, Mr. Patterson explained that funding for the project was programmed in FY 2005. As part of City policy in CDBG areas, the property owners would be subject to tax bills that would be one-half the normal amount. Those that met residency and ownership qualifications would be eligible for grants that would pay the entire tax bill.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Anna Coulibaly, 902 Hope Place, was grateful to see the project moving forward, but commented that there would be four different standards in a four block area. She stated that she wanted to see good sidewalks everywhere in her neighborhood, but felt to build one where nothing else existed on a short street did not make sense. She noted there was never a problem walking along the improved portion of Hope Place. Ms. Coulibaly stated that parking was a considerable daily problem and was available on both sides of the street. She felt it would continue to be a problem if a 28 foot street was constructed. Her suggestion was that the street be 32 feet wide with no sidewalks. She asked that it be consistent with the other streets in the area.

David Malloy, 904 Hope Place, welcomed the street improvement and stated he felt 28 feet would be fine. He liked the new, narrower width standards because he felt they encouraged vehicles to travel more slowly. He did not believe they needed a sidewalk on the street because there was no other sidewalk in the general area. He suggested a sidewalk where he felt it was more advantageous, such as Again Street. Mr. Malloy reiterated that his preference was a 28 foot wide street with no sidewalks.

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

Mr. Janku asked if public hearings had been held. Mr. Patterson replied that hearings were held and that there was not a strong consensus as to street widths and sidewalks. He reiterated the consensus on minimizing the disruption to the area. They felt the proposed cross section would accommodate that goal, as well as the City Council's goals of trying to construct sidewalks in neighborhoods. He noted the Hardin project was coming and stated that they anticipated sidewalks being constructed with that project.

Mr. Janku noted that they continually received requests for sidewalks in the older neighborhoods. He stated money was set aside for those types of projects and felt they could look at Again Street, if it was a priority for that neighborhood. He noted the difficulty in retrofitting streets and commented that a few years from now someone might ask why there was no sidewalk connecting Hardin to West Boulevard. He thought it might as well be done now. Mr. Janku agreed with the gentleman's comments about the narrow streets and the fact that they had less impact on the adjoining property owners.

Mr. Ash noted that he had agreed with Mr. Malloy until Mr. Patterson pointed out they were planning to do Hardin with a sidewalk. Mr. John commented that sidewalks were being built as the City rebuilt streets in the parts of town that were previously built without sidewalks. He added that it might be ten years before the streets were connected, but eventually they would come together.

Mr. Loveless made the motion that Staff be directed to proceed with final plans and specifications as recommended in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.


R246-04 Approving the Preliminary Plat of Creasy Springs Ridge.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as a 2.82 acre plat which would create 12 R-1 zoned lots, one of which would be considered a common area. He noted the concern of Public Works regarding the spacing of streets on Creasy Springs. He thought something had been worked out where there would be a connection onto Proctor Drive instead of Creasy Springs Road. Mr. Watkins replied that was correct and added they very much appreciated the engineer and owner working with them on the issue.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that R246-04 be amended per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Jay Gebhardt, an engineer with A Civil Group, noted that two variances were required to do this and asked if they were in the ordinance. Mr. Hutton replied that they were included in the ordinance.

The vote on R246-04, as amended, was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

B408-04 Approving the Final Plat of Park De Ville Subdivision, Plat 6; authorizing a performance contract.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Dave Bennett, Engineering Surveys and Services, asked that the issue be tabled to the January 3, 2005 meeting, so that this could be dealt with at the same meeting as the rezoning issue.

Mr. Hutton made the motion that B408-04 be tabled to the January 3, 2005 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B410-04 Authorizing an agreement with CH2M Hill for review of the Philips Farm storm water management plan; appropriating funds.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this would allow them to hire the same engineer that worked with the Public Works Department during the annexation and zoning of the Philips property. The cost of the agreement would not exceed $50,000.

Mr. Janku asked what was included in the first phase. Mr. Patterson replied that they would be bringing in a residential area as the first phase, close to Gans Road, toward Bearfield.

Mr. Ash asked about outsourcing any liability along with the engineering. Mr. Patterson explained that any time a professional performed services, they were liable for proper conduct of the work. In a case like this, he stated, they were not automatically assuming any liability the City might have because they were really just an agent of the City. He pointed out that they would not be making the decisions. They would simply be making advisory comments and suggestions, which Staff would then have to act on.

B410-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSTAINING: JOHN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B411-04 Authorizing an agreement with Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. for engineering services for the development and design of Sanitary Landfill Disposal Cell #4; appropriating funds.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained the need to open another cell at the landfill by the year 2007. This was a two phase project. The maximum not to exceed amount was $265,000 of which $31,000 was for the feasibility study. If it was determined that a bio-reactor cell was desirable, the remaining engineering costs were not to exceed $234,000. If it was determined that a standard Subtitle D cell was to be constructed, those design services would be reduced to a to a not to exceed amount of $142,000.

Mr. Ash noted that option A could make the engineering firm a lot more money and asked how we would truly know the best choice. Mr. Patterson replied that the safeguard would be the City Staff's review of the information the firm brought forward. He also explained that they would not see a major change in profit because the cost would be for permitting, which would require them to have outside consulting assistance, quality control during construction, and compliance reporting. He felt there was no incentive for them to try to falsify the report.

Mr. Hutton asked if there would be a proportionately greater cost for building the bio-cell, since there was for designing it. Mr. Patterson replied the cost of construction would be slightly higher, but not as proportionately as the design. He reiterated the big difference in the design was permitting, inspection, and quality control. The major difference in construction costs was the size of the piping, bedding, and collection systems. Mr. Hutton asked what the City paid for the last cell. Mr. Patterson thought it cost $2.4 million and noted that they were starting their second year of operation. He added that it was projected to have a five year life.

Mr. Janku asked if existing cells could be retrofitted and if they could be made more bio-reactive. Mr. Patterson replied that could be done, but added it would not be very cost effective because they would have to replace collection systems.

B411-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: LOVELESS (Mr. Loveless stepped out during the discussion for B411-04 and did not return until after the official vote was taken). Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B412-04 Appropriating Federal Transit Administration grant funds for the purchase of Paratransit vans.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that this was the result of a grant Staff applied for some time back for new Paratransit buses. He noted that the City had matching funds budgeted for this purpose. Mr. Beck also pointed out that he had met with Congressman Hulshoff and his Staff regarding the grant that had recently been in the paper. In working with Mr. Patterson, they outlined two alternatives that might be brought to the Council as to how that grant money would be more specifically utilized. Part would be for Paratransit and some might also be for additional route buses and shelters.

Mr. Ash clarified that this was not the grant that received the publicity. Mr. Beck replied that was correct and noted that they had three years to utilize those grant funds, so they would have the opportunity to budget some matching funds for that grant received.

B412-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows; VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B413-04 Authorizing an agreement with Boone County and the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission for construction of the intersection of Route K and Scott Boulevard.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Ash inquired as to how the ratios were figured when coming up with joint agreements such as this. Mr. Watkins stated that in general, they tried to figure what was fair and who could contribute what. In this case, they felt the County's share was the continuation of Scott Boulevard. The developer felt he could build the next piece of Scott Boulevard because he would not have to pay prevailing wage. That left the balance to accommodate the intersection. He also commented that MoDOT had only so much money they were willing to put in. Mr. John noted that the City limit was now up to the southeast corner. Mr. Watkins agreed and stated that they were also talking to some people in that area. Mr. Ash noted the County had decided to table their part until sewer negotiations were complete. He asked if that would affect the City in any way. Mr. Watkins replied that if the County did not move forward, the City would not be obliged to put money in to complete the intersection.

B413-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B415-04 Appropriating funds for the restoration of COLT Railroad property located in Hallsville, Missouri.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained he had worked with Mr. Dasho and the people operating a mechanic shop at this location. He saw the real problem as the remnants left over from Boone Oil, such as oil drums and old equipment. Mr. Beck stated that they would pursue the clean up and try to recover what they could.

Mr. Hutton agreed that should be done, but questioned $10,000 being enough if they ran into some type of environmental concern. Mr. Beck thought that amount would do the clean up above ground and for the building area. He asked Mr. Dasho if any exploratory work had been done. Mr. Dasho replied that some work had been done in 1991 when there were concerns about tanks leaking oil and that DNR gave them a clean bill of health.

B415-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B423-04 Agreement with the Columbia Housing Authority for Park Avenue planning.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted that prior to the adoption of the budget the Housing Authority approached the City about partnering with them in planning for the possible redevelopment of the area south of Park from Providence over to Sixth Street. Included in the budget was up to $50,000 toward the overall project. Since that time, there had been some meetings about who would be the lead agency, who would be in a supportive role, how RFP's would be developed, and how to involve the neighborhood and everyone associated with this particular project if it were to go forward. This would formalize an agreement with the Housing Authority, who would be the lead agency, with the City having representation on the committee working on the issue.

Mary Hussman, spoke on behalf of GRO, 611 N. Garth. She felt the people living in this area had been left out in the cold, having been told about the demolition plans by two newspaper reports regarding the project. She stated that no one had sought their input or involvement in the decision making process. She felt the potential for losing 70 affordable homes was unacceptable. Ms. Hussman noted that she had a petition signed by 192 people asking for the Council to consider a joint meeting with them and the Housing Authority before giving any money to a consultant. She also stated that she did not think it was a good idea to give over final control to the Housing Authority. She asked the Council to vote no on this issue.

Debra Calvin, 615 Park Avenue, was saddened to hear about the plans for demolition and commented that she was not informed by the Housing Authority, but by the newspapers. She stated that she needed her home where it was, not somewhere else. She asked why central air conditioning was recently put in if the apartments were in such bad shape. She clarified that she felt the apartments needed maintenance, but did not need to be torn down. She asked the Council to vote no.

Mr. Beck noted that he thought the Housing Authority had recently put out a flyer trying to get out more information to the tenants.

Ms. Crayton pointed out that the community would be meeting tomorrow for people tell her what they would like to see done about the problems there. Ms. Crayton noted the Housing Authority would not be putting residents out on the street. She explained that it took her four years to get federal money to help with a clean up of the area. Ms. Crayton pointed out that not only did the Housing Authority have a plan, but North Central also had one. She noted that she used to live in public housing and the reason they got central air was because they voted for it when she lived there. She said she was not going to let someone tell her she could not have federal money to improve her neighborhood. She pointed out that her mother lived in a HOPE VI project and that her home was beautiful. She stated that she felt people that lived there deserved better.

Mr. John explained that when the Housing Authority came to the Council at budget time, everyone had made it very clear that nobody would be put out of a house. He stated that it was not a demolition plan, but a plan for looking at the revitalization of the area. He pointed out that they wanted to upgrade the houses.

Mr. Ash felt the GRO group was concerned about things happening and about people who could be affected not yet being informed. He pointed out that it would probably be years before anything happened and tonight they were only talking about hiring a consultant. Ms. Crayton reiterated that the people affected could discuss their thoughts and concerns at the meeting tomorrow.

Mayor Hindman explained that one of the primary things this person would be doing, besides figuring out how HOPE VI worked and how we could get some of the money for planning what would be an improvement for the people living in the area, was to organize meetings with neighborhood groups and associations to get them involved.

Of the members of the committee, Mr. Ash asked if residents were included. Ms. Crayton replied that the Tenant Association President was on the committee. Mr. Ash asked how information was distributed. Ms. Crayton explained that information was sent out in the rent payment envelopes, through a newsletter that they received, and through monthly meetings they could attend. In addition, she noted that any tenant could address the Housing Authority Board whenever they wanted.

Mr. Loveless reiterated that there was nothing in the contract about demolition and the $50,000 was not going towards that.

B423-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:


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

B407-04 Approving the Final Plat of BGTM Subdivision, Plat No. 1; authorizing a performance contract.

B409-04 Approving the Final Plat of Arcadia Plat 2-A; authorizing a performance contract.

B414-04 Authorizing the acquisition of easements for construction of the Business Loop 70 sidewalk project.

B416-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

B417-04 Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for the Immunization Rate Improvement Project; appropriating funds.

B418-04 Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for the Teen Outreach Program Pilot; appropriating funds.

B419-04 Accepting and appropriating donated funds to support the winter trout fishing program at Cosmo-Bethel Park.

B420-04 Accepting and appropriating donated funds to purchase equipment for the Police Department.

B421-04 Appropriating funds for computer software licenses.

B422-04 Amending Ordinance No. 016875 in connection with certain outstanding bonds of the City.

R249-04 Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property located on the east side of U.S. Highway 63 and southwest of Starke Avenue.

R250-04 Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property owned by the City of Columbia located on the southwest side of Strawn Road (State Route ZZ), south of I-70 Drive Southwest.

R251-04 Setting a public hearing: construction of a sanitary sewer line serving Concorde Office and Industrial Plaza.

R252-04 Authorizing an agreement with New Wave Corporation/KOPN-89.5 FM for tourism development funds.

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


R253-04 Approving Preliminary Plat No. 2 of Deer Ridge.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted that this 20.6 acre tract was located on the north side of Thompson Road, northeast of Spring Cress Drive. He stated it would create 62 R-1 lots and was recommended for approval by Staff and the Commission.

Mr. Ash asked about the straight street and if the length of it was close to the limit. Mr. Patterson explained that there was not a set limit for the length, but that they did look at individual plats to determine whether or not there might be excessive lengths that could encourage speeding.

The vote on R253-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R254-04 Approving the Preliminary Plat of Eastland Ridge.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as a 41.4 acre tract of land at the terminus of Maple Leaf Drive. It would create 63 R-1 lots with one being a common area. Approval was recommended by both Staff and the Commission.

Mr. Hutton asked how they could approve a preliminary plat on A-1 property. He thought it was odd that the plat could be approved before the property was rezoned. He also noted there was no access onto I-70 Drive Southeast and that the only way in and out was on Maple Leaf. Mr. Watkins pointed out that it complied with the City's access requirements. Mr. Hutton understood that Ballenger Lane would not be constructed as part of this development. Mr. Patterson replied that was correct. He explained that they would try to assure a corridor was placed through the area and pointed out that they did not have to build an arterial street through there. Mr. Hutton thought this piece of property had the potential for being land locked for some time.

The vote on R254-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R255-04 Approving the Preliminary Plat of Trail Ridge Subdivision Block 3.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as 18 acres located on the north side of Green Meadows Road, east of Skylark Drive. The plat would create 70 R-1 lots. Nine lots were shown as having direct access onto Green Meadows Road, which was not desirable, but met the regulations.

Mayor Hindman commented that he had received a phone call from one of the neighbors requesting that the issue be tabled until the next meeting. He explained that as far as he could tell, it met minimum requirements and it would be a ministerial act on the part of the Council. He stated that he would announce the neighbor's request at the meeting. Mr. Loveless pointed out that this was what the residents of the neighborhood had asked for.

Mr. Hutton asked if everyone was comfortable with the alley situation coming back on the final plat. Mr. Beck replied that they would need to waiver the length of the alley.

Mr. John understood that the preliminary plat did not show an alley because the applicant did not want to ask for a variance. He asked if the Council could ask for entrances off an alley because it would make sense and because two months ago he had asked that they begin the process of upgrading Green Meadows to the point where they would not allow any more driveway accesses. He asked if they would be taking a risk by approving the preliminary plat without any variances. Mr. Boeckmann replied that they were stuck because the applicant had a plat which complied with the Code. He added that he did not see a problem with the final plat showing an alley for which the applicant would be requesting a variance.

Don Stohldrier stated that he told his engineer, Mr. Gebhardt, that he would like him to submit a new preliminary plat next week, which would follow up on this discussion. He explained that they would catch up at the time of the final plat and that the new preliminary plat would have the alley and new lot on it.

Mr. Ash asked what the point was to approve the plat tonight if a new one was coming in next week. Mr. Stohldrier replied that he wanted this one approved. Mr. Boeckmann assumed he wanted it approved so that when he brought in another one, he would have a fall back position if the Council decided not to grant the variance. Mr. Stohldrier stated that was correct and added that they would get a plat approved either here or in the court without a variance on it. He noted it was a clean plat, which met all of the criteria, and was designed that way, specifically to take to court for approval, if that was what had to be done. Mr. Stohldrier stated they would be more than happy to submit a plat with the variance request, the alley, and the lot for the Council to vote on. He explained that he did not want to submit a plat that required a variance because that would present the opportunity to have it turned down.

The vote on R255-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared adopted, reading as follows:

R256-04 Approving the Preliminary Plat of Greenbriar Village; granting variances to the Subdivision Regulations.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described the location as the northern terminus of Greenbriar Drive containing 9.2 acres. The plat would create 14 R-1 zoned lots. Two variances were being requested. One would extend the maximum length of a terminal street and the other would allow lot #14 to not have adequate frontage on the street. Staff and Commission both recommended approval of the plat with the requested variances.

Jay Gebhardt, an engineer with A Civil Group, offered to answer any questions.

The vote on R256-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R257-04 Adopting a list of priorities for Missouri Department of Transportation roadway improvement projects.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this resolution to be supportive of the action the CATSO Committee took by providing MoDOT with three priority projects to be considered on a competitive basis throughout District Five. MoDOT funding for this program was the result of the recently approved ballot issue regarding MoDOT funding. The three projects were 763 from Big Bear Boulevard to U.S. 63, 740 from U.S. Highway 63 to I-70, and the U.S. Highway 63 Interchanges at Route AC/63 and Route WW/63. If Council adopted the resolution, they would submit it along with the CATSO recommendation.

The vote on R257-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R258-04 Authorizing a Memorandum of Understanding with Count Boonty and Boone County relating to the lease of office space.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this would authorize the leasing of office space in the former location of Lifestyles Furniture at the southeast corner of Walnut and Seventh Streets. He noted the insurance issue had been worked out and that the City would be paying $7,500 per month, which would include the space currently rented for the Police Department.

Mr. Ash asked about the square footage of the building. Mr. Beck replied that it was approximately 7,500 square feet. Mr. Ash asked which departments would be moving there. Mr. Beck stated that right now they were thinking primarily the Finance Department would move.

Mr. Janku commented that he thought it was unfortunate that we had to rent retail space.

The vote on R258-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

The following bills were introduced by the Mayor Hindman unless otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:

B424-04 Voluntary annexation of property located on the south side of Thompson Road, east of the City limits; establishing permanent R-1 zoning.

B425-04 Rezoning property located on the south side of I-70 Drive Southeast, west of Eastland Hills Subdivision from A-1 to R-1.

B426-04 Approving the lighting and sign plans for the C-P Development Plan of Bass Pro at CenterState Crossings.

B427-04 Approving the Columbia College Campus Master Plan 2004 Update.

B428-04 Granting a variance to the Subdivision Regulations relating to sidewalk construction along the south side of East Walnut Street, adjacent to Stephens Lake Park.

B429-04 Granting a variance to the Subdivision Regulations relating to sidewalk construction along the east side of Wyatt Lane, adjacent to Lot 8 of Deer Ridge Subdivision Plat 1.

B430-04 Approving the Final Plat of CenterState Plat 5; authorizing a performance contract.

B431-04 Approving the Final Plat of CenterState Plat 6; authorizing a performance contract.

B432-04 Approving the Final Plat of Auburn Hills Plat 10; authorizing a performance contract.

B433-04 Approving the Final Plat of Hanover Plaza Plat 6; authorizing a performance contract.

B434-04 Approving the Final Plat of Thessalia Subdivision - Plat 7; authorizing a performance contract.

B435-04 Authorizing an agreement with Robert M. LeMone relating to the construction of a sanitary sewer line serving Concorde Office and Industrial Plaza; appropriating funds.

B436-04 Authorizing an agreement with Trabue, Hansen & Hinshaw for engineering services for the F-1 Relief Sewer Phase 2 - UMC South Campus Relief Sewer Phase 2; appropriating funds.

B437-04 Approving the Engineer's Final Report relating to the MC-6 Sewer Extension Project.

B438-04 Approving the Engineer's Final Report relating to the H-21 Outfall Extension and H-21D Trunk Sewer Project.

B439-04 Authorizing Change Order No. 1; approving the Engineer's Final Report relating to the Hardin-Donnelly Phase 2 Storm Drainage Project.

B440-04 Authorizing acquisition of easements for the construction of Sewer District No. 141 (Green Valley Drive).

B441-04 Appropriating funds to the Fleet Operations FY '04 operating budget to offset expenditures for items for resale.

B442-04 Appropriating funds for fuel and wholesale power purchases.

B443-04 Authorizing conveyance of a water line easement to Consolidated Public Water Supply District No. 1.

B444-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

B445-04 Amending Chapter 4 of the City Code as it relates to caterers permits for the sale of alcoholic beverages.


(A) Intra-departmental transfer of funds.

Report accepted.

(B) Proposed revision to the Subdivision Regulations which would allow for approval of final plats prior to site plan approval of the "Planned" Districts.

Mr. Beck explained the amendment would allow the platting of ground with part of the overall tract being allowed to be sold prior to a development plan being approved.

Mr. Janku noted concern about CenterState coming in piecemeal and asked if this amendment would make that even easier to occur. Mr. John noted that it would make it a more standard operating procedure instead of trying to get a plan for multiple lots with different buyers that may come in at different times.

Mr. Watkins thought the situation was that it was being done now, but one had to go to Planning and Zoning to get approval for a variance and then come to the Council with the variance in hand. That lengthened the process. He pointed out that this would prevent someone coming in with a bogus plan.

Mr. Hutton made the motion that the issue be sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a public hearing and recommendations back to the Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C) Report of City of Columbia volunteer hours.

Mr. Beck noted the great amount of hours of donated time by volunteers to the City. Mr. Ash had questions which he said he would e-mail in the interest of time.

(D) Proposed revisions to the "Planned" Districts.

Mr. Ash voiced appreciation of the point-by-point explanation. He asked that the same format be used in the future when changes were being recommended.

(E) Request for consolidation of customer utility bills.

Mr. Ash had questions which he said he would e-mail in the interest of time.

(F) Fire Station No. 7.

Mr. Loveless made the motion that Staff be directed to proceed with any necessary measure to assure existing Station No. 7 would have a life expectancy of three to five years and to bring the Council a recommendation for a new Fire Station No. 7 site during the month of January. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.


Upon receiving the majority vote of the Council the following individuals were appointed to the below boards and commissions:


Alexander, Jordan, E., 715 W. Stewart Rd., Ward 4 - term to expire 12/31/07

Christy, Susan, 3510 Danvers Drive, Ward 5 - term to expire 12/31/07


Elliston, L. Laura, 5009 Gasconade Dr., Ward 3 (CPA) - term to expire 12/31/07

Schatz, James R., 1407 Longwell Dr., Ward 4 (Banker) - term to expire 12/31/07

Wine, Matthew E., 109 Westridge Dr., Ward 4 - term to expire 12/31/07


Harris, Richard E., 1121 Danforth Dr., Ward 6 - term to expire 12/31/06


Seris, Sarah S., 2603 E. Walnut St., Ward 3


Harper, Milt, 1004 LaGrange Ct., Ward 5 - term to expire 12/31/06


Danuser, K. Blake, 6000 Arrowhead Lake, County - term to expire 1/1/08

Gerding, Rosalie J., 101 S. Fifth St., #1, Ward 1 - term to expire 1/1/08

Puckett, K. Dale, 1125 Canterbury Pl., Ward 5 - term to expire 1/1/08


Regarding budget billing for the electrical rate, Mr. John noted that if one paid their current bill and were also paid up current, they would be sent a notice saying their electricity would be shut off because they were behind. He asked that the procedure be looked into.

The meeting adjourned at 1:14 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sheela Amin
City Clerk