M I N U T E S
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - COLUMBIA, MISSOURI
MARCH 15, 2004
The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, March 15, 2004, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON and LOVELESS were present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department Heads were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of March 1, 2004, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Ash and a second by Mr. John.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. John noted that he would be abstaining from B20-04.
Mayor Hindman noted that R54-04 would be added to Special Items and that B76-04 would be moved from Old Business to Special Items.
The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Ash and a second by Mr. Hutton.
FY 2003 Annual Financial Report.
Mike Martin, Finance Advisory Board member, reported on the City's financial status. He stated that a thorough review of the budget by the members of the Board and KPMG, the City's external auditors, showed the budget to be sound. He noted that City Staff had done an outstanding job of preparing the financial statements. The auditors' opinion stated the financial statements fairly presented the financial position of governmental activities, business type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining funds of the City as of September 30, 2003. There were no findings of non-compliance, no material internal control weaknesses, and no questioned costs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2003.
Mr. Janku made the motion that the report be accepted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ash and approved unanimously by voice vote.
R54-04 Awarding bid for sale of Water and Electric System Improvement Revenue Bonds, 2004 Series A.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Lori Fleming explained that bids were accepted at 11:00 a.m. today for $17,095,000 in water and light capital improvement revenue bonds. The City received a favorable 4.01% interest rate from UBS. She noted the market was better now than in 2002, the last time a comparable bond issue was passed. The market guidelines showed a 75 basis point decrease on the general obligation bonds, however, our bond costs went down 78 basis points even though we had a change in our rate to AA-. The new rating did not seem to affect the rate received on the bonds.
The vote on R54-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
B76-04 Authorizing the issuance of Water and Electric System Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2004 Series A.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Boeckmann noted an amendment sheet had been prepared with the appropriate blanks being filled in according to the bid.
Mayor Hindman made the motion to amend B76-04 per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
B76-04, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as following:
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
B20-04A Voluntary annexation of property located on the southwest side of U.S. Highway 63 and on the north side of Gans Road; establishing permanent PUD-1, PUD-3, PUD-4, O-P, C-P and C-3 zoning.
The bill was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that the ordinance had been amended at the last meeting before being held over. Following discussions at that meeting, the Council asked Staff to look at other potential amendments to the ordinance. Some additional amendments were suggested by the Staff and these potential amendments were made available to anyone interested. Mr. Beck noted that this was the second proposed amendment to the ordinance, making it a proposed amendment to the amended ordinance. The amendment sheet included two amendments to Section 17 - Condition 1, pertaining to stormwater management - (1) the inclusion of recommendations from CH2M Hill and (2) the incorporation of a "Philips Tract Monitoring" plan. It also included an amendment to Section 20 pertaining to the agreement to purchase Tract 3 and part of Tract 4 and an amendment to Section 21 regarding the impervious surface limitations for the potential City park property.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that B20-04A be amended per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved by voice vote with Mr. John abstaining.
Mayor Hindman re-opened the public hearing.
Valerie Barnes, a realtor with offices at 33 E. Broadway, explained that she was the daughter of Elvin Sapp and noted the family supported the development of the Philips tract. She stated that they believed they had a good project. She asked the people in support of the project to stand. Approximately 85% of those in attendance in the Council Chamber stood. She thanked those individuals for their support of the project. Ms. Barnes asked the Council to vote favorably.
Ron Shy, 5600 S. Highway KK, understood there was a Stormwater Task Force presently working on a stormwater ordinance. He believed this project had furthered that effort due to the research that had been done with regard to stormwater and water quality. If this project was approved and constructed, Mr. Shy felt it would be a model and would far exceed the stormwater ordinance that would eventually be passed.
Trent Stover, MEC Water Resources, 1000 N. College, commented that he would discuss the water quality monitoring plan and the standards they would commit to for this project. Standards such as these, he noted, were extremely rare for residential or commercial developments. They were usually retained for industrial facilities and very specific segments of industrial sectors. Limits such as those proposed were not placed on any of the current wastewater and other point source discharges within these watersheds. He explained that during the construction phase, they were committed to meeting the State law with respect to Missouri Department of Natural Resources construction permits, and so forth, for land disturbances. For the protection of Clear Creek during post-construction, he stated they would commit to meeting the acute water quality criteria for the most stringent warm water aquatic life as designated by DNR. For the lake itself, they would commit to meeting a phosphoreus standard within the lake. The reservoir was limited and the algae within the lake was limited by phosphoreus. An adequate amount of nitrogen existed. He stated those were the two limiting factors to algae and their growth rates and that was the water quality parameter they would try to control to improve the aesthetics of the lake. Mr. Stover indicated they had reached the level of 50 micrograms per liter, which was based upon data they collected last year. He pointed out that there was quite a bit of annual variability in the water quality within a lake so they tried to take that into account by committing to a standard of not exceeding the standard for three consecutive years. He indicated they had also taken into account off-site sources, as well as sources of phosphoreus, they felt they could not control, such as that from resident or migratory geese, the aquatic plants that live within the lake, and internal sources of phosphoreus within the lake. Mr. Stover pointed out that this kind of criteria had only been set for one reservoir within the State of Missouri, a drinking water supply for the City of Springfield. He felt they had gone beyond what should be required for any development.
Mayor Hindman asked if the lake would be suitable for water recreation, not including swimming, such as boating or fishing. Mr. Stover replied that it would.
Paul Mehrle, 1804 W. Broadway, Vice-President and Senior Management Consultant of Entrix, Inc., an environmental consulting firm, explained that his company specialized in ecological human health risk assessments, watershed management type assessments, and water quality issues throughout the United States and South America. He explained that he was originally retained last fall by the Philips Family Partnership and the Trust of Perry and Ella Philips to provide a third party, independent review of the conceptual water quality plan produced last June by Wright Water Engineers. A team of Entrix professionals, including engineers, hydrogeologists, aquatic toxicologists, and aquatic biologists, reviewed the plan and provided a report to the Trust which he thought was forwarded to the Council in December. He read the summary of their conclusions. Based on their review, Entrix concluded that the documents were technically sound and defensible. If appropriate and well designed BMPs were implemented during development of the Philips farm property, water quality protection in the watershed was achievable and stream morphology would not be impacted. Since the time they submitted their findings, the conceptual water quality plan had been dissected and looked at in many different ways. Mr. Mehrle stated that they continued to support their conclusion. He said it was a good conceptual water quality plan with the cornerstone of the plan being best management practices. The BMPs proposed were tried and proven technologies, not an experiment. He noted their firm had used BMPs to deal with water quality issues when constructing wetlands, paper and pulp mills, oil refineries, chemical manufacturing plants, and coal fired power plants. He noted that BMPs work in achieving protection of water quality and meeting ambient water quality criteria. Mr. Mehrle pointed out that the Sapp proposal would include BMPs similar to those used in the Watershed Management Program in Austin, Texas.
Mark Farnen of Woodruff Communications with offices at 515 Cherry Street stated that their figure of $9.2 million in new taxes that could be generated from this project had been questioned. It had been asked if the money would go where it could be used to pay for new infrastructure and improvements that might become necessary if this project moved forward. He explained that the $9.2 million was made up of both property and school taxes being split out at 30% ($2.7 million) for the City of Columbia, 42% for the school system, and 28% for the County. He pointed out that they were not just talking about a finite pool of $9.2 million, but $9.2 million annually, and, over time, the new sales and property tax collections would continue to accrue. He explained that many people indicated that it could cost $40 million over the course of the next 20 to 30 years for just road construction itself due to this development. Not accounting for inflation, this property could be expected to generate $278 million in new taxes during that same time period with $83.5 million going to the City. Mr. Farnen noted that this showed this development's ability to generate replacement dollars for the City budget over time. He also indicated that the City would likely not have to pay for these road improvements itself because the County and State, who would also receive taxes from this development, would possibly be responsible for some of these costs. In addition, he noted, Mr. Sapp had also agreed to pay for some of the infrastructure costs associated with this development. Mr. Farnen stated that he understood that this development would have other costs associated with it. He explained that this development could put more pressure on the school system, but noted that over the next 30 years this development would have paid $117 million directly to the schools. In regards to the water and sewer, those costs would be paid for by rate payers. In addition, the developer would pay fees for water and sewer as well. Mr. Farnen also pointed out that this development would create more jobs for Columbia and surrounding communities. He reiterated that this project would not create an economic problem and asked for Council support.
Jan Weaver, 412 ½ W. Walnut, explained the results of a study of the may, stone, and cactus flies in ten local streams. The study was conducted by seven researchers of the University of Missouri using standard methodology developed by DNR. The data was used to determine the number of sensitive species in each of those streams. The average richness of these kinds of species at a site was a good indicator of environmental quality since it was an effective measure of exposure to organic material, chemical disturbances, temperature changes, pH changes, and increases in sediment. Impervious cover was estimated using satellite imaging. Using the overhead, she pointed out that as impervious surface cover went up, the number of sensitive species went down. She noted that this study of our local streams confirmed what other studies of impervious surface had shown - if you want to protect steam health, you have to limit impervious surface. If you plug in the change in impervious cover that would occur with the proposed Philips development, to include the associated roads, Clear Creek would go from 8 to 6 and Gans Creek would go from 11 to 8. Ms. Weaver stated that this was why she opposed the project. She noted that she was not putting nature in front of people, jobs, schools, and sales tax revenue because she was certain that nature would survive people. Her concern was that humanity would not survive people. She explained that we were dependent on soils, streams, plants, and animals for our existence and just because we did not assign an economic value to them, it did not mean we could do without them. Because developed land would not be converted back to soil and streams within our lifetime, every development would chip away at nature's ability to meet our growing needs. In Missouri that loss equaled about one percent every two years. Ms. Weaver agreed that the amount of bacteria from cows and phosphorous and nitrogen from agricultural fertilizers would go down, but she also felt the amount of heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from parking lots, bacteria from cats and dogs, and pesticides and fertilizers from suburban homeowners would go up. In addition, she felt, even with BMPs these things would impact the streams running through Rock Bridge State Park. She asked the Council to include stronger environmental protective statements in the ordinance so that life downstream would not be affected.
Randall Clark, 2147 Bearfield Road, discussed the proposed Philips tract water quality monitoring standards in exhibit 27 of the amended ordinance. He stated that post-construction water quality monitoring should include both biological and chemical monitoring and that the monitoring should include the streams as well as the lake. He explained the biological monitoring of sensitive invertebrates in the streams was one of the best tools available to study the impact of stormwater runoff and commented that water quality monitoring should be done at all effluent points leaving the Philips property to include the streams draining tracts 1, 2, 6, and 7, not just at the effluent of the lake. He noted tracts 2, 6, and 7 might be developed at up to 30 percent impervious surface and at that level of development, all stormwater protection tools available were needed to prevent an impact to the streams. He stated that we should not tie the hands of future design engineers by limiting detention BMPs for only detracting flows into the lake. The water quality standards in table 1 of exhibit 27 were DNR acute water quality standards for warm water fisheries. Mr. Clark stated these standards were some of the weakest in the United States. He noted that the Clean Water Act of 1972 required States to keep their waters clean enough for fishing and swimming. He explained that 30 years later 90 percent of Missouri's lakes and streams were still not clean enough for swimming and that Missouri water quality standards did protect aquatic life. Other the hand, EPA had adopted water quality standards based on scientific evidence that did protect aquatic life, known as the fresh water acute standards. The standards developed by EPA were the maximum level pollutants that aquatic organisms could tolerate. EPA also developed fresh water chronic standards which indicated what aquatic organisms could be exposed to over a period of time, but those were more strict than the acute level. Using the overhead and a table he created, Mr. Clark explained that the proposed standards in the ordinance were less than the EPA standards. He also provided additional standards for fecal coliform bacteria, nitrate, etc. by DNR and State of Minnesota that had been discussed, but were not addressed in the proposed ordinance. He asked that the ordinance be amended to include the EPA standards and additional standards identified in the table he developed.
Larry Magliola, 4403 S. Pinebrook, stated that the largest development in the City's history had been proposed in what was arguably the most environmentally sensitive watershed in Cental Missouri. He explained that although this development might only represent a small area of the total watershed, it would likely set a bad precedent for future growth in the area because other developers would expect to develop to the same level. Mr. Magliola was concerned that examples of BMPs being used successfully for a development of this scale in a watershed of this sensitivity could not be provided. He also noted that scientific evidence had indicated that streams and watersheds with over 25 percent impervious cover would be severely degraded and could not support their designated uses. He claimed that by approving this development, the City Council would be granting the engineers of the developer the opportunity to test their hypotheses about BMP performance immediately upstream of the County's most precious natural resource. Mr. Magliola noted that the lake, which was the centerpiece of the City's new regional park, was also designated as the cornerstone of the developer's stormwater management plan. He stated the existing neighborhoods and park would be impacted by increased traffic, more air pollution from autos and trucks, and more noise and light pollution. Any increase in revenue to the City resulting from this development would be offset by increases in infrastructure cost required for this development. Citizens of Columbia would not see a reduction in property taxes, sales taxes, or utility fees as a result of this development. If the Philips lake was used as a stormwater detention facility, it would become a liability to the City and the clean up costs would be borne by the residents of Columbia. He felt this development would only benefit the developer, his agents, and those in the construction trade directly involved in the development of this site. The jobs that would be created here could be located elsewhere in the City where this kind of development could be tolerated. He believed the people of Columbia were overwhelmingly opposed this development based on testimony given at Planning and Zoning hearings, City Council meetings, and media commentary and asked that the Council vote against the current proposal.
Barbara Hoppe, 608 Bluff Dale, stated she wanted to protect Rock Bridge State Park. She felt the language in the current amended ordinance was too vague or uncertain. She provided the Council a handout of a proposed amendment to the amendment. She explained that they wanted an overall principal or guiding goal that all of the details would point to if there was any ambiguity, contradiction, or question. She noted that their proposed language for the goal, which was taken from the amended ordinance, could state that the over-arching principal or goal of the stormwater plan was that the water quality and biological resources in the lake and streams would be protected. She also wanted the response of Wright Water Engineers to the draft CH2M Hill report, as well as the final CH2M Hill report, included in the ordinance. Ms. Hoppe noted that Section 17 of the ordinance was vague. Using the handout, she addressed most of the examples and provided more specific language to address those issues.
Johann Holt, who spoke on behalf of the O'Sage Group Sierra Club, stated that throughout this debate, they have held to a few easily understood science based demands. They have asked for smaller development in sensitive watersheds, such as Gans Creek, and clear and concise water quality standards that would hold the developer legally and financially responsible for any pollution caused. The new amendment still did not include the standards needed because it was too vague and contradictory. Mr. Holt felt that Barbara Hoppe of the Smart Growth Coalition proposed very simple language for standards. He noted CH2M Hill, the stormwater experts the City hired, stated a development of this size could only work with a set of clear and concise standards and questioned whether a lake could be used for both recreation and stormwater retention purposes. Mr. Holt felt that if it was too difficult and costly to have standards, it might be more costly to taxpayers if Gans became polluted. He disagreed with the thought that to have standards, baseline data was needed. He believed measurements could be taken upstream and downstream of the development over the span of a year, and if, after that year, the amount of pollutants was consistently higher downstream than upstream, the developer would be legally and financially responsible. He also felt there were better ways to develop and better places to develop, such as the Business Loop. He added that developers wanted to come to Columbia because it was a great place to build and live. He asked that the Council hold this and future developers accountable through standards in these streams.
Tony Davis, 4655 Rock Quarry Road, asked people to stand if they were in support of protecting the streams and Rock Bridge State Park regardless of what type of development occurred and if they were in support of urging the developer, whoever that may be, to do his best to protect streams and park. Everyone stood. Mr. Davis stated that there needed to be more definitive language in the ordinance. He noted the City Council, City Staff, the developer, and the people that work with the developer had all indicated they wanted to protect the Clear and Gans Creek watersheds and Rock Bridge Memorial State Park. He felt the only way to assure this would happen was to have more specific standards identified in the ordinance. He also thought the finances of this development should be reviewed because he was not sure Mr. Farnen was correct in his claim that this would not raise taxes. Mr. Davis stated that a committee, on which Mr. Bob Hutton participated, was in place that would assess the streams and the Bonne Femme Watershed, starting with Clear Creek and Gans Creek and moving south. This group began surveying property last week on Clear Creek, so the good news was that we would have information regarding the condition of those creeks at the end of this 4 year process. This would provide a lot of data to help determine if future development would cause damage. As a property owner, Mr. Davis asked where landowners, who had sections of Clear and Gans Creeks on their property, could go for legal direction if they could identify damage from a development.
Dan Simon, an attorney with offices at 203 Executive Building, spoke on behalf of the applicant, Elvin Sapp. Mr. Simon noted that one of the speakers made a statement that citizens of Columbia had consistently testified against this development and did not support it. Mr. Simon thought that what happened here tonight indicated that was not correct. Mr. Simon also discussed statements made that this development was going to pollute the creeks. He noted that ignored the opinions of four engineering firms that had stated that was not correct. In regards to the Gans Creek, it ignored the fact that this development could not conceivably have any adverse impact on Gans Creek because one-half of one percent of the Gans Creek watershed, which had already been impacted by mans activities, would be represented by development property on the Philips Tract. In regards to Clear Creek, most of the water that would flow into Clear Creek would flow through multiple BMPs, rigged in series, a treatment train where it would be retained for a period of months in a lake, and as it reached Clear Creek would be monitored in accordance with the only legal standards that could apply. He explained that the Council had been urged to adopt water quality standards different than those in State of Missouri, but that the Council had no lawful ability to do that. He stated that the area of water quality standards had been preempted by the Clean Water Commission of the State of Missouri and that they proposed to follow those standards. Mr. Simon also pointed out that the only reason Clear Creek had water in it during the summer was because the United States Laboratory discharged, through a discharge permit from DNR, between 600,000 and one million gallons a day into Clear Creek. If it was not for the discharge, we could not call Clear Creek a creek. He noted the developer had been asked to guarantee such things as volume of flow and questioned whether the United States Government would guarantee that it would not close that Lab and cut all of the water in Clear Creek or double it. He also questioned whether anyone had seen the list of substances put in Clear Creek by the Lab because it included some of the most toxic substances known to man. Mr. Simon stated that the Council was being asked to impose standards and criteria on this development that were not used anywhere else in the United States. He noted that no where else was numeric criteria on output or monitoring by the developer required. When monitoring was done, it was done by the municipal entity. Mr. Simon stated that British Columbia used precisely the same program that they propose to use for this development for some of the most sensitive watersheds in the world.
Mr. Stover asked for the displays completed by Mr. Clark and Ms. Weaver. In regards to Mr. Clark's table, Mr. Stover noted that the EPA freshwater acute levels generally included cold water species, such as trout and salmon, which were not present here. He explained EPA did allow, when working within their standards, the ability to take into account the species present within your stream, so you did not use the toxicological data from very sensitive species that were not included within the stream. In regards to total phosphorous, he stated EPA might have a proposed draft standard, but the nutrient data that the EPA had tried to adopt in the past had come under a lot of scrutiny, and therefore, had been a moving target for years now. Nitrate, as an additional standard for DNR, was for drinking water supplies. The DNR fecal coliform bacteria standard was for whole body contact recreation. He noted that if you looked at the EPA documents for assessing whether a water body for swimming use was attained, the data would probably attain that. In regards to standards of other States, Mr. Stover explained that for the turbidity standard, it would be difficult to prove the in point, he was not familiar with any water body in this region that would meet the proposed criteria for dissolved oxygen, he was not sure about the oil and grease criteria, and the Missouri ammonia criteria was being updated but would likely still be less stringent than what was on the books right now. In regards to Ms. Weaver's document, Mr. Stover indicated there could be a big error band in that data set due to the biotech level used. He did not feel the statistical regression was suitable for comparison with the Clear and Gans Creeks.
Mr. Loveless asked for the meaning of freshwater acute level for clarification purposes. Mr. Stover stated he assumed it would be the freshwater acute criteria that EPA had recommended for all streams if you did not have the specific aquatic community design, but he thought Mr. Clark could better explain it. Mr. Clark stated the freshwater acute standards were the overall national standards that EPA had adopted and hoped each State would adopt for their water quality standards. He noted that a vast majority of the States had adopted either these standards or levels close to these standards. Mr. Loveless asked if we were discussing drinking water standards. Mr. Clark stated these standards were to protect aquatic life, not drinking water. Mr. Loveless stated that the Rocky Mountain trout stream coming out of the high mountains was dramatically different than the aquatic life coming out of Rocky Fork Creek. He asked if these standards were designed to protect all of them. Mr. Clark stated they were. Mr. Loveless asked if this was the most stringent levels that EPA would recommend nationwide for the most sensitive species in any stream. Mr. Clark stated that could be the case, but he did not know. Mr. Loveless asked if these standards were adopted by EPA. Mr. Clark replied that they were the criteria designed.
Joe Bindbeutel, 1701 E. Gans Road, spoke as an opponent of this development as proposed, not of any development on the site. He took exception to the statement made by Mr. Simon regarding the quality of the water coming down Clear Creek presently, saying it was not degraded. Mr. Bindbeutel pointed out that there was nothing in State law saying that local controls could not be more strict than State controls. He stated that he was opposed to this development due to the lack of standards, monitoring, and liability of the developer if there was a problem.
Mayor Hindman asked about the base flow and the need for volume control being talked about. On Clear Creek, he thought he saw where the Lab raised the volume by the figure of 60%, day in and day out. He said the amount of increase that would come off of the development would increase it, at the most, 10%. Mr. Bindbeutel described the difference as the concept of base flow. If you decreased it by 60% or increased it by 50%, in terms of normal dry weather times, it would not have much impact. The 10% increase were peaks and they were a problem because once you wetted the banks and kept them wet for days and days longer than you ordinarily would during a storm event, they tended to sluff and fall in. Mayor Hindman pointed out that it had been noted the peaks would not increase. Mr. Bindbeutel believed they referenced using best practical efforts to not have the peaks increase. He said the problem was how long the water would be stored and then released over, potentially, days and days. Mayor Hindman understood that was what the Lab was doing, releasing their water day after day. Mr. Bindbeutel noted that was a very small flow. Mayor Hindman understood their standards to be there would be no increase in peak flow, and in fact, with small frequent storms, it would be lower, and with large ones, there would be no increase. Mr. Bindbeutel did not think that was directly and unequivocally stated. Mayor Hindman replied that he would look into it.
Mary Ann Groves, 1015 Belleview Court, spoke in favor of the annexation saying that home ownership needed to be made available to more people, not less. Unrealistic restrictions on the development of housing projects would limit the number of people who would be able to buy those homes within the City.
Alyce Turner, 1204 Fieldcrest, spoke as a member of Boone County Smart Growth, saying they were interested in sensible and reasonable developments. She did not think that the proposed development would contain very much affordable housing. She stated she was concerned because a comprehensive watershed plan did not exist and because this development had a tract that would consist of unplanned commercial development.
Karen Taylor, 3709 Frontenac Place, spoke as Chair of the Chamber of Commerce, in support of the issue. She noted that the Chamber Government Affairs Committee unanimously recommended support of the proposal. The Board of Directors also unanimously voted to endorse the proposal. As a small business owner and an individual, Ms. Taylor was supportive of the proposal because she felt future growth would enhance the quality of life in Columbia.
Robin Remmington, 503 Taylor, explained that she owned property on Hinkson Creek and knew, first hand, the kinds of problems that came into the lives of people who lived on a waterway which was unpredictable in terms of its response to natural events. She felt putting a road next to Gans Creek would have a major impact on the creek, whether or not the monitoring aspect was covered in relationship to what went in and what came out. She also indicated that she would like to see more active verbs in the commitment rather than passive.
Bill Crockett, 4600 Summerbrook Court, stated he believed the water quality plan to be very good. He said it included well known, used, and accepted BMP's, and it was not experimental. He urged favorable support of the proposal.
David Griggs, 1101 Smiley Lane, felt the proposal deserved the Council's favorable consideration due to Mr. Sapp being a well known commodity and, by past experience, doing what he said he would do; this being the best proposal he had heard for this property; the potential economic impact the project would have on our community; and the possibilities of other high tech, economic impacts this development might lead to.
Kay Foley, 409 W. Walnut, spoke in opposition to the proposal. She was concerned about preserving the environment and sprawl. Ms. Foley felt the development would drastically reduce our quality of life and change forever the character of our town.
Dave Denton, 808 Canterbury, explained that he had been a member of the Philips Lake Club for the last 15 years. He pointed out that the subject property belonged to someone who was not obligated to provide the rest of us with a place to enjoy the beauty of nature. Mr. Denton said that was a function of government. To impede upon a person's right to develop natural areas into something else was to impose a great burden on the individual property owner.
Ryan Bradley, 707 Mt. Vernon, a Science teacher, spoke in opposition. He felt the watershed would be ruined by the project.
David Butcher, 8951 E. Logan Road, explained that he lived a few miles east of the property. He spoke as a proponent saying that development was necessary. He stated that his revenue was going to Jefferson City and Ashland because it was easier for him to access commercial property at those locations than it was here. Mr. Butcher thought the development was necessary in order to draw revenue from people living in communities south of town.
Tom Moran, 413 W. Walnut, spoke in opposition. To deprive the public of the right to recreate in clear and rather natural streams was not right. He was certain the development would degrade water quality.
Don Stamper, 1304 Sedona Villas Drive, spoke on behalf of the Central Missouri Development Council as the Interim Executive Director. He said they were concerned with the process. He felt we were debating platting issues before the land use question was decided. Another concern was a significant movement to hold the use of the property to different and higher standards than those existing in City ordinances and regulations. Mr. Stamper commented that they were not opposed to improving development standards because they would be better for business, but they did not want unpredictable public policy arrived at on the fly.
Karen Grindler, 4895 E. Highway 163, explained that she lived about two miles south of the proposed project. She opposed the proposal because she was concerned about the negative affect it could have on the park and waterways. She stated she was not opposed to development, but was concerned because this development was not held to the same standard as other developments in the area.
Carolyn Matthews, 4200 Rock Quarry Road, spoke against the development. Her concern was lack of standards and stated that other places such as Austin, Texas, Maryland, Washington, and Vancouver had set standards by which to measure mitigation.
Annie Pope, spoke on behalf of the Homebuilders Association, 204 Peach Way. She remarked they were supporting the development even though it was not normally their position to support any particular development. They felt this developer had taken the absolute maximum diligence that a developer could. They were concerned that we might become a community like Boulder, in which the people who worked in the community could not live in it, because they could not afford to buy the houses. Her point was that the more stringent the standards, the higher the cost of houses in the community.
Keith Schnarre, 19901 Far West School Road, Centralia, commented that this farm ceased being a viable farming operation 25 years ago. Although it was zoned agriculture, it could not be used as such because of its location. He gave a history of the property since that time and noted that when a potential development was before the County Planning and Zoning Commission, many in the public thought itwould be better served if annexed in the City for City standards. He indicated it was now in the City and favored the proposal.
Kevin Gibbens, 1700 Glenbrook Court, expressed strong support of Mr. Sapp's proposal to purchase and develop the Philips property as currently proposed. He felt the proposal was environmentally sound and would provide great economic benefit to the City of Columbia.
Mike Lynch, 2708 Lacewood Drive, spoke in support of this proposal. In his research of a ten year period, he noted, there had been 23 contested developments before the Council with concerns ranging from traffic to water quality to noise to stormwater. In every one of those developments, to the best of his knowledge, all the terrible things that were supposedly going to happen, had not. He doubted the terrible things identified for this project would happen.
Roy Hartley, 1308 Bass Avenue, cautioned the Council to do no harm in this situation. Regarding the previous speaker's comments, he urged the Council to look at the area off of Highway 63 at 70. He referred to it as a nightmare and noted that development had continued to be approved in that area. He asked that Rockbridge State Park be allowed to remain a pristine place for people to view a free flowing clean stream.
Keith Breckhaus, 703 Hilltop Drive, spoke against the project. His concern was impervious surface standards and noted other developments of 16 percent and 30 percent impervious surface limitations.
Lynn Stanley, a soil scientist, made five points concerning her opposition to the development of the Philips tract. Her concerns were accountability, monitoring, liability, Karst topography, and compliance with rules. She asked the Council to consider more studies.
Martie Patton, 2315 E. Gans Road, said it was true the City was not being held to the same standards that were being asked of this area, but asked what would call for rigorous standards. She thought it would be something of a massive scale, something with implications beyond the property itself. She said this project was precisely the kind of event in this community that would call for standards.
Phillip Dooley, 3711 Lansing Avenue, Pastor of Open Door Baptist Church, spoke in favor of the project. He explained that his church was about one-half mile south of the Philips tract. His concern was the safety risks and thought those risks could be alleviated by an overpass to the south side of town, which would likely happen with approval of this proposal.
John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, spoke about the return on public investment. He said the analysis was an excellent beginning, but the City had not gone far enough on cost projections, even with ranges, on what external infrastructure would be needed in the whole area.
Janet Wheeler, 4105 Meadowview Drive, explained that she lived in Bearfield Meadows, a development that saw great contention before the Council. She had concerns about impervious restrictions and how to figure out effluent and affluent partition numbers. She noted that she had neighbors who knew there were impervious surface restrictions in their neighborhood and yet they still installed a fence in a drainage easement. She asked who would hire and pay the babysitter after these hearings were completed.
Larry Schuster, 3109 Hill Haven Lane, spoke in favor of the proposal. He commented on Rock Bridge Memorial State Park saying that everyone realized what a treasure it was. As a member of Friends of Rock Bridge Memorial State Park and as a former certified wild cave tour leader volunteer, he was very aware of the topography of the entire park. Although it was special, he did not think the park was as fragile as they were being lead to believe.
Larry Sapp, 1883 N. Waterfront Drive, spoke in favor of the development. He noted the community would continue to grow and thought Mr. Sapp would do a good job.
Nadia Tindall, 2116 Grant Lane, President of the local chapter of the Native Plant Society, said they would not oppose the development if clear and enforceable standards were brought forward.
Randy Tindall, 2116 Grant Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposal and asked how the Council could say no to anything in the future if they were to say yes to this. He asked if there was a standard for inappropriate development and wondered if the revenues generated would be enough.
Scott Hydebrink, 3703 Greeley, spoke in opposition. He presented the Clerk with a list of signatures from people in the lobby who were also in opposition to the project. His concerns were the park and the Gans Creek wild area. He thought it was unfortunate that the standards were not sufficient to ensure the quality of the area.
Peter Yronwode, 203 Orchard Court, opposed the issue. He commented that the individuals opposing this were looking at the larger picture - - at nature, the quality of life, and the important non-personal gains they all stand to lose if the project moved forward. He also pointed out that Rock Bridge State Park, Clear Creek, and Gans Creek were not private property.
John Reed, 104 Lathrop, a CPS science and math teacher, talked about the benefits of clean streams and wild areas to our youth. With Columbia's growth, he was concerned that our streams would become storm sewers. He asked that the park be protected and that both sides of the issue be taken into consideration.
Bob Walters, 2704 Vail Drive, spoke in favor of the issue. Regarding a lake acting as a stormwater detention area and also being used for recreation, he said it could be done. As project manager for the largest planned development in Boone County, to date, The Highlands, he explained, they maintained three detention lakes on the property with a surface area of approximately 15 acres total. He noted lawns, including treated lawns, drained into them and stormwater culverts went into them. Mr. Walters stated that kids still swim in the lakes, float in them, and row boats in them. His point was that it was possible for the lake to be used for stormwater detention and recreation.
Mike Girard, a southern Boone County resident, stated that nobody knows where water goes. When Bethel Park was built, he said, a pavilion, made of treated wood, was put up and killed all of the fish in Bethel Lake. He said that was not planned, but it happened. He asked the Council to consider standards.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mayor Hindman asked Staff to discuss whether the ordinance contained standards. Mr. Patterson stated it did have standards in it, however, there was considerable disagreement as to whether the standards fully reflected what was desired by some people involved in the discussions and whether they adequately defined the responsibilities of the developer. The purpose of the ordinance was to try to establish a clear process of how we could achieve a protection of water quality. They were not able to include arbitrary numerical limits that might not be supported by a factual determination at some later point. There was even disagreement by the engineers. They all agreed that the volumetric hydrology was a very critical issue in regards to the health of the stream, but that unanimous feeling did not exist for any single numerical amount of volume reduction or retention that would be appropriate for every stream. Even CH2M Hill, who was a strong advocate of using volumetric hydrology for the criteria of design and consideration for site planning, reviewed the recommendations of reducing the 2-year and higher frequency storms to 50% and containing the volume of a 5-year storm, and stated while agreeing and understanding what the intent was, they could not support those standards because there was no scientific basis. For that reason, Mr. Patterson stated, we felt the ordinance would require these issues be addressed and they would be given proper consideration in the development of the site without setting those arbitrary numerical limits at this time. Other standards established in the ordinance, even though he was sure there was disagreement of the sufficiency of them, were those that were established by the DNR for construction runoff standards. Mr. Patterson continued by stating BMPs and performance indicators were a universal method of determining whether or not a project was meeting the goals of water quality protection. Mr. Patterson noted that CH2M Hill stated the work completed by the developer was sufficient at this conceptual level to allow the project to proceed, provided that future phases addressed the issues and recommendations that were raised in the memorandum. Mr. Patterson pointed out that the report did not say the recommendations and issues should be arbitrarily be adopted, but that they should be addressed in the future development of the site. Through the ordinance they have tried to ensure these issues would properly be developed in the preparation of each site development plan.
Mayor Hindman asked if a stormwater plan would be required for each unit or tract. Mr. Patterson indicated that was correct. Mayor Hindman asked Mr. Patterson to explain the process. Mr. Patterson noted each site would be required to have a stormwater management plan that was consistent with what they have determined to be the goals of this project in the ordinance and with the conceptual plans to assure the performance was as promised. The developer would be responsible for the physical construction of the upstream BMPs to ensure the lake was both a stormwater management and recreational facility. The City would not accept the lake until this work was done to the satisfaction of the City. As each phase was developed, each phase would be required to develop the BMP that would be based on the pollutant analysis that was going to be required to determine the quantity and types of pollutants that would be expected from each site to assure that the resulting development did not allow pollutants into the lake that would increase it above the levels established in the monitoring the lake program.
Mayor Hindman asked for an explanation of the monitoring the lake program. Mr. Patterson stated the water quality of the lake would be tested to ensure we did not allow the pollutant level to get high enough to endanger or damage the ability of the lake to suspend the uses identified for the lake. The monitoring would include construction and post-construction runoff to ensure the BMPs established were effectively working.
Mr. Loveless asked for clarification regarding whether the soluble solids, such as ammonia and chloride, were at the standard the Missouri DNR used for acute water quality for warm water fisheries. Mr. Patterson replied that was his understanding. Mr. Loveless requested clarification regarding whether the developer agreed to monitor the lake quality for a year and a half after it changed hands which would be after construction was complete. Mr. Patterson noted that was correct and added it would also have to be to our satisfaction and would include peripheral BMPs for protecting inflow into the lake.
Mayor Hindman asked whether the lake could be used for both boating and fishing. Mr. Patterson stated they were confident it could be used for both purposes. He noted the BMPs would be designed to ensure it would continue to be a usable facility. Mayor Hindman noted a combination of BMPs and low impact development would be utilized on the Philips tract development to include land that might be owned by the City in the future. Mr. Patterson stated we would expect our property to meet or exceed any standards we set for someone else.
Ms. Crayton thought an independent agent unrelated to the City or the developer should do the monitoring. Mr. Beck felt the ordinance was written to ensure that CH2M Hill would be able to assist the City in looking at the private developer's or City's system. Mr. Patterson added that when it was stated that the developer would monitor and test water quality, in reality, there would be a requirement that the developer obtain the services of a reputable and recognized testing firm that would have the credentials and qualifications that we would accept as being a reliable and professionally objective source.
Mr. Janku asked about the standard stormwater management fees that would be paid. Mr. Patterson replied that each building permit would be assessed a stormwater development charge based on the type of construction. In addition, as they were occupied there would be monthly utility fees for the ongoing maintenance of facilities based on different size residential units and the square footage of impervious areas on commercial sites.
Mr. Hindman asked about any clean up that might be required and how we could assure clean up would not be required or the clean up would be paid by those responsible. Mr. Beck indicated that the language was written to assign cost, as much as possible, to the source of the problem. Mr. Janku read from the ordinance and stated the City shall be given authority to assess and collect the cost of such actions in proportional matter from all responsible parties. Mr. Hindman asked how this would be enforced. Mr. Boeckmann indicated that would be worked out later after the stormwater management plans were developed. Mr. Ash wanted to clarify that this area, like any other development, would not be monitored 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. Mr. Janku read section 1L on page 2 of the amendment sheet clarifying the process and thought it was pretty specific and would allow us the enforcement ability. Mr. Ash thought problems would be identified through a complaint driven process. Mr. Patterson added that under current operating procedures Staff would make inspections of publically and privately owned stormwater management facilities on a regular basis.
Mayor Hindman asked about water treatment in the residential areas. Mr. Patterson replied that the ordinance applied to all tracts of the property so they would also have BMPs and require inspections. Mayor Hindman requested clarification on the issue of Karst areas. Mr. Patterson noted it was his understanding that there was nothing on the site that would indicate Karst topography. Mr. Stover stated that in reviewing the studies, there were no observations of surface expressions of Karst geology, sink hole, etc. on this property. Mr. Hindman thought both Gans and Clear Creeks were known as losing streams and asked if any of that water would flow into Karst areas or a cave. Mr. Stover clarified that Clear Creek was not a losing stream, however a tributary to Clear Creek downstream was found to be a losing stream. Gans Creek did have areas that lose and flow near the property, however those flows reemerge downstream prior to entering the DNR park. He added, extensive studies had been conducted by DNR, which confirmed flow reemerges from the bedrock further downstream and the water within Devil's Ice Box was derived from the Bonne Femme and infiltration into the Pierpont sink hole plain area.
Mayor Hindman asked about soil strength and creek morphology. Mr. Stover noted a professor from Southwest Missouri State University, Robert Pavloski, conducted a study and found the commitment they would make to peak flow reductions would not alter stream morphology. He also pointed out that CH2M Hill agreed with those findings.
Mayor Hindman noted there had been some conflicting information in regards to whether numerical standards were required in Austin, Texas. Mr. Patterson stated their interpretation was that there were no numerical standards for testing for development sites in Austin, Texas. They used numerical criteria based on what the assumed pollutant loading was of the pre-development site and what that pollutant loading would be after development, and they were not allowed to increase that pollutant level. The BMPs had to be designed to not increase those levels and the BMP performance was the measurement by which they determined a success. He pointed out that they did not require monitoring and testing by the developer. Each of the locations had their own governmental monitoring program. He also pointed out Austin, Texas was specifically protecting a drinking water source and the requirement for protection was higher than for other uses. In addition, to his knowledge, there were no projects that would require the developer to have numerical testing of runoff from the site. He noted the Grant Lake project was a private arrangement between individual property owners monitored by a governmental agency, but was not a mandated testing program on the development. Mayor Hindman asked for clarification from Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark stated it was his understanding that numerical limits were used based on studies done in the 1980s which determined the levels of pollutants commonly found in various areas. Based on this, the City developed pollutant level parameters or criteria. Mayor Hindman asked whether they just designed around those parameters. Mr. Clark agreed that they did design around it, but they also had an active monitoring program. Mayor Hindman asked if that was for enforcement or for information. Mr. Clark stated that he thought it was for enforcement, but he was not positive. He recommended the City contact someone in Austin. Mr. Patterson noted that he thought they were saying the same thing in that they used tables to design to, but did not require the development to test for numerical limits. They used the BMPs and the expected performance of them. The monitoring was done by the governmental agency on a stream and basin basis and, if they determined there was a change in the characteristic of the water, they would chase back to where it came from for enforcement purposes. It was not like effluent testing of a treatment plant. Mayor Hindman asked if that was the same technique we would be using. Mr. Patterson stated it would in that they design for the BMPs and, if they were operating, it would be assumed they were meeting the requirements of the program, but it was not a testing of runoff. It was performance based testing.
Mr. Ash noted some of the positives of this development in that the City and its citizens would obtain a large regional park, and with the acquisition of the Crane property, the City would even possess the ability to buffer the land immediately adjacent to Rock Bridge Memorial State Park. In addition, there was the possibility of some sales tax revenue for the City, property tax revenue for schools, and getting the new interchange for public safety purposes. Mr. Ash commented that many people were concerned about the amount of impervious surface, but noted he was swayed by the argument that it was not the amount of impervious surface that mattered, as much as what you do based on that. He felt that a large development could be better than piecemeal development. He understood this was an area that might have some environmental concerns, but did not think we could ask anyone to go much farther as far as doing due diligence at this stage, since they were still at the rezoning stage. Mr. Ash noted his only concern was the open zoning on the one tract because planned zoning was important to him. He noted he had the utmost confidence that with his significant investment, Mr. Sapp would not do anything to harm the property. He just felt if planned zoning was the way to go, then everyone should be required to utilize planned zoning. He stated he understood that the developer was willing to cover some item such as stormwater planning and billboards through restrictive covenants, but felt the important thing about planned zoning was the process. He understood there was some concern that planned zoning took too long and was too cumbersome and the restricted C-3 zoning would allow City Staff input, but it would skip P and Z and some of the public input. He felt that the public input was an important part of the process. He stated that he was struggling with the decision of whether that one little tract was enough to vote no.
Mr. Hutton stated that he thought the issue before them was not if someone would approve the development of the Philips property, but really how and when, because it was going to happen some day. He pointed out that no one really discussed the zoning issues and the issue before them was about zoning. He also pointed out that this property could be developed today into a number of residential units without any zoning change. Mr. Hutton commented that the windfall of tax revenue was not the most important factor in his opinion. The important factors were whether the development was right for the area and whether the stormwater situation could be controlled so we would not ruin the park and the streams. The overpass to address safety concerns was also an important factor for him. Mr. Hutton commented on the other developments that were approved at a 30% impervious surface, but pointed out that those developments did not include BMPs, which accounted for something. Mr. Hutton discussed whether the density was appropriate. He noted that of the 489 developable acres, 176 would be developed and 313 would remain green. As a comparison, Mr. Hutton commented the Columbia Mall was 65 acres with 95% impervious. In regards to whether Mr. Sapp was paying his fair share, Mr. Hutton thought that in some cases that was true compared to what has been required in other developments. Mr. Hutton stated he did not have a problem with the lake being a stormwater detention facility because there were others around town such as Hulen and Cedar Lakes. He also did not have a problem with taking on the liability as far as the cost for stormwater management was concerned because he felt it was the City's responsibility in some cases. In regards to C-3 zoning, Mr. Hutton was not concerned because there were significant self imposed restrictions for signs and uses, and felt that in someways, this was planned now. Mr. Hutton noted he was comfortable with the stormwater situation because the opponents had caused this to be a better project with the work they had done. He felt the developer should also be complimented for trying to address the issues raised by the opponents. He stated the public process had certainly made this a better project. Mr. Hutton felt the only negative was the stormwater management, if it did not work, but also thought the BMPs, etc. were adequate in protecting the streams. The positives were the economic development, the infrastructure improvements, the additional parkland, and that it was a large development. He felt that it was much better to develop this property as a one 500 acre piece versus ten 50 acre pieces because you could plan the whole thing at once and have better planning. He stated that he planned to support this proposal.
Mr. Janku complimented Mr. Sapp for the way he approached this process by hiring some of the best people in the country in doing all of these studies because he did not have to do that. He agreed with Mr. Hutton's statement that the opponents had made this a better project. It was their suggestion to hire CH2M Hill. He felt the amendment adopted tonight reflected concerns raised in earlier stages. Mr. Janku commented that the passive language used in the ordinance was taken directly from the CH2M Hill report, as requested. Mr. Janku noted there was already a lot of development on 63 that had skipped over the Philip's property. There were duplexes, single family homes, and commercial developments near 163. Mr. Janku pointed out St. Louis City created its own boundary and development continued outside the City limits. As a result, they did not have the benefit of the development for their tax base. Mr. Janku felt that it was documented that the City did have the authority to enforce the BMPs that would be developed. He also felt that the stormwater management utility funds collected would assist with costs. The estimate was $300,000 from building permits over the life of the development and $30,000 annually. He indicated he was not aware of problems associated with Bethel Lake, but noted the Conservation Department was planning to introduce trout fishing in that lake, which showed problems could be corrected. Mr. Janku stated, like Mr. Ash, he also had concerns regarding the C-3 zoning, but indicated this was a unique situation in that we would have a lot of input and enforcement due to the lake and other property.
Ms. Crayton agreed with Mr. Janku in regards to the comment made about the City of St. Louis and stated that the City was now trying to catch up with the surrounding area. Ms. Crayton also pointed out a comment from one of the speakers stating he shopped south of town in Ashland or Jefferson City. She noted that we did have competition. She stated that the developer had done everything the opponents had asked and noted the developer could build outside the City. She pointed out that the City of St. Louis was now responsible for fixing problems from communities surrounding the City. She agreed that it was good to push the developer to build well and to hold the developer accountable, but that we could not avoid development. She noted that this development was better in the City than in the County.
Mr. Loveless commented that he believed Rock Bridge was a very special place, so protecting those streams that flow into Rock Bridge was highest on his priority list. He stated through his own research, he had become convinced and now supported the findings of the four independent engineering firms that this could be built if built in the way it had been put forth in the conceptual plan. He also wanted to point out that there were three groups, those opposed, those for it, and those without an opinion because they had not read enough, but trusted the Council to make the right decision. That group included the majority of the people.
Mayor Hindman commented that the developer and his team had done a tremendous job in providing materials and education to the Council. He also wanted to compliment the opposition for organizing themselves and working hard in providing information and voicing their concerns. Mayor Hindman noted that stormwater in Columbia had generally been a situation where the water came down, hit an impervious surface, went down the street, contained by a gutter, hit a pipe, and went straight into the stream. We have been getting by cheap through inadequate stormwater techniques when considering the health of the streams. He noted that with this development, there were a lot of environmentally beneficial aspects. He agreed that it was important to try and contain development, but he believed that development was going to occur, even on the Philips tract. If you were to ignore the Rock Bridge State Park issue, there would be no question regarding what would happen at this location. He noted it would provide a safe passage on Highway 63 and it would open up the University Research Park. Mayor Hindman also stated it provided the potential for a 450 acre park. A park that would be the necklace because you would have Rock Bridge State Park, the Crane property that the City, in his opinion, should pursue, and the Philips tract park, which hooked up to the Nifong Park. He thought that was a pretty incredible possibility for the City. He also pointed out that would set aside about 450 acres of land and the Crane property had at least three quarters of a mile of Gans Creek on it, so you would be protecting that. This would only be possible if the development went through. He also commented on the density stating it was good in many ways because the employment opportunities would be together and running a bus out there was a possibility. Mayor Hindman felt that although it was not risk free, with the latest technologies it could be done and done well. He noted he was concerned about the C-3 zoning because he believes the City's goal should be planned development. However, he felt this was only 4% of the entire development, less than a third of the size of the Columbia Mall area, and would probably include part of the viaduct or overpass, which would also make it smaller.
Mr. Ash noted that Mr. Hutton, Mr. Janku, and Mayor Hindman all agreed that the public input made this project better. His fear was that with open zoning, you were removing some of that public input.
Mayor Hindman asked if the stormwater plan would have to come before both Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. After much discussion, it was determined that for the planned zoning tracts, the development plan, which included the stormwater management plan, would come before both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. For the C-3 tract, the preliminary plat would go to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, however the final plat would only come to the City Council. Before the final plat could be approved by the Council, the street, stormwater, sanitary, etc. plans would have to be approved by Staff in accordance with the applicable ordinances, including this zoning ordinance. Although there would not be a public hearing, public input would be allowed as it was allowed for all items placed under Old Business. In addition, it was noted that if Council wanted to make it a condition, that the stormwater management plan for the C-3 tract be brought before the Council before the final plat to provide another opportunity for public input, they could do so through the resolution approving the preliminary plat.
B20-04(A), as amended, was given final reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: ASH. ABSTAINING: JOHN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B68-04 Rezoning property located on the northwest corner of Silvey Street and West Worley, extended, from R-1 to PUD-6; approving The Villas at Vintage Falls PUD Site Plan; granting variances to the Subdivision Regulations.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck described this as a 40-acre tract located in west Columbia.
Mr. Dudark displayed the property location on the overhead. The proposal was for 86-two family attached townhome style dwellings for a total of 172 dwelling units. The recommendation of the Commission was to approve the request with two conditions. One was a payment of $14,742 toward the future improvement of Silvey Street, an unimproved street on the east side of the tract, prior to the final plat. The second was to have a greenspace trail easement along Harmony Creek with at least one ten foot wide pedestrian easement connecting from a public street to the greenspace trail easement. A number of variances had been requested with this development and Mr. Dudark noted that several had to do with the streets. One was that the streets be 28-feet wide internally. Another was that the west 450 feet of Savoy Drive, serving six lots, be 38 feet of right-of-way and 24 feet of pavement. In this development there were lots on one side only with the Strawn School site on the south. The applicant was also requesting to build a sidewalk only on the north side where the homes would be located along the street. To park on one side of the street they had a plan showing parking on the north side. He noted that the street was longer than the 750 foot standard, it was 780 feet. Another request was for a hammerhead type turnaround, instead of the normal cul-de-sac. Mr. Dudark noted staff concern in connection with the requested street width. The proposed standards before the Council had a 28 foot street width, but that was recommended to be limited to single family homes and not twin homes as in this case. Another concern in regards to the hammerhead rather than a cul-de-sac bulb was in terms of the ability to have service vehicles, trash trucks, etc., turn around if there was any parking in the area. In addition, a street sweeper might not be able to clean the street because it would not have a smooth radius. Even with those concerns, the Planning and Zoning Commission, after hearing from the applicant, did agree to recommend approval of the variances.
Mr. Ash asked if they had discussed the setback. Mr. Dudark explained it was a request in the application, which was a zoning issue. Normally, the setback was 25 feet on the front yard, but this request was 18 feet. Staff recommended 20 with the concern being vehicles parking in the driveway that might extend over the sidewalk. The applicant's answer was that most of their units would be 20, but there might be a few with 18 feet.
If the Strawn School site were to be redeveloped for some reason, Mr. Janku asked how it would affect the way the one strip was laid out. Mr. Dudark replied there was a six foot strip between the curb and the property line along that side of the property. Mr. Janku asked if it was feasible to tie into it. Mr. Dudark explained that it would be a public street and, if there was access, it could be tied in.
Mr. John inquired about the street right-of-away abutting the Strawn Road property. Mr. Dudark believed there to be an approximate 10 foot strip where there would not be public right-of-way. He thought that was probably where the utility easement would be.
Mr. Loveless noted discrepancies between the Planning and Zoning minutes and the Staff report regarding the T-turnaround and trash trucks. Mr. Patterson replied that when they reviewed it, as did the Fire Department, it was decided maneuverability could be accommodated. They simply wanted to point out there could problems if vehicles park there during snow removal and street sweeping. It was something they needed to consider, but felt the operational challenges could be overcome.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Jack Daugherty, 5714 Short Line Drive, explained that he would be the developer as well as the builder. He explained that the 28 foot street was the width he had been using for the last 17 years, with the exception of Vintage Drive, which was 32 feet. Aesthetically, he thought it looked good because they would have six feet of grass between the curb and the sidewalk. He noted they had never had a problem with parking in the street. The condos he was proposing would basically be the same style as those at Sedona Villas and Vintage Drive. The 18 foot setback request, he explained, was for jockeying the buildings, especially in the second phase. Regarding street funding for Silvey, Mr. Daugherty stated that he did not have problem paying it, but asked if there was a guarantee it would happen and if there was a time period involved. If not, he asked if he would get his money back with a guaranteed that it would not to be tax billed at a later date.
Regarding the 18 foot setback on the house, Mayor Hindman had no objection, but said he was worried about the garage. A lot of people drive cars longer than 18 feet and he was concerned about them hanging over the sidewalk. He asked if it was possible to have the house at 18 feet with the garage being 20 feet back. Mr. Daugherty replied that some of his plans called for just that, but not all of them.
Jay Gebhardt, A Civil Group, held up pictures of a similar project showing a car in only one driveway. To have 18 feet was more of a cushion because it meant the builder could set the building at 20 and feel confident.
Mr. Daugherty explained that not until Sedona, the last project, had they had an 18 foot setback. Before that they did not have a building line, just a 25 foot perimeter setback. He stated he would always shoot for 20 feet, most being in excess of that, with the exception of one building.
Another way to do it, according to Mr. Gebhardt, would be to put the sidewalk four feet off the back of the curb instead of one foot off the right-of-way. They would gain two feet that way.
Mr. Janku pointed out that even though it could work in this development, they would be setting a precedent. He was concerned about consistency.
Mr. Daugherty had no problem moving the sidewalk forward two feet.
Mr. John explained that since Mr. Daugherty had to replat because it was a PUD and because they would divide the houses to sell them individually, he had to come back with a surveyed lot showing exactly where it was. Normally, that was not done. If he was four inches off and did not come back in, nobody would ever notice. Mr. Daugherty explained that was why he was shooting for a cushion. He realized he would not have to use it and could set every building at 18 foot, one inch, but said he would never do that. He understood the Council had to anticipate that he could.
Mr. Daugherty stated that his covenants enforce garage doors being down, and noted he had told the Planning Commission that he could add to the covenant a restriction about not parking a car in the driveway, if it would fit in the garage. He pointed out that they could actually state that the sidewalk must be kept open.
Mayor Hindman asked if the problem with putting the garage back a few feet had to do with the plans not calling for it. Mr. Daugherty replied that anything on the ground floor with a den did come forward and shoved the garage back. However, he also had two bedroom slabs with an upstairs and, in that case, the face of the building was basically flush.
Regarding the money for Silvey Street improvements, Mr. Boeckmann explained that under the law the money could only be used for something related to the property from which it came and it had to be used within a reasonable period of time or else returned.
Regarding the tax billing question, Mayor Hindman commented that if the money was returned to the developer, he could be tax billed. Mr. Boeckmann agreed.
Bruce Beckett, an attorney speaking on behalf of Greenwing Development and Dr. and Mrs. Burton Schauf, the property owners and contract sellers to Mr. Daugherty's company, commented that City regulations on a parking space were18 feet long. He noted the plan also called for four parking spaces for each unit, twice as many as the requirement. In trying to deal with this piece of property, the Atkins and Schauf families were thrown a curve ball when the CATSO study came out noting the possible interchange being there. They had land they needed to use and the configuration for this subdivision preserved the possibility that the CATSO Plan could be developed and Scott Boulevard could be extended along the northern boundary of this subdivision. It was felt this development would be the perfect solution to protecting the new neighborhoods in Smithton Ridge.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Regarding the money, Mr. Janku suggested a reasonable length of time could be seven years, unless at that point the improvement was funded in the CIP.
There was a discussion at this point regarding the definition of a reasonable amount of time.
Mr. John felt something would have to be done with Silvey fairly soon. He thought seven years was reasonable. He noted that The Villas by The Country Club of Missouri were all on 28 foot streets with 18 foot setbacks. He stated they have not had any problems there, nor had there been any at Sedona Villas. He did not understand why they were trying to anticipate a problem that did not exist. Mr. Janku agreed this was a different type of development from the typical duplex development. He saw the problem as how to separate this type of development from other duplex developments. Mr. Hutton noted that a case could be made that a PUD-6 was just that. Mr. John pointed out the problem with duplexes was that they were three and four bedrooms and everybody had a car where these were two and three bedroom units, usually two bedrooms and a den. It was a different style of structure in the number of bedrooms per unit. He noted the square footage was similar, but said that was because they had large kitchens, living rooms and dining rooms - things you did not have in a typical duplex.
Mayor Hindman asked about the sidewalk on the other side of the street. Mr. Loveless replied that the next person trying to develop it would have to build a sidewalk on that side.
After discussion, it was decided that seven years would be a reasonable length of time in regards to the Silvey Street improvements.
B68-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
R53-04 Approving the FY 2003 CDBG and HOME Performance Report.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained this involved federally funded projects and summarized the 2003 CDBG and HOME expenditures. The report also explained the City's progress in meeting the goals shown in the consolidated plan.
Ms. Crayton asked how the evaluation of agencies was done. Mr. Dudark replied that the money approved for those agencies must be spent on what the Council addressed in the contract with the agency. He explained that his staff did a monitoring visit to look at who the recipients were and what the income qualifications were. They had reports in the Planning Department that were available each year for HUD to review. They might pick a certain agency and look, in depth, at that particular agency one particular year if there were any concerns. Ms. Crayton commented that she wanted to make sure the services being used were actually working. She said she was not seeing much forward movement in her neighborhood and wanted to see better monitoring.
Mr. Dudark said the list indicated relationships as requested by HUD. He commented that they wanted to know how we were collaborating and what other programs we provided. They did not just want to look at bricks and mortar, but wanted to see what else was going on. He noted the list she was looking at was not being funded out of this program.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, noted a lot of misinterpretation about the NRT issues in regards to what they were about. He felt that the agencies did their own evaluation and, to a large extent, talked to themselves. He saw that as the problem because there was no real tie back into anything. If they were to do sampling of transactions, Mr. Clark felt things like that would go a long way to creating a situation where some items would be caught. This would also break down the notion that the agencies programs were a self-evaluation of how they were delivering their services. If the Council could break the cycle of disconnect, Mr. Clark noted, there was a lot of information available to improve things.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
The vote on R53-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
(A) Construction of Sanitary Sewer District No. 150 (Mexico Gravel Road).
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Patterson explained this District was formed in March of last year and the project would consist of providing sanitary sewer to ten separate parcels of land located along Mexico Gravel Road. Currently, the properties in the district were served by on-site wastewater disposal systems. Originally the property owners had requested a formation of a sanitary sewer district so the mains could be extended and the on-site systems could be eliminated. In eliminating the on-site systems the property owners would recognize the elimination of maintenance and the elimination of potential health problems. In addition, typically, the connection to the City's sewer system enhanced the value of the property. At that time questions were raised by some of the people located in the district. Questions primarily related to the location of the sewer line on properties at 4211 and 4301. Those property owners requested the sewer line be constructed in front of the properties. Staff provided supplemental information to the Council verifying the additional cost and the difficulty with construction and recommended that the project proceed as originally planned. There was also a question relating to the proximity of the line to a cemetery. An archeological survey was completed determining the proposed project, adjacent to the Antioch Cemetery, would not threaten any human burials nor would it threaten any physically identifiable remains of the Northern Cherokee occupation and use in the area. The project itself would cost approximately $200,000 with a not to exceed tax bill rate of $11.86 per square foot of property. The tax bills exceeding $5,000 would be deferred in accordance with Chapter 22-97.1. In this instance, the $5,000 initial tax bill would be triggered on nine of the ten lots. That would result in deferred tax bills of approximately $152,000 of the estimated $200,000 project cost.
Mr. Ash asked about the two properties, 4211 and 4301, paying for any additional costs incurred to locate the line in front of their properties. Mr. Patterson explained that tax bill districts require equal assessment per square foot. Any additional cost would incur an additional cost to everyone in the district.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Marie Anderson, 4405 Mexico Gravel Road, spoke in favor of the project, saying it was long past due.
John Holly, 4211 Mexico Gravel Road, agreed they needed the sewer system, but he objected to the location of it. He said it would run through his back yard, just a few feet from a lake. Because he lived in the last house, he was fearful that everything flowing from the east would end up in his back yard and added that it would not serve his entire property. Mr. Holly asked that the location be moved to the City's right-of-way in the front of his home. He objected to his charge of $10,000 and asked about the $5,000 cap. If it would cost more to put the line in front, Mr. Holly asked how much more. Mr. Holly noted that he had previously had some erosion problems by the lake and said he was concerned about that happening again.
Mr. Hutton asked if he understood Mr. Holly wanted it in his front yard. Mr. Holly replied that was right. Mr. Hutton asked if it would serve all of his property if it were to go in front. Mr. Holly said it would not. Mr. Hutton noted that would be a much longer sewer line. He also pointed out that Mr. Holly must own two lots if he is being assessed $10,000. Mr. Patterson replied that was correct. He said these were all things reported to the Council in February 2003. In looking at the requested alignment, which they evaluated, Mr. Patterson noted there appeared to be an approximate $20,000 difference. In addition, it meant a much deeper line and would have to go between two houses to go back to the north. It would be more disruptive to the properties. It had been determined that the construction of the line in the back would not endanger or damage the ponds in the back. He noted they would be acquiring easements, so the sewer line would be on public right-of-way.
Mr. Hutton asked about the depth. Mr. Patterson explained if they went the route being requested by Mr. Holly, it would have a 28 foot deep section in some places. Mr. Hutton asked about the depth in the back. Mr. Patterson replied the proposed alignment would have one location approximately 15 feet deep with the rest of the line being less than 10 feet deep. There was a significant difference in the depth of the lines. Mr. Hutton pointed out there was significant disruption at 10 feet also. Mr. Patterson agreed, but said most of it was less than 10 feet. Mr. John commented that it would be a 56 foot wide cut in the front.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Hutton said he would like to do something for Mr. Holly, but said the City was picking up the biggest part of the tab because of the deferred tax bills. He asked Staff to do the best they could to protect the lake. Mr. Patterson replied they would certainly do that and added that anything they disturbed in the back would be replaced or compensated for.
Mr. John said to go 28 feet in the front would take out everything. Besides that, the yard would be full of fill and he would never be able to do anything with it. He said they had to take the slope of the land and do the best they could with it.
Mr. Hutton made the motion that Staff be directed to complete final plans and specifications of Sanitary Sewer District 150, known as the Mexico Gravel Road Sanitary Sewer District. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.
B70-04 Granting a waiver from the requirements of the City Code for sidewalk construction along the south side of Heller Road, adjacent to Lot 201 of Ewing Industrial Park Subdivision Plat 2.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained the owner was requesting a waiver on this unimproved, gravel road at the north corner of the City.
Mr. Patterson noted they explained the policy guidelines and some would certainly qualify for an exception. Using the overhead he showed the location and described where the sidewalk would be. He noted it would not connect on either end.
Mr. John asked if Heller Road was gravel. Mr. Patterson replied that it had a limestone base on it and was not an improved road. He said the County was looking at doing an improvement project on it and wanted the City to participate. It did not have the traffic volume on it to meet our warrants.
Mr. Loveless said there was no need to build a sidewalk along a gravel road when there was no sidewalk any place else. Mr. Patterson said it could always be tax billed at a later date if the road was improved.
Although it was hard to imagine people walking out in an industrial area, Mr. Ash thought that eventually there might be something around it where a sidewalk would make sense.
Mr. Janku noted the nature of the improvement involved, a storage shed. After discussion, the Council felt the penalty for putting up a shed would be high.
B70-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B77-04 Authorizing an annexation agreement with the Department of Natural Resources regarding Rock Bridge State Park.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this request had been discussed several times. He explained they were requesting permission to hook to the City's sewer system at their expense. They were not contiguous to the City, and therefore, there was no requirement that they request annexation at the same time. In the past, under these circumstances, the applicant had been required to sign a pre-annexation agreement. He said there had been discussions with DNR and they were not desirous of having a pre-annexation agreement on all of their property, but agreed to 200 acres of their total area. They had various reasons as to why they did not want to have parkland brought into the City, one of which was conflicting policies. Mr. Loveless pointed out that they also had liability concerns.
B77-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.
B69-04 Confirming the contract with Capital Railroad Contracting, Inc. for construction of Sewer District No. 156.
B71-04 Accepting conveyance; authorizing payment of differential costs for water main serving Vanderveen Plaza, Plat 1; approving the Engineer's Final Report.
B72-04 Accepting conveyance for utility purposes.
B73-04 Appropriating funds for Share the Light program.
B74-04 Authorizing a contract with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for the smallpox First Responder Vaccination Plan; appropriating funds.
B75-04 Appropriating funds collected from the sale of Fire Department equipment.
R45-04 Setting a public hearing: amendments to the FY 2004 Action Plan and 1999-2004 Consolidated Plan to allocate CDBG and HOME funds.
R46-04 Setting a public hearing: construction of a 12-inch water main serving Boone Quarry, Plat 3.
R47-04 Setting a public hearing: construction of the F-1 Relief Sewer - Phase 1 (UMC South Campus Relief Sewer) and Maryland Avenue drainage project.
R48-04 Authorizing acceptance of donated space to be used by the Police Department.
R49-04 Authorizing an agreement with Boone County for public health services.
R50-04 Authorizing an agreement with Boone County for animal control services.
R51-04 Appointing Daniel M. Dasho as the Director to the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission.
R52-04 Authorizing a joint defense agreement in connection with a pending federal lawsuit.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
The following bills were introduced by the Mayor unless otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:
B78-04 Rezoning property located on the south side of Vandiver Drive and on the west side of U.S. Highway 63 from O-P and M-1 to C-P; approving the Bass Pro at CenterState Crossings C-P Development Plan; granting variances from the Subdivision Regulations.
B79-04 Rezoning property located on the south side of the eastern terminus of Chapel Hill Road from O-P to C-P.
B80-04 Approving the Final Plat of Dakota Ridge Plat 1; authorizing a performance contract.
B81-04 Approving the Final Plat of Hunter's Gate, Plat No. 3a; authorizing a development agreement.
B82-04 Approving the Final Plat of Hunter's Gate, Plat No. 3b; authorizing a performance contract.
B83-04 Approving the Final Plat of Russell Subdivision - Plat 3.
B84-04 Authorizing acquisition of easements relating to the construction of the F-1 Relief Sewer - Phase 1 (UMC South Campus Relief Sewer) and Maryland Avenue drainage project.
B85-04 Establishing Sanitary Sewer District No. 154 along West Broadway, Glenwood, Westwood, Edgewood and Maupin Road.
B86-04 Authorizing construction of water main serving Boone Quarry, Plat 3; providing for payment of differential costs.
B87-04 Authorizing an agreement with Jacobs Civil Inc. for engineering services for the Hillsdale Pump Station project.
B88-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.
B89-04 Appropriating revenues collected from the sales of the Columbia Police Department Historical Book.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Intra-departmental transfer of funds.
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:
Upon receiving the majority vote of the Council the following individuals were appointed to the following Boards and Commissions:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Byergo, S. Scott, 2306 Solano Ct., Ward 6 - term to expire 11/1/05
CULTURAL AFFAIRS COMMISSION
Burdick, Nancy C., 12 McBaine, Ward 1 - term to expire 4/1/07
Donati-Shaw, Mary Jo, 6303 N. Hwy. VV, County - term to expire 4/1/07
Mustard, Cindy M., 600 S. Greenwood, Ward 4 - term to expire 4/1/07
Vianello, Hugo, 11 E. Brandon Rd., Ward 5 - term to expire 4/1/07
Cain, Kathleen E., 603 Westwood, Ward 4 - term to expire 6/30/05
COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC
Mr. Janku asked for a report on a Board of Adjustment item regarding food sales in C-1 at the old Crown Shoe location on Ash Street.
Mr. Janku noted they coming up were some reallocation of CDBG funds and setting a public hearing for amendments to the Action Plan. He said there was a suggestion about moving money around to deal with Tammy Lane near the health facility. He wanted to make sure funding was available to finish the health building plan, the sidewalk, and landscaping before anything else was done. Mr. Beck said they were transferring some money to close the street that connects to the site. He asked Staff to determine what was needed for the sidewalk and landscaping.
Ms. Crayton commented on the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community program designed for opportunities for growth and revitalization. She passed out an information sheet regarding the program and noted the very things listed were things she saw happening in her Ward. She stated she would like to be able to submit an application to receive enterprise zone status.
Ms. Crayton made the motion that Staff be directed to report back on how to go about accomplishing this. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.
The meeting adjourned at 2:05 a.m.
© 2016 City of Columbia