INTRODUCTORY
The City Council of the City
of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday,
December 1, 1997, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The
roll was taken with the following results: Council Members CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, and JANKU 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 November 17, 1997, were approved unanimously by voice vote on
a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Mr. Janku.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Hindman noted that
R192-97 would be added under New Business.
There was a discussion as
to whether or not the public hearing would be held on B329-97 because of
a request received for withdrawal of the issue.
Mr. Kruse made the motion
that B329-97 be removed from the agenda. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Janku and approved by voice vote.
Upon her request, Ms. Coble
made the motion that Mrs. Crockett be allowed to abstain from voting on B316-97. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Upon his request, Mr. Kruse
made the motion that Mr. Coffman be allowed to abstain on R191-97. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
The agenda, as amended, including
the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made
by Mayor Hindman and a second by Ms. Coble.
SPECIAL ITEMS
None.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B315-97 Rezoning
2305 Oakland Gravel Road from R-1 (One-Family Residential) to O-P (Planned
Office
District).
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
less than one acre tract of land is located in northeast Columbia. He
noted that it had been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, subject to conditions which included allowed uses shall be limited
to all uses permitted in district R-1 pertaining to a child advocacy center
as described in a letter labeled "Exhibit A", and that no modifications be
made to the site, including parking and driveway expansions, until an O-P
development plan has been approved by the City Council.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Philip Douce, Executive Director
of Rainbow House, explained the process that children go through after having
been abused or after having witnessed a crime. He said the current
process can re-victimize the child because of the multiple interviews that
are conducted, often at different locations and different times. Mr.
Douce reported that the Child Advocacy Center would provide a single location
for these children to go through the entire process. It has also been
proposed that the Center could be used for parenting classes and therapy.
Ms. Coble noted that federal
legislation was pending, which passed at the state level, that provided a
broader definition of a child advocacy center. She asked if the Center
would consider expanding services to include supervised visitation at the
center. Mr. Douce said that was possible, and added that representatives
had already been attending meetings held by other advocacy centers in the
state. He said it was a good idea and that option is being explored.
Detective Andy Anderson,
spoke on behalf of the Interagency Council on Child Abuse and Neglect (ICAN). This
is an organization of about 28 agencies in Boone County, made up of both
governmental and private enterprise, with the concern focusing on children
in the community -- child abuse in particular. Mr. Anderson said ICAN
had been working on this project for two years and totally supported it. He
urged the Council to approve the request. ICAN has received a commitment
from every law enforcement agency in Boone County to work with the Child
Advocacy Center. It is hoped that such an agreement can be obtained
from every county surrounding Boone County after the program is initiated.
Kevin Crane, Boone County
Prosecutor, pointed out that in addition to conducting and reducing interviews
at this site, medical examinations could also be conducted on-site, eliminating
yet another trip for the child. It is also hoped the Center could be
utilized as a community resource center where information could be disseminated
on child abuse prevention. Mr. Crane stated his support for the Advocacy
Center.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Janku commented that
this is a worthwhile program. He also stated that although the location
of the site is in a poor traffic area in terms of the road's visibility,
he felt the O-P zoning is appropriate as opposed to R-1, particularly with
the C-3 zoning across the street.
B315-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B316-97 Rezoning
property located on the south side of Barberry Avenue, east of the
west city
limit
line from R-1 and A-1 to R-2.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
involves a 17 acre tract of land that had been recommended for denial by
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Hancock reported that
while the Commission had recommended denial, the Planning staff had recommended
approval. The staff report recognized the road system in the area is
inadequate for development in the vicinity, but pointed out that Sunflower,
Barberry, and all the roads in the vicinity are scheduled for improvement
within the capital improvement program. Mr. Hancock noted that the
proposal meets the intent of the Land Use Plan in terms of low density --
zero to six units.
Mr. Campbell asked which
streets in the area were scheduled for improvement. Mr. Hancock said
Sunflower was shown as a priority need in fiscal year 2000 to 2002, and Barberry
as beyond 2002. Mr. Patterson indicated Sunflower is scheduled for
construction in 1999 (the portion from Route E south to where it ties into
the new subdivision). He said it was anticipated that this stretch
would connect to Barberry at a 90 degree angle with the extension of Sunflower
as it comes south.
Mr. Janku understood that
there were no plans for the street improvements in terms of City funding
for the southward extension from Grayson Drive. Mr. Patterson said
that was correct. He said it was one of the locations that staff anticipates
would be constructed through the development of the area. Mr. Patterson
added that there has been considerable discussion in the past few years about
the possible development of the road; however, there is no funding source
or program for it at this time.
Mr. Campbell referred to
the intersection between Westwinds Drive and the outer roadway as unique. He
asked if anyone had examined the possibility of restructuring it in the near
future. Mr. Patterson said that had not been done as part of this process. He
said staff could determine what options might be available.
Mayor Hindman understood
there was no plan to improve Barberry Avenue. Mr. Patterson asked if
the Mayor was referring to the stretch west of where the extension of Sunflower
is shown. Mayor Hindman said that was correct. Mr. Patterson
said that was not identified in the CIP. If this request were to be
approved, Mayor Hindman asked if the developer had any responsibility for
the road improvements. Mr. Patterson said the developer was only responsible
for the internal streets and, with Barberry being an exterior street to the
subdivision, there would not be any developmental responsibility according
to City policy. As a collector street, the City could tax bill curb
and gutter costs to the property at such time it is developed.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Glen Strothman, President
of Homeview Development, said he had included in a packet to the Council
some maps, photos, and a letter. Also in the packet was an agreement
that outlined as a condition to the property being rezoned R-2, the density
of the development would be reduced by about 35%. He said the intent
is not to create a maximum density situation, but to keep the development
comparable to that could occur in R-1 zoning. By doing so, Mr. Strothman
said this would allow for more open green space and, hopefully, would not
adversely impact the traffic any more than R-1 would. Mr. Strothman
indicated his willingness to incorporate covenants and restrictions for landscaping,
and agreed that if this property was sold prior to the platting process,
a deed restriction would be placed upon the property so it could not be further
subdivided.
Mr. Campbell said he had
driven around the Westwinds intersection and, although he realized it was
not technically part of the request, he wondered if Mr. Strothman would be
willing to work with the City on restructuring the intersection somehow. Mr.
Strothman said that would depend on what the City might require. He
would be agreeable to visit with the City and try to make it viable. Mr.
Strothman reported that was one of the reasons the project's density was
reduced -- they did not want to impact the area any more than what an R-1
zoning would normally allow for. In addition, Mr. Strothman indicated
a large tree line could be preserved to provide screening along Barberry
as opposed to removing the trees and building single family homes.
Mr. Kruse asked about the
density if the property remained R-1. Mr. Strothman said R-1 zoning
would allow a development of 70 plus houses. With R-2 zoning, approximately
51 or 52 units could be constructed, but only 38 are being proposed. As
far as the number of families, Mr. Strothman reported it would be about the
same as R-1. Mr. Kruse saw the potential for more people. Mr.
Strothman said if 37 duplexes were built, that would constitute approximately
74 families as opposed to roughly the same number with R-1. Mr. Kruse
said in his ward, duplexes often tend to be three or four people living in
a three bedroom unit, with each resident having a car. Mr. Strothman
thought there were probably a lot more students in Mr. Kruse's ward. He
anticipated more of a family-oriented occupancy.
Mr. Strothman displayed a
drawing of the area on the overhead. Mr. Janku asked about the area
to the east of the site. Mr. Strothman said there were two small structures,
an existing home with a pond behind it. At the very most, a short cul-de-sac
is proposed essentially across from the cul-de-sac that is shown. He
said the street would be a very short bulb having 25 lots on it. Mr.
Strothman reported the reason this cul-de-sac had not been shown on the drawing
was because someone is possibly interested in purchasing a corner of the
property which contains the existing homestead and pond. If this occurred,
the number of lots would be reduced by seven or eight.
Ms. Coble stated all she
could see was an awful lot of people on what are already congested and substandard
roads for those who currently live there. Mr. Strothman felt with the
development of the property, the streets would be built out to it. He
conceded that this would probably not happen as fast as people would like. Mr.
Strothman pointed out that this would also remove some of the property from
the sewer district.
Mayor Hindman asked if part
of the development would include installing sewer. Mr. Strothman said
the development will be gravity sewered.
Ms. Coble asked if previous
construction traffic on Barberry had caused broken water mains. Mr.
Strothman said there was a previous developer in the area, and he had heard
about a problem with the lines. Someone may have possibly cut through
the water lines.
Regarding the landscaping
covenant, Mr. Kruse asked what was planned. Mr. Strothman said covenants
would be prepared and could be reviewed by the Council prior to the platting
process. Mr. Kruse asked if it would a covenant for anyone who bought
a lot to build a duplex. Mr. Strothman said that was correct. Mr.
Kruse said there could still be investment related ownership. Mr. Strothman
agreed. Mr. Kruse asked if each individual owner would have responsibility
for the maintenance of the landscaping, or if it would be similar to a condo
association where the maintenance is done by one company. After the
initial landscaping is installed, Mr. Strothman said a homeowners association
would be established that would allow for professional maintenance of landscaping. This
would provide proof that the development would be professionally maintained.
Geoff Preckshot, 3507 Barberry,
expressed his opposition to the rezoning request. He said there would
be 17 acres of duplexes in what has been developed as a single family residential
area. He pointed out that there are a number of established subdivisions
very close to the subject tract, with the majority of dwellings being single
family. This development would be a major departure from the character
of the entire area. Mr. Preckshot was concerned that the project would
drive down the value of the homes in the area. He had lived on Barberry
during the construction of the other subdivisions, and to say that Barberry
was substandard was to give it more credit than it deserves. He explained
the road varies from about 14 feet wide to 16 feet wide, with no shoulders
and open ditches. In addition, the water lines run underneath the roadway,
between the road bed and the rock ridge. When heavy trucks travel this
road, the lines break. Mr. Preckshot reported another concern is the
limited access or egress from this particular subdivision. He asked
that the Council accept the Commission's recommendation for denial.
Mr. Campbell said according
to normal R-1 standards, there could be approximately 68 lots that could
have access onto Barberry. He asked if that would be Mr. Preckshot's
preference. Mr. Preckshot said until residents get some relief from
the problems with access, he thought it was irresponsible to zone the land
for any kind of development. He understood the necessity of the Council
to try to fund street improvements and how the chicken and egg problem related
to this, but he did not think either type of development would make any difference
with regard to access. As far as the character of the community, Mr.
Preckshot said he thought it made a lot of difference. He said 68 R-1
homes would encourage R-1 development in a westerly direction, across the
City limits into the Gibbs Road area.
Rita Preckshot, 3507 Barberry,
lives directly across from the proposed subdivision. She did not understand
how a homeowners association could be established with rental properties. Mrs.
Preckshot displayed enlarged photos of cars in ditches along Barberry to
illustrate the conditions that exist during construction in the area. Since
construction has stopped, there have been only two or three cars in the ditch
during a one month period.
Larry Hine, 2505 Primrose,
has seen the subdivision change from one entrance/exit to Valleyview, to
what currently exists now. He commented that even with the improvements
on Sunflower, residents found themselves being neighbors to three cement
plants, one asphalt plant, and a conditional use permit for another asphalt
plant. He thought it was unreal to try to siphon a lot of traffic out
north on Route E to that type of industrial traffic. Regarding Westwinds
Drive, Mr. Hine said there is still not a good exit from Valleyview West
onto I-70 Drive NW. He pointed out that 80 new homes have been built
in Valleyview West without an improvement to the southern exit or to Sunflower. Mr.
Hine asked that the rezoning request be denied.
Mr. Strothman noted that
the construction vehicles shown earlier on the overhead were not his, nor
was he the developer of record on that particular project.
Suzanne Gebhardt, 1909 E.
Walnut, explained that she was currently building a home at 1505 Grayson
in Valleyview South, which abuts the subject site. She said if the
area were to be rezoned R-2, she felt the traffic created would be very dangerous. She
said both Barberry and I-70 NW were very narrow and hilly with no shoulders. Ms.
Gebhardt felt R-1 zoning would also be too dangerous at this point. Regarding
the tree buffer spoken of earlier, Ms. Gebhardt said it was not as dense
as people had been led to believe. She said it was really a single
line of trees -- primarily brush. Ms. Gebhardt asked the Council to
oppose the rezoning.
Mr. Janku asked Mrs. Gebhardt
if she had been contacted about the development. Ms. Gebhardt said
her builder had been contacted.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Janku asked Mr. Boeckmann
if he had read Mr. Strothman's letter regarding the restriction on the use,
and whether he had any feelings regarding the effectiveness of it. Mr.
Boeckmann said he had read the one page letter and the attachment referred
to as an agreement. He said the agreement would not be legally binding
and, if the Council granted R-2 zoning, Mr. Strothman could build the maximum
number structures allowed in R-2 zoning. Mr. Boeckmann was not suggesting
that this would occur, but stated that the agreement is not a restriction.
Mayor Hindman asked if there
was a way the Council could adopt the ordinance with a restriction as to
the density of the subdivision by a planned unit development. Mr. Boeckmann
said that was the purpose of a planned unit development. Mr. Janku
agreed.
Mr. Janku said the developer
had made some good efforts. He said bringing in sewer would be an excellent
benefit to the area. To some extent, capital improvements do follow
development; unfortunately, Mr. Janku thought the original comments by the
Planning Commission regarding this project altering the character of the
area were true. There is a lot of vacant land in this area to the north
and west, and for this significant amount of R-2 zoning to be granted, it
would set the precedent for that potential development. Mr. Janku said
there was already quite a bit of R-2 in the area -- primarily as a buffer
rather than a big interior development like this one. To this extent,
Mr. Janku felt the development is just too large and, because of its R-2
nature, it is driving other decisions which are inappropriate. The
suggestion has been made to cul-de-sac the eastern development to maintain
the buffer from the existing R-1 to keep traffic flow to a minimum. This
would mean no street access, no true pedestrian sidewalk access, no traffic
other than through Barberry -- which is completely undeveloped. Mr.
Janku stated the idea is eventually to have Grayson Drive bend back in a
southerly direction. If this connection occurs, then the property could
flow out in this direction rather than through Westwinds Drive. Mr.
Janku noted that if the connection with R-2 is mandated, the Council could
expect an outcry from the subdivision to the east. The other problem
encountered is there are no plans to improve Westwinds Drive. Mr. Janku
did not think widening the road would necessarily make it safer because of
the sight distance. Until there is more concrete information available
as to what could be done, Mr. Janku did not think an abstract promise to
possibly assist the City in road improvements is sufficient. He thought
the area should be zoned primarily R-1, with some possible R-2.
Mr. Campbell said the roads
are very bad in the area, and the line of sight going onto the access road
was also very bad. The question of R-2 zoning versus R-1 was not nearly
as troubling. Good, well-developed R-2 zoning was preferable to some
of the R-1 that exists. Because of all the possible openings onto Barberry,
Mr. Campbell said there were some advantages for having a cul-de-sac development
with relatively large R-2 lots. Mr. Campbell thought the market should
determine the need for R-2, and felt it should be distributed around the
City. He said a properly planned R-2 development could be a good neighbor. On
the other hand, Mr. Campbell was troubled by the lack of connection. Mr.
Campbell did not think he could vote in favor of this request because he
would like to see the entire plan submitted with some alternatives for correcting
the traffic problems.
Mayor Hindman said he was
concerned about the situation with respect to infrastructure. The City
has a policy in which infrastructure is allowed to occur after development,
but that would not work in this case. He appreciated the concessions
made by the developer, but infrastructure has been pushed just about as far
as it possibly can at this location.
Mr. Campbell indicated he
would support a plan for development of this particular area, but would like
to see something incorporated that would alleviate some of the traffic --
at least one moderately good entrance into the area.
Mr. Janku said traffic was
the controlling issue that has bottled up the area. He thought perhaps
it needed to be forced at some point as opposed to waiting for it to happen. Mr.
Janku reported that this has been done in other areas of the City and, if
that was the sense of the Council, he would push for that. He was certain
the neighborhood would be supportive.
Mr. Kruse agreed with everything
that had been stated, and also that the developer had offered some pretty
good concessions. However, he noted that there is no legal guarantee
that those concessions would occur. Mr. Kruse said he could not vote
for this particular request, but would be hard-pressed to vote against it
if it had been a PUD. Mr. Janku said that would offer the guarantees
the Council was seeking.
B316-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: NO ONE. VOTING
NO: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. ABSTAINING: CROCKETT. Bill
defeated.
B318-97 Amending
Chapter 29 of the City Code to allow limited warehousing/distribution
uses in
the
C-P District and limited retail uses in the M-C District.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this
amendment had been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Hancock explained that
Mr. Land had sent a letter to the Council some months ago asking that the
C-3 District be opened to some warehousing and distribution facilities. He
said the proposal was to allow these facilities within planned commercial,
not open C-3, provided they are ancillary or accessory to other uses allowed
in the C-P District. Mr. Hancock reported the Commission also wanted
to open up the M-C District at the same time by allowing retail establishments
(after a conditional use permit has been issued), provided that they are
ancillary to the manufacturing, warehousing, or distribution activity on
the site. He said there was not much comment from the public either
way.
Mayor Hindman noted there
was an amendment sheet that would correct a typographical error in the original
bill.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that B318-97 be amended per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded
by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B318-97, as amended, was
given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO
ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B323-97 Authorizing
construction of Bear Creek Trail, Phase II, using City forces.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
The following opening statement
was read by the Mayor:
B336-97 Approving
Engineer's final report for sidewalk construction on Arbor Drive and
Arbor
Court;
levying and assessing special assessments for properties benefiting from
construction.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Patterson explained that
the Council conducted a public hearing and authorized the construction of
sidewalks in this area on June 5, 1995. He said Council may recall
this was part of the ongoing effort to fill-in gaps in Columbia's sidewalk
system.
As a result of the public
hearing, Mr. Patterson said a number of letters had been sent to property
owners in the Woodridge Subdivision requesting that they voluntarily construct
sidewalks along the lots where sidewalks were missing, and had been required
as part of the subdivision development requirements. Several sidewalks
were constructed by private contract, and those being discussed this evening,
for whatever reason, were not constructed by the property owners. Mr.
Patterson reported this past year the City combined these walks with the
annual sidewalk contract for construction.
Mr. Patterson reported walks
were constructed along ten lots on Arbor Court and Arbor Drive. The
resolution estimate for construction was $5.45 per square foot, but staff
was fortunate in getting lower bids and the work was done for an actual cost
of $4.34 per square foot. That is the amount being recommended for
assessment. Mr. Patterson said staff proposes this cost should be paid
for entirely by tax bills since these properties are within the subdivision
regulations that required sidewalks to be constructed. If the ordinance
is approved, the assessment would amount to $17,835.32, with the tax bills
ranging from $333.99 to $2,761.53.
The identifiable benefits
Council may wish to consider include the improved appearance of properties
with the continuity of the sidewalks, improved pedestrian access and circulation,
and the presence of sidewalks are typically considered an enhancement to
the value of the property. Mr. Patterson said if the Council determines
that the properties have benefitted by at least the amounts proposed for
assessment, the ordinance should be approved.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Mr. Janku understood there
were no assessments on the Providence Road walks other than the agreement
with the University. Mr. Patterson said that was correct. He
said it was not an assessment, but an agreement between the City and the
University that a certain portion of the cost would be paid, and that has
been done. Mr. Patterson explained that project was on the Master Sidewalk
Plan, which is not subject to the assessment.
Donald Schoengarth, 3612
Arbor Court, said he had asked that a sidewalk be put on the north side of
Woodridge Park, where most of the pedestrian traffic is concentrated. He
said that had not been done and the road is very dangerous. He did
not understand why he had to have walks in a location where nobody uses them,
and why the lot behind Roger Wilson's house (on Cedar Lane) did not have
to have a sidewalk put in. Mr. Schoengarth asked why the City put a
sidewalk on the south side of Woodridge Park where there is no pedestrian
traffic.
Mr. Patterson said the only
thing he could answer to this evening were the sidewalks up for public hearing. He
indicated he would be happy to respond to the above items in a report to
the Council.
Mrs. Crockett remembered
that the lot on Cedar Lane had a natural spring and that the Council had
debated whether or not there should be a sidewalk. She said the Council
had decided that it would not be required to have a sidewalk.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Speaking to the Providence
Road area, Mr. Campbell said the sidewalks are greatly appreciated and heavily
used. He said it was a very good addition to the area.
Mr. Janku thought this project
was a model, and perhaps the City could work out a cooperative agreement
with the University for the stretch along Stadium next to the campus athletic
facilities.
B336-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
(A) Voluntary
annexation of property located east of Bearfield Road and south of
Nifong Boulevard.
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the
Central Missouri Sheltered Enterprise requested annexation of 2 1/2 acres
of land east of Bearfield and south of Nifong. The applicant had also
requested controlled industrial permanent zoning as a condition of the annexation. The
property contains the existing sheltered workshop and was currently zoned
in Boone County as M-L (Light Industrial), and A-1 (Agricultural). Mr.
Beck said an ordinance could be introduced tonight if the Council chose to
proceed with the annexation.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Glen Ehrhardt, an attorney
with offices at 401 E. Locust, spoke on behalf of the applicant. At
the Planning and Zoning level a few week ago, Mr. Ehrhardt said there had
been some confusion as to ownership of the property. He explained that
all of the surrounding property owned by Central Missouri Sheltered Enterprises
is currently owned by Woodhaven, the National Benevolent Association. Mr.
Ehrhardt reported some of the property owned by the NBA was annexed into
the City earlier this year and was currently zoned O-1. He explained
that Central Missouri Sheltered Enterprises is an entirely distinct and separate
organization/corporation from NBA. He said there was no relationship
between the two organizations, although they serve many of the same individuals
with developmental disabilities. Mr. Ehrhardt noted that the Sheltered
Workshop has been in existence at this location in Boone County since 1969. He
said there has been no neighborhood opposition, in fact, several neighbors
had submitted letters in support of both requests -- the annexation and rezoning. Mr.
Ehrhardt pointed out that approximately 100 employees of the 110 are residents
of the City of Columbia.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Beck noted that the ordinance
would be introduced later this evening.
OLD BUSINESS
B327-97 Authorizing
an agreement with Mo Department of Health for inspections of day care
facilities;
appropriating funds.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Sanford explained that
this would be a new program involving the Health Department. He further
explained that for many years in the State of Missouri, the day care centers
were regulated by the Missouri Department of Social Services. He said
a few years ago it had been transferred to the State Health Department, and
now they are offering contracts to local health departments to do the work. Mr.
Sanford pointed out that he would need to hire a one-half time environmental
health specialist and a part-time clerk. He had a high level of confidence
that the revenue will offset the expenses, or might even possibly exceed
them. Mr. Sanford reported there was the option of declining this opportunity
and allow the state to make the inspections, but staff thought local inspectors
would probably be more responsive to area day care centers than somebody
from out of town would be.
B327-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B328-97 Variance
to the subdivision regulations regarding the requirement for sidewalk
construction
- Dwight Bingham Subdivision.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
property is located in the Mikel and Jackson Streets area where Habitat for
Humanity is building two homes. He noted that the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation was for denial of the request.
Elda Kurzejeski, 4651 S.
Scott Boulevard, spoke on behalf of Show Me Central Habitat for Humanity. She
explained the three reasons for their request for a variance included the
$3,000 expense that would be incurred for the sidewalks; there are no other
sidewalks in the area; and lastly, Habitat had recently been informed by
a plumber that if the area for the sidewalks is shaved down to street level,
there would only be 16 to 18 inches of soil covering some very old, delicate
lines. In addition, these water lines would not be below the frost
line if the sidewalks are constructed. Ms. Kurzejeski said they had
not been aware of the water line situation until after the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting.
Mr. Campbell asked if Habitat's
policy was to sell these homes to people with children. Ms. Kurzejeski
said that was not their policy -- there were three criteria evaluated to
determine eligibility. She said of the two families that will be living
in these two homes one has no children, and the other family has a child
who is approximately 14 years old.
Mrs. Crockett asked if Habitat
has ever built homes in which sidewalks had to be constructed. Ms.
Kurzejeski said they have not. She said most of the sites already had
sidewalks, and she thought a sidewalk variance had been received on Aztec.
Mayor Hindman said he was
convinced that sidewalks in the area would be a good thing because of safety
issues. Although there were no sidewalks on Mikel, he said this would
result in getting the process started. If sidewalks are not constructed,
the next person that comes along could use the same excuse. He did
not see anything excessive about the price. Mayor Hindman asked if
staff could comment on the sewer lines.
Mr. Hancock said tonight
was the first time he had heard about the water line's proximity to the surface. Mayor
Hindman asked if that could be taken into consideration at the time of construction,
and wondered whether there was a rule that requires that sidewalks be reduced
to street level. Mr. Patterson said sidewalks do not have to be exactly
at the top of the curb or at street level; however, he said care would have
to be taken to prevent excessive sloping that might become dangerous. He
said that would be part of the design for the planning of the sidewalk. Mr.
Patterson stated it appears that the Water and Light Department is familiar
with the location.
Mr. Campbell asked about
the width of the streets in the area. Mr. Patterson said he was not
sure about the widths, but knew there were 50 foot right-of-ways. Mr.
Campbell said it appeared there was not the normal street allowance, which
he felt made it more important for a sidewalk network in the area.
Mr. Kruse wondered because
this is a CDBG eligible area, whether 100% of the cost of the sidewalks would
be paid for with CDBG money. Mr. Patterson said when sidewalks are
being replaced, they are paid for with CDBG funding. But in this case,
the policy would apply that if sidewalks are part of the development requirement
or part of the platting process, it is the property owner's responsibility
to install them unless the area is targeted on the Master Sidewalk Plan as
a priority sidewalk. Mr. Kruse asked if it was on the Master Plan. Mr.
Janku responded that it was a priority B.
Mr. Janku said the phone
and power poles are on the side the sidewalks are required. He said
it would probably be cheaper to put the sidewalks on the other side of the
street.
Mr. Campbell said one of
his classes had worked on a Habitat house on Saturday morning, and he had
gone out to the site as well. He said there were a lot of neighborhood
children out in the streets. He felt there was a need for sidewalks
in the area.
Mr. Janku said in the future
when the Council grants funding to Habitat for Humanity, perhaps the cost
of the sidewalks should be included in the grant amount. Mayor Hindman
pointed out that Habitat for Humanity received a $50,000 grant this year. Mr.
Janku said it was requested for other uses, but perhaps the agreement could
be amended.
Ms. Coble said she would
be more inclined to go for a variance at this time when there are no other
sidewalks in the neighborhood. She said there have always been a lot
of kids in the area, and there will continue to be a lot of kids. She
was concerned about what it would mean to the households should resident's
water lines be affected. Ms. Coble did not think it was worth it to
have water lines affected in order to have sidewalks in front of two homes
that do not connect anywhere. She did not think sidewalks would fix
the problems created by a very awkward intersection. Mayor Hindman
agreed that the sidewalks would not fix the street situation in and of itself.
B328-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: KRUSE, COFFMAN,
COBLE. VOTING NO: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HINDMAN, JANKU. Bill
defeated.
B330-97 Final
plat of Forum Chapel Plaza, a major subdivision.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
13.89 acre tract of land on the southwest corner of Forum Boulevard and Chapel
Hill would create ten lots with a combination of O-P and C-P zoning. He
pointed out that this plat had not required Planning and Zoning Commission
review, but had been reviewed by the staff and was considered to be in conformance
with the preliminary plat and the Council's conditions.
Mr. Campbell noted that this
was the formalization of an agreement that had been worked out several months
ago with the neighborhood and the developer.
B330-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B331-97 Replat
of Lot B of Taylor's Subdivision.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
replat would create three R-1 lots. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended denial regarding the request for a sidewalk variance on Lindell.
Charles Tomka, 716 W. Broadway,
owner of the property, noted that the area was designated as a "none planned" area
for sidewalks. He said if a variance is not granted, again a sidewalk
would be created that goes nowhere. In addition, some trees and brush
will have to be removed to accommodate a sidewalk. Mr. Tomka said the
expense of the sidewalk was not as big an issue as the aesthetics. He
said it was a beautiful area and a sidewalk would be a detriment.
Mr. Campbell noted that the
proposal was for two 8,000 square foot lots. He said that was just
barely above the minimum and asked what the average lot sizes were in the
area. Mr. Tomka said some of the lots are barely the 7,000 square foot
minimum. He said the two lots are over one-third of an acre. The
lots on Lindell are smaller than what he is proposing. Mr. Tomka said
the configuration was a little odd, but he was trying to save trees. Mr.
Campbell asked whether he could put in just one lot. Mr. Tomka said
he could, and he had given some thought to that. Mr. Campbell said
it would fit into the neighborhood better. Mr. Tomka agreed, but said
some people are looking for less yard to maintain.
Mr. Campbell said this was
one of the older homes along Broadway, and breaking the lot down into smaller
areas was probably something that would affect the historical nature of the
neighborhood. He said there had been several discussions about trying
to maintain the relatively large lots along Broadway and, before he was on
the Council, he knew there were several attempts to subdivide the lots along
the north side. He said changes were made in the ordinance to preserve
the large lots and to maintain the historical context of those houses. Mr.
Campbell explained that this particular lot opens up to the back, and is
the only one along this particular street with that access. If the
replat had been for one lot and maintained a larger portion of the other
lot, Mr. Campbell guessed he would have been supportive of the request. But
in the present context, he could not. Mr. Campbell indicated he could
not support the variance either.
Mrs. Crockett asked if the
Council would be voting on the replat or the sidewalk variance. Mr.
Boeckmann said in drafting the ordinance, he had followed the recommendation
of the Commission and did not include the language regarding the variance. This
language will have to be added if the Council approves the variance.
Mr. Kruse asked if the house
on Broadway would remain as is. Mr. Tomka said that was his home and
it would remain. He said for the last several years, the church has
been trying to buy the property in the rear to put a parking lot in. He
thought a black top parking lot would be objectionable to the neighbors.
Mr. Janku asked Mr. Tomka
how he was going to market the lots. Mr. Tomka said he was dealing
with a contractor who would like to build two homes. There had also
been discussions about the contractor putting his personal home on the property
and having it as only one lot.
Mr. Campbell did not think
there were any restrictions at the present time as to the kind of home which
could be built at this location. Mr. Tomka said that was correct. Mr.
Campbell's point was that any type of home could be built that might not
be in character with the neighborhood. Mr. Tomka assumed a person who
would want to live in the area would not build anything out of character.
Mr. Kruse asked if lot number
one would be accessed off of Broadway. Mr. Tomka said that was correct. He
said there is a main driveway coming into the front of his house. Behind
the house is a large parking circle.
Mr. Campbell said he would
be much more supportive of the replat if Mr. Tomka would come back with one
lot, and with some guarantees that it would fit within the neighborhood. Mr.
Tomka said he would have no problem with it being approved on that basis. He
said his reasoning for two lots had been the thought that it would be more
in character with the neighborhood. He said value-wise, it made no
difference to him.
Mrs. Crockett asked if something
would have to be approved by the Council in order to put a parking lot in
the back. Mr. Patterson said a parking lot for the church would be
an off-site parking lot, and that requires Council approval because the property
would have to be combined.
Mayor Hindman said if the
Council approved this replat as two lots and the contractor wanted to put
his house in the middle, another replat would be required. Mr. Tomka
said the contractor had indicated if the property could be replatted for two
lots, he would build two homes; however, if it was only going to be one lot,
the contractor would buy the property and put his personal home on it.
Mr. Campbell said he would
be happy to sit down with Mr. Tomka and work on the replat. Mr. Tomka
said he had no objection. Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Boeckmann if this
request were to come back as one lot, whether it would have to go back to
the Planning and Zoning Commission before being taken care of at the Council
level. Mr. Boeckmann said the Council could do it.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that the Council table B331-97. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku
and approved unanimously by voice vote.
B334-97 Amending
Chapter 13 of the City Code to occupations licenses; eliminating requirement
for
the issuance of a license insignia.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said this would
eliminate the stickers that are now displayed in windows of businesses that
are licensed. He said the Finance Director was present to answer any
questions.
Lori Fleming said her staff
had surveyed other cities and it was felt this would help the Business License
Office operate more efficiently. She said the current policy has been
a duplication of effort. The businesses will still be required to display
their license in a prominent place.
B334-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B337-97 Amending
Chapter 24 regarding defining management of trees within the City.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained
that the Council had requested that the staff find out what was needed to
be eligible for a Tree City USA designation. One item lacking was an
ordinance specifying certain issues that are not currently contained in the
City's ordinances. He said the Parks and Recreation Department and
Public Works Department have been working together with the Missouri Department
of Conservation to obtain the Tree City USA designation for the City.
Mr. Janku noted that becoming
a Tree City USA meant the City could receive larger amounts of grant funds
from the Department of Conservation. He said some of their programs
provides a bonus to cities that meet that standard.
B337-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
CONSENT AGENDA
The following bills were
given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.
B332-97 Final
plat of Ewing Industrial Park, a minor subdivision.
B333-97 Accepting
conveyances from Hulett, Ferellgas, JJS Partnership, Jeffrey E. Smith
Partnership,
and Godas Development.
B335-97 Authorizing
right of use permit which allows the University to install chilled water
lines
underneath
Rollins Road.
R187-97 Authorizing
City Manager to apply for grants from the Missouri Arts Council and the
Heartland
Arts Fund.
R188-97 Setting
public hearing on skateboard park.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
NEW BUSINESS
R189-97 Approving
preliminary plat of Smithton Ridge, a major subdivision, and granting
variances
to subdivision regulations.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
29 acre tract of land is located in west central Columbia and the plat will
create 66 R-1 lots. The staff had recommended that the plat be denied
based on several items listed in the report; however, the Planning and Zoning
Commission had recommended approval on a 7-3 vote, subject to one street
being renamed.
Mr. Hancock explained that
the staff's main concern was the three lots in the corner with proposed driveway
access to Strawn Road. He noted that the subdivision regulations prohibit
direct driveway access onto collectors and arterials. He said staff
suggested that Deer Berry be extended to connect with Strawn Road to eliminate
the possibility of direct driveway connections. He said it would also
provide more circulation. Another possible solution suggested at the
Commission meeting was to extend the cul-de-sac a bit and have double frontage
lots. Another option was establishing one driveway serving three lots. He
believed the proponents had no problem with changing Deer Berry's street
name to meet the needs of the Joint Communications Office.
Mr. Beck noted that a letter
had been received from the attorney representing the developer, which responded
to several issues discussed at the Commission meeting.
Bruce Beckett, an attorney
with offices at 901 E. Broadway, spoke on behalf of Scott Atkins. He
said Scott and his family have lived on the property for 20 years, and his
parents still reside there. Mr. Beckett said the primary interest in
requesting the variance for the three lots along Strawn Road served a singular
purpose -- to preserve tree cover on the northwest corner of the site. He
said if Deer Berry is extended any further than where it is shown on the
plat -- whether it ends in a cul-de-sac a little further to the west to serve
the three lots from the east, or travels all the way to Strawn Road -- it
would take out a substantial amount of tree cover in the area. In addition,
it is not just the roadbed itself that would have to be excavated. The
terrain is hilly and the street would be going down a ravine requiring substantial
cut and fill on both sides of the road, as well as grading along the lots
that would be served by the road.
Mr. Beckett reported when
West Broadway was constructed, it took out about six or seven acres of trees
along the front south end of this property. He said if Deer Berry were
extended through to Strawn Road, it would actually increase the development
by approximately four lots, and the applicant would probably make a little
more money than with the present configuration. He pointed out that
at the Commission meeting, Mr. Atkins agreed to, and the Planning and Zoning
Commission approved, a variance to allow driveway access for the three lots
on Strawn Road through one common driveway entrance serving the lots. The
configuration for the single driveway to serve the three lots had been shown
in the letter sent to the Council.
Mr. Beckett said he could
not emphasize enough the applicant's position, and the belief that the subdivision
regulations encourage exactly what is requested for this development. He
read from Section 25-39 regarding the preservation of trees when designing
subdivisions containing any such features. He also read about the arrangement
of streets from Section 25-42 (2) (a). He said Mr. Atkins felt the
original preliminary plat was a far more desirable layout than the alternate
configuration which had been attached to the letter sent to the Council. He
said it was better looking and it contained a lot better features. He
said Mr. Atkins' development could not access Broadway because it is a major
street. Mr. Beckett said a preliminary plat had been submitted some
time ago that had been rejected because of the major access onto Broadway. Now
Strawn Road had been made a major street by not allowing driveway access
onto it. He thought both streets could be classified as major streets,
and the exception to the block distance requirements in the subdivision regulations
applies. Mr. Beckett said it was very important for Mr. Atkins to have
his plat approved and, if the Council was not inclined to grant the variance
requested for the driveway entrance onto Strawn, they would ask that the
plat be approved conditionally by allowing Deer Berry to connect to Strawn.
Mr. Janku asked about the
property to the north. Mr. Beckett said one property was owned by the
Silvey family and the other was owned by Mr. Soren. He said there was
a deep ravine just to the north of this property line and that was why the
stub street was moved back to the east.
Mayor Hindman said the question
was where would the next east/west through street be if the Council allowed
the cul-de-sac. Mr. Beckett said the next street, that he is aware
of, would be Worley. He said there is quite a bit of distance between
the northern boundary of this property and Worley Street. He suggested
that perhaps one of the engineers from Allstate could comment better on that.
Jay Gebhardt, an engineer
with Allstate Consultants, said the Soren property was directly north and
to the west of this site. This is a relatively open field -- what he
would call a valley. He said the ridge where the cul-de-sac is located
continues northward down and goes into a subdivision (Green Valley), and
extends back up. There is a little barn and a pond contained on the
property. Mr. Gebhardt reported there is no tree cover and it is an
ideal spot for a street to come down to Silvey Lane.
Mr. Campbell asked if the
staff had made any indication on the Master Plan as to where the next street
should be located in this area. Mr. Patterson said the only thing currently
on the plan was the possible extension of Worley. He said the City
did not have the local streets designated. Mr. Patterson reported it
had been thought that Deer Berry would be an appropriate location for a parallel
street to Broadway to allow for interconnection between neighborhoods.
Mr. Gebhardt pointed out
that a road could be built in either place, but said the Soren property would
be an easier location to build a street. Mr. Janku inquired about the
development of that property. Mr. Gebhardt replied there is not a home
on the property, but there is a small barn. He said the land is basically
a pasture. Mr. Gebhardt noted that Mr. Atkins is asking for one entrance
onto Strawn to serve three lots, and if the street was extended to Strawn,
there would be one entrance. In essence, a private driveway entrance
is being requested, instead of a public street entrance, to serve just the
three lots rather than the whole subdivision. Mr. Gebhardt stated with
this configuration, cars would be pulling out rather than backing onto the
street.
Mayor Hindman asked about
Shadow Brook Lane. Mr. Gebhardt explained that it was platted, but
not developed. He said there was one owner with a family living in
the existing house. He said there had been plans to build another house,
but it never materialized because there is no City water and this person
did not want to carry the burden of bringing a water line to the site. Referring
to the Soren property, Mayor Hindman asked if there would be room to plat
lots on either side of a street. Mr. Gebhardt said there would be room.
Mr. Janku said some sort
of stub street into the property to the north might allow future development
to take the traffic out to Strawn Road, as opposed to extending a street
directly to Strawn. He guessed it would have to be somewhere to the
west of the cul-de-sac area. Mr. Gebhardt said he placed the stub where
he did for two reasons: Because of the topography, and to position
the stub street in such a way so that it would parallel Silvey to allow the
houses to be backed up. He thought the stub would act as an outer road
for Silvey to bring traffic northward to enable residents to travel east
or west on a future street to get to Strawn or Silvey. Mr. Janku said
that was not a problem, it was whether or not there needed to be one stub
further west that would allow people to get out to Strawn going through the
Soren property -- if it eventually develops into a residential area. Mr.
Gebhardt said the terrain is awfully steep through this area, but he thought
that would be preferable than to extend the street to Strawn.
Mrs. Crockett asked if Strawn
was a City street. Mr. Beck replied that it is a state road. Mrs.
Crockett said she was aware that it flooded from time to time. Mr.
Beck said it floods north of this location.
Mr. Janku asked if the option
of going north into the adjoining property was something that would be at
all feasible or practical given the topography. Mr. Patterson thought
the comments made about the terrain to the north had some validity. He
felt it would be desirable to move the stub further west, but it does start
encroaching on some pretty severe topography. He said what staff hoped
to see was for the road to start coming back to the west up on the point. He
assumed Mr. Janku was referring to Paw Paw Way. Mr. Janku said he was
talking about where the cul-de-sac ends. He thought it seemed to be
relatively flat. Mr. Patterson said if Mr. Janku was asking about stubbing
the area around Lot 42 to the north, a stub could be created to the north,
but did not know whether the road could go directly north very far. He
thought it looked like it could come back to the west of Strawn Road.
Mr. Kruse asked if Deer Berry
were to come through to Strawn, whether that would eliminate some of the
lots. Mr. Beckett said it would result in about four additional lots. He
said money-wise, the Atkins would come out about the same; however,
a lot of trees would be lost. Mr. Kruse asked what would happen if
the street was extended, but by doing so, the number of lots were not increased. Mr.
Beckett said if the street extends to Strawn Road, it would be going down
into a ravine. He said not only would the street have to be graded,
but so would the lots to bring them to the grade of the street. Mr.
Beckett explained the impact was far greater than just the street right-of-way
itself.
Mr. Campbell said he understood
what Mr. Beckett was saying, but most of the lots appeared to be about 12,000
square feet. Based on that footage, Mr. Campbell thought by the time
driveways and houses are constructed, most of the trees would be taken out
anyway. He asked if that was a fair statement. Mr. Beckett said
he did not think it would be fair to say this would occur if the Council
allowed the subdivision to be built as presented tonight because there are
very large lots situated at the end of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Campbell
said that was true, but trees would still have to be taken out on the other
lots. Mr. Gebhardt replied the goal is to leave as many trees as possible
on the lots. He said some trees would have to be cut down to build
the houses, but many trees would remain.
Mayor Hindman said as it
is not known when a second exit will be provided, this plat could establish
a subdivision with one exit for the time being. On the other hand,
he thought there was a lot to be said for what it is the applicant is wanting
to do.
Mr. Beckett pointed out that
the ordinances specifically allow 100 lots to be served by one entrance.
At some point, Mr. Janku
said there would be a connection to Strawn Road. He thought it would
be unfair for another subdivision that may develop to the north to bear the
burden of this subdivision's traffic. He said if the traffic has to
travel all the way through to another subdivision, some design should be
in place to discourage this. Mr. Janku stated if there was some way
to stub the subdivision to the northwest, that might alleviate some of the
concern.
Regarding Lot 42, the last
lot on the north side, Mr. Campbell concluded it would be relatively flat
with a ten foot drop between the front and back of the lot. Mr. Gebhardt
said construction of stub would be relatively inexpensive at this site, but
a burden would be placed on the next owner because of the steep topography. Mr.
Gebhardt wanted the Council to understand a stub could certainly be established
at this location, but it would create a burden to the owner of that lot.
Mr. Campbell asked what was
necessary if the Council chose the option of having one private drive serving
the three lots. Mr. Boeckmann said the Council could amend the resolution
by adding the statement provided that access shall be by one private driveway.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
to amend R189-97 by adding language at the end of Section 4 as follows: provided
that access shall be by one private driveway. The motion was seconded
by Ms. Coble.
Mr. Janku felt there still
needed to be some type of access to Strawn Road. He felt some sort
of long-term connection is necessary. Mr. Janku thought where the access
is currently located, it is so far to the east that it seems to be not very
effective.
Mr. Campbell said the photographs
were very clear and if a stub was constructed at this location, a large number
of trees would have to be cut down. He said this is a choice the Council
has to make -- either a large number of trees will be cut down, or allowing
one private drive for three lots plus a cul-de-sac.
Mayor Hindman asked if the
topography was too steep to go west from Daylily or Damson. Mr. Gebhardt
said it was much more severe at the two southern ridges. He said the
staff was correct in that if any street is extended, it would have to be
Deer Berry. He reminded the Council that the street referred to as
Deer Berry will be renamed per the request of Joint Communications.
Ms. Coble said if Deer Berry
was extended through to Strawn Road, this would have more of an environmental
impact in terms of changing the existing landscape. She said it seemed
if the Council permitted the single drive access for the three lots, along
with what has been planned for the Paw Paw stub to the north, it would also
allow for some other options in the future. Ms. Coble said she would
be willing to go with the present design if the terrain is too steep to the
west.
The motion to amend, made
by Mr. Campbell, seconded by Ms. Coble, was approved by voice vote.
Mr. Janku asked if the driveway
would meet all standards. Mr. Gebhardt said they would go on record
indicating all of the requirements will be met for a driveway on a stem street,
which is 18 feet in width and six inches thick. In addition, addresses
will be posted out by the street.
Mr. Hancock asked if they
would also agree to obtain the necessary appropriate easements. Mr.
Gebhardt said particular attention would be given in providing proper ingress
and egress easements for the drive so as to alleviate any confusion to future
homeowners.
Mr. Kruse asked about pedestrian
access from the cul-de-sacs to Strawn Road. Mr. Gebhardt said there
are pedestrian accesses from the cul-de-sacs to Strawn Road. He said
these are in the form of private pedestrian accesses. All pedestrian
accesses will be identified on the final plat.
The vote on R189-97, as amended,
was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:
R190-97 Expressing
opposition to HR 1534, the proposed Private Property Rights Implementation
Act
of 1997.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said it was felt
the City should oppose this particular federal legislation. He said
if the Council adopts the resolution, it will formalize their opposition
to HR 1534. Copies of the resolution will be forwarded to the City's
Congressmen. It is felt that HR 1534 would encourage landowners to
bring legal actions in federal court against local government, before a complete
record of appropriate land use is established. Currently, any legal
action goes through state court if it cannot be worked out locally.
Mr. Boeckmann explained that
the federal legislation would eliminate a lot of current procedural road
blocks to getting into federal court. At the present time before one
can file a law suit in federal court, it has be to be shown that the applicant
has gone through all of the local channels, and the local government has
been given the opportunity to have a full review of the situation before
a law suit is filed in federal court. He said it also dealt with the
concept of abstention. In certain circumstances, federal courts will
refuse to hear a case, even if they have jurisdiction, when they feel it
is more appropriate for the state courts to deal with the state law issues
first. He said this would limit the ability of federal courts to abstain
in certain land use cases.
Mr. Campbell asked if the
federal courts were normally more lenient. Mr. Boeckmann said it would
depend on the jurisdiction and on the particular judge who tries the case. For
the most part, he thought the City would be better off having land uses decided
at the local level to the greatest extent possible. It is not only
a question of being in federal court as opposed to state court, but a question
of allowing the issues to be fully developed at the City government level
before it gets into the court system. Mr. Boeckmann said an individual
could submit a request to rezone their property from A-1 to C-1, and the
Council could think that was an inappropriate land use and deny it. Under
this proposed legislation, the applicant could proceed to federal court.
Mr. Beck said this could
be very costly and the City could potentially be in court more often.
Mr. Boeckmann said it would
be expensive for developers to rush into court also. He did think it
would lead to more litigation.
The vote on R190-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN,
COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted,
reading as follows:
R191-97 Authorizing
addition of a Market Based Rate Power Sales Tariff to the Union Electric
Interconnection
Agreement.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that approval
of this agreement is being recommended by staff and by the Water and Light
Advisory Board. He said staff did not feel the proposed changes would
affect the price or conditions of current transactions with Union Electric. Mr.
Beck reported the agreement would satisfy federal regulations.
The vote on R191-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HINDMAN, COBLE,
JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSTAINING: COFFMAN. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:
R192-97 Authorizing
an agreement with the American Audio Prose Library.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
cultural affairs agreement had been inadvertently omitted at the last meeting.
The vote on R192-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN,
COBLE, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted,
reading as follows:
The following bills were introduced by the Mayor, unless otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:
B338-97 Authorizing
agreement with MO Department of Public Safety to provide materials
and
instruction
for a Columbia Police Youth Academy.
B339-97 Authorizing
agreement with the Columbia School District for use of a portion of the City's
fiber
optic cable system.
B340-97 Accepting
bid of Slates Construction and confirming the contract for construction of
Cell
No.
2 at Columbia's landfill.
B341-97 Accepting
conveyances for sanitary sewer, utility, street and drainage purposes.
B342-97 Voluntary
annexation of property located east of Rock Quarry and south of Nifong
Boulevard;
establishing permanent PUD-8 zoning, rezoning property located on ease side
of
Rock Quarry, and approval of PUD Development Plan for Cambridge Place.
B343-97 Voluntary
annexation of property owned by Central MO Sheltered Enterprises, Inc.,
located
east of Bearfield Road and south of Nifong Boulevard and establishing permanent
zoning.
B344-97 Approving
final plat of Heritage Meadows, Plat 3, a major subdivision.
B345-97 Rezoning
property owned by McAlester located on the west side of south Fifth Street,
between
East Broadway and Cherry Street from M-1 to C-2.
B346-97 Rezoning
property owned by Godas Development, Inc. located on the east side of
Ballenger
Lane, north of Clark Lane from R-1 to C-P.
B347-97 Amending
the Major Thoroughfare Plan to extend Vandiver Drive across from US Hwy.
63
between
I-70 and the Mexico Gravel Road Bridge and provide direct access to US Hwy.
63
from
Vandiver Dr.
B348-97 Amending
Chapter 29 of the Code of Ordinances to establish new regulations for
communications
antennas and towers.
B349-97 Amending
the FY 1998 Pay Plan to reclassify one Printer I position to Printer II,
reclassify
Assistant
Public Communications Officer to Public Communications Assistant.
B350-97 Declaring
the necessity to proceed with land acquisition for recreational trail along
Bear
Creek.
B351-97 Authorizing
the City Manager to execute a contract for sale of Jenkins' property relating
to
pedestrian
access at Stadium Boulevard and Westwinds Drive.
B352-97 Amending
Chapter 15 of the Code of Ordinances as it relates to warrants.
B353-97 Authorizing
city staff to secure an unsafe structure located at 601 Jackson Street.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Emergency Interpreter
Services.
Mr. Beck said staff felt
there was no identifiable situation that pressed the need for interpreter
services at this time.
Mr. Campbell asked if the
hospitals routinely maintain this kind of service in their emergency rooms. Mr.
Sanford did not know the answer to that question.
Ms. Coble said there were
concerns from some consumers that even though there may be those on City
staff who have the ability to do some limited interpreting or signing during
a crisis situation, these individuals generally are not certified. She
said the concern was that formal training is necessary in terms of obtaining
certification, and that is of great importance to those who utilize interpreter
services. Ms. Coble reported it is important to know that someone has
a certain code of ethical standards and have obtained a certain level of
training. This was the comment that had been forwarded to her. Ms.
Coble said the cost would not be that significant given that there are some
emergency responders already capable, there would just need to be some extra
incentive to obtain certification. She said that makes a big difference
to those in the deaf community. Ms. Coble proposed that the City Manager
consult staff members to determine if there are individuals at JCIC, the
Police Department, and the Fire Department who might be willing to go through
a certification process.
Mr. Beck said on some occasions
it is difficult to get interpreters scheduled for meetings. He said
it might be a good idea from that standpoint as well.
(B) Snow Removal
on Sidewalks.
Mr. Beck said during the
winter months last year, people had contacted the City with regard to the
establishment of some type of snow removal operations. He said the
Council had asked for a report at that time. Mr. Beck said the Public
Works Department prepared a report after surveying other cities. The
staff recommendation is that efforts be increased to achieve voluntary compliance,
and to develop a volunteer program to assist those persons unable to remove
snow from their sidewalk. Mr. Beck would also like to have a list maintained
of potential contractors who would be willing to provide that service to
area residents.
Ms. Coble asked if the list
would be in addition to establishing some type of volunteer system. Mr.
Beck said that was his thinking -- that this proposal be added to the suggested
Council action.
Mayor Hindman thought it
might be helpful to look into the pattern instituted in Boulder, Colorado.
Mr. Campbell suggested that
reminder notices might also be helpful. He said there are a row of
fraternity houses along Stewart Road that do not do a very good job of keeping
walks cleaned.
Mr. Coffman made the motion
that staff be directed to increase the efforts to achieve voluntary compliance,
and to develop volunteer programs to include possibly a listing of people
who could provide snow removal services. The motion was seconded by
Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(C) All-Way Warrant
Study - Oakland Gravel and Smiley Lane/Springdale Drive.
Mr. Janku said he appreciated
the staff's efforts, even though an all-way stop is not warranted at this
point. He thought it would be required in the future.
(D) Tree Trimming
Policy for Utilities in Kansas City Area.
Mr. Malon said Kansas City's
tree trimming policy is very similar to Columbia's. He said the staff
had been following through with all of the requirements for the Tree Line
USA award, and had filed all of the activities, including the City's specifications. DNR
had accepted the City's application, and Mr. Malon said it appeared Columbia
would be receiving that award.
(E) Assistance League's
Request to Use Downtown Parking Spaces.
Mr. Beck explained that the
initial request had been to place the playhouse fund raiser on Broadway. He
said staff spoke with the Central Columbia Association and the adjacent property
owner about the request. He said the suggestion had been to authorize
the placement of the playhouse on Eighth Street, rather than on Broadway,
for this particular event. Mr. Beck said the staff saw no problem with
this suggestion.
Mayor Hindman made the motion
that the request be granted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and
approved unanimously by voice vote.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
None.
COMMENTS OF THE COUNCIL, STAFF, AND PUBLIC
Mr. Janku commented that
he had received a call about debris near the intersection of Providence and
the south side of I-70. He asked that the situation be taken care of.
Mr. Janku noted that earlier
this evening the Council had heard a great deal of discussion regarding street
access from Valley View Subdivision. In previous conversations with
Mr. Beck, Mr. Janku suggested staff look into the Primrose exit/entrance
for alternatives at this location. As the Council moves forward with
the budget for upcoming years, more thought should be given to the southern
extension where there is one piece of property remaining and will undergo
possible development at some point. He thought rather than waiting
for that to happen, the City should examine what could be done to improve
the access. If quality access is not established at I-70 Drive, it
could have a major impact on the development at this location.
Mr. Janku made the motion
that the staff be directed to look at the intersection to see what could
be done to improve the exit from Primrose onto Stadium heading south. He
said that seemed to be the primary concern in this area. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku asked for a staff
report on the accidents at Stadium and I-70 Drive Southeast. This is
the location where traffic from Cosmo Park comes out.
Mrs. Crockett asked about
the time frame for trash out early. Mr. Patterson said the policy had
been changed from 6:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on the evening before trash pick-up. He
said it had been changed a few years ago so that residents could get their
trash out before dark. Mrs. Crockett said she travels Oakland Road
frequently, and it seemed as though there are black trash bags out all of
the time.
Mr. Campbell said he had
made a motion at the last meeting directing the staff and the Planning and
Zoning Commission to consider reviewing the Planning and Zoning ordinances,
as it had been 15 years since this last occurred. He had recently found
out that the County Commission will also be reviewing their ordinances. He
asked if there was some way this could be made a joint activity, which would
encourage the joint planning that has been quite frequently discussed. Mr.
Campbell asked what could be done to facilitate and coordinate the joint
review of Planning and Zoning ordinances. Mayor Hindman said the Council
would need to talk to the County Commission about it. Mr. Campbell
said the Commission has plans to travel to all of the townships, and the
County thought it would be beneficial to work on the revisions with the City
before holding their public hearings.
Mr. Campbell noted that the
Council had received a letter from Mr. Beck regarding the appearance of the
lobby in the Daniel Boone Building. He noted that the County had successfully
used art as a way of lightening up their lobby. He suggested that the
City do the same thing. Mr. Beck said he had spoken with some people
about bringing in artwork. The question is just how the Council wanted
the lobby to look. Mr. Beck stated art could be part of it. Mr.
Campbell said one of the things that keeps the County's display interesting
is that the art is constantly rotated, which adds freshness to the displays.
Mr. Campbell commented that
some time ago the Council had discussions about restricting parking on Fairview,
from Broadway south. He asked for a staff report regarding the establishment
of no parking, probably on the west side of the street from Broadway to Highland,
but would like the staff to comment on how far it should extend.
Referring to the tree trimming
report, Mr. Coffman said he had received many complaints regarding the way
this is handled, and knew the issue had been discussed on numerous occasions
in the past. Mr. Coffman said he was very aware of the dilemma between
the cost associated with frequent trimming, and how this determines how much
trimming has to occur. He asked if the Council had ever discussed the
manner in which people are notified. He felt that part of the frustration
and anguish about having trees trimmed is that people are not aware it is
to occur until the crew begins cutting. Mr. Malon said the City actually
does attempt to contact people in advance. He said door hangers are
posted several days before crews are scheduled to trim in the area. When
possible, staff attempts to speak directly with the homeowners before the
trimming process. Mr. Malon said it becomes difficult because there
are many, many instances where nobody is home during the day. Mrs.
Crockett noted that often the trees are on easements. Mayor Hindman
noted that there is an economic and aesthetic trade-off where overhead lines
are placed. He said if the trimming techniques are ever changed, it
would increase the cost. He said if it was decided that overhead lines
should be buried, it would increase the cost. Mayor Hindman said everyone
demands good electrical service, and that would be required no matter what
the Council decided to do. He thought there might be a solution in
the situations where overhead lines run down both sides of the street. In
these cases, the lines possibly could be combined.
Mayor Hindman noted that
the Walkable Communities program would be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, December 11th. The Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinator from the
state of Florida would be present to discuss what could be done to make Columbia
a safer, more pedestrian friendly city. Mayor Hindman urged parents,
school officials, builders, and other interested persons to come to the program.
The meeting adjourned at
10:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Penny
St. Romaine
City
Clerk
© 2024 City of Columbia