INTRODUCTORY
The City Council of the City
of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday,
January 5, 1998, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The
roll was taken with the following results: Council Members KRUSE, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, and CAMPBELL were present. The City
Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Departments Heads were also
present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular
meeting of December 15, 1997, were approved unanimously by voice vote on
a motion made by Mr. Janku and a second by Mr. Campbell.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Hindman noted that
R13-98 would be removed from New Business.
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 Mrs. Crockett.
SPECIAL ITEMS
None.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B348-97 Amending
Chapter 29 of the Code of Ordinances to establish new regulations for
communications
antennas and towers.
The bill was read by the
Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that an amendment
sheet had been prepared further clarifying definitions. The amendment
provided for landscaping around equipment regardless of the zoning district,
in addition to several changes relating to disguising support structures. Mr.
Beck further explained that the amendment would also allow for conditional
uses in O-P and C-P districts.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
to amend B348-97 per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku asked how this
ordinance would work in O-P and C-P districts. He asked specifically
about the towers. Mr. Hancock said if the Council wanted to include
towers as conditional uses in planned districts, a couple of things might
happen. He said, hopefully, towers would be constructed in an area
where there is already a plan approved by the Council. He said then
the applicant would need to apply for a conditional use permit from the Board
of Adjustment. Assuming this is approved, Mr. Hancock said it could
be treated like a minor revision to a plan and either be signed by the Planning
Director, or go on to the Planning and Zoning Commission if there is a need
for additional public input. Mr. Hancock reported if it involved an
area zoned C-P but there was no plan approved by the Council, he supposed
a plan would be required.
Mr. Janku asked if the public's
notice would be at the time of the conditional use application before the
Board of Adjustment. Mr. Hancock said he believed that was correct. He
reiterated that once a conditional use permit is approved by the Board of
Adjustment, it would then be forwarded to Planning for processing as a revision
to an approved plan and, depending upon the situation, this would either
be approved in the Planning office or it would be sent to the Council. Mr.
Janku said if this involved a disguised structure that was unobtrusive, it
conceivably would not have to come to the Council. Mr. Hancock and
Mr. Boeckmann agreed.
Mr. Kruse noted there was
nothing in the ordinance that would require coordination of the City's review
and approval of communication towers with the County Commission. He
suggested that when applications are received, that they be coordinated with
the County because of the opportunity of co-locations.
Mr. Boeckmann pointed out
that some of the factors the Board of Adjustment is to consider relates to
the location of other towers. He said this is not limited geographically
to within the City limits. Mr. Boeckmann said Mr. Kruse's comment was
well-taken, and that the staff would keep in mind the locations of the towers
in the County.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Janku said the Council
would still need to deal with the issue of when towers become obsolete. At
some point, staff will have to come up with a way of determining which towers
are not being used.
B348-97, as amended, was
read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: KRUSE, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B356-97 Amending
Chapter 25 of the City Code as it relates to plat submittal requirements
and
sidewalks.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
amendment outlines the number of plats that needs to be submitted to the
City staff, and the required paper size. He said the other portion
deals with sidewalks to be constructed along unimproved streets. He
noted that this issue had been discussed at least twice during public work
sessions, and had been reviewed again earlier this evening. Mr. Beck felt
staff had a good idea of what the Council is looking for. Rather than
trying to draft something on the spot, he said the Council had talked about
tabling this issue for more rewriting.
Mr. Beck said the way the
ordinance is currently written it would require the subdivider to either
build a permanent sidewalk, or deposit an equal amount for building that
sidewalk. It would be noted on the plat that the money had been deposited. He
said this way it would be noted that whomever bought the lot would no longer
be obligated to pay for a sidewalk along that particular street. Mr.
Beck said the amount of the deposit would be based on the City's previous
two year's cost experience on building sidewalks. Since the ordinance
had been drafted, Mr. Beck said the issue of through lots had come up. This
is a situation in which someone is required to pay for a sidewalk on an interior
street in a subdivision, and would still pay for a sidewalk along an unimproved
street. He said the City encourages lots not to face collector and
arterial streets with driveways. Mr. Beck said staff is looking at
something similar to what is done with streets where there is a through lot. In
those cases, the City allows a credit so that only a portion of the cost
is to be paid. Mr. Beck stated staff also wanted to look into how to
handle the temporary sidewalk situation.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Bill Crockett, an engineer
with offices at 1414 Rangeline, requested that all of the engineers/surveyors
and developers who deal directly with this issue have the opportunity to
look at the revisions. He said the original draft had concerned
him, and he could not understand parts of it. He thought tabling the
issue was the right thing to do.
Mr. Janku noted the Council
is struggling with the issue of temporary sidewalks and how to deal with
them. He said the goal is to have something in place to serve people
during the interim until permanent improvements could be made. He said
the problem of different grades is a real tough issue. Mr. Crockett
said it could be an extremely expensive problem if a sidewalk had to be built
twice.
Mr. Crockett suggested that
the intent be established first, and then build the ordinance around that
intent. He said if it is intended to build sidewalks along unimproved
streets, that is how the ordinance should read.
Mayor Hindman said it was
his personal view that one of the important intents to the ordinance is to
establish safe pedestrian situations along the unimproved roads when development
occurs. He said there are too many unsafe conditions that currently
exist.
Mr. Crockett said he thought
that is a good goal, but added that the way the ordinance is written presently,
it has an intent to build an escrow account for sidewalks anywhere in the
City of Columbia. He thought this should be further distinguished.
Steve Wendling, 3703 Watts,
a builder, supported the idea of tabling the issue in order to come up with
something more workable. His biggest concern was that the ordinance
be something simple. Because of the different grades, location of improvements,
and running utility lines, he did not see temporary walks being very likely
from a practical point of view.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that B356-97 be tabled to the February 2, 1998, meeting with the public hearing
being continued until then. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and
approved unanimously by voice vote.
B357-97 Amending
Chapter 29 of the City Code to clarify provisions relating to landscaping
requirements
for parking lots constructed in District C-2.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this
issue had been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission
on a 9-1 vote. He said the Council had requested this amendment to
assure uniform administration of landscaping parking lots to include downtown
parking lots. Mr. Beck reported this amendment targeted areas with
more than five parking spaces.
Mr. Janku asked about someone
wanting to establish a private parking area, not necessarily associated with
a building. Mr. Hancock explained that the ordinance established that
parking areas in loading and unloading areas in any zoning districts shall
be subject to the provisions contained in this section. To clarify,
he read buildings or additions to buildings that have parking associated
with them also have to conform. Mr. Janku asked if someone coming into
the downtown area would be subject to the same landscaping requirements as
the City would be subject to. Mr. Hancock said that was the way he
read it. Mr. Boeckmann asked if he was referring to existing lots. Mr.
Janku said no. He was referring to someone who might buy a piece
of property for the purposes of operating their own private parking lot,
not necessarily associated with a particular building. Mr. Boeckmann
said in this situation, the person would be subject to the ordinance.
Mayor Hindman said there
were some lots in the downtown area that are basically used as parking lots,
although it does not appear that is to be the permanent fate of the property. He
asked at what point should the landscaping requirements be met, and if this
ordinance addressed that situation. Mr. Boeckmann said it did not distinguish
between temporary and permanent uses. He said if someone starts using
a piece of property as a parking lot, then he thought this individual should
be obliged to meet the requirements.
Mr. Campbell said there were
a number of lots in the University area that have been converted into parking
lots. He understood these would be subject to the same landscaping
requirements as those located anywhere else. Mr. Boeckmann said if
it involves private property, it would be subject to the ordinance.
Regarding Section 29-25 and
how it is interpreted and enforced, Mr. Coffman brought up the issue of where
trees are required. He understood that a tree is required for every
4,500 square feet of parking space, not necessarily within each 4,500 square
feet of space. He asked if that was how it was being interpreted --
the trees could all be located on the outside of the parking lot. Mr.
Kruse said trees would not have to be "reasonably distributed". Mr.
Campbell said the Council had lengthy discussions regarding this subject.
Mr. Kruse said he recalled
the intent as being to have trees throughout a parking lot, and the number
would be equal to one for every 4,500 square feet of vehicular surface area
-- in addition to the trees on the perimeter near the right-of-way. He
said what usually happens is that most of the trees end up on the fringes
of the parking lot. Mr. Coffman said it seemed to defeat the purpose
when the trees are placed on the perimeter. He thought it could be
corrected easily. Mr. Coffman reported he had received numerous comments
about the new theatre, and people would like to see more trees in the parking
lot.
Mr. Janku said when this
issue was discussed earlier, developers had said they needed flexibility
(in terms of organizing the parking) regarding the landscaping of trees. He
said the thought had been if the Council arrived at a number of trees, the
developer could figure out how to allocate them.
Mayor Hindman suggested that
the staff look at the issue again. He asked Mr. Coffman to bring it
up under comments at the end of the meeting.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B357-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: KRUSE, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
OLD BUSINESS
B344-97 Approving
final plat of Heritage Meadows, Plat 3, a major subdivision.
The bill was read by the
Clerk.
Mayor Hindman explained that
this item had been tabled to the March meeting, but the owner had requested
that it be discussed again at this meeting.
Mr. Beck said this issue
had been tabled primarily because there had been a change between the preliminary
plat and the final plat, which related to stubbing a street rather than having
a cul-de-sac. He noted the applicant had not been available to answer
questions of the Council at the last meeting.
Roy Rogers, 1614 Whitburn,
the developer, explained that preliminary plats are submitted on pieces of
property far in advance of what actually happens. He said this happened
to be a 120 acre plat, with the preliminary plat having been submitted about
2 1/2 years ago. He said the saving of trees prompted the changes on
this final plat. Mr. Rogers explained the original plat that had been
displayed at the last meeting. He said the plat crossed the creek and
used more trees, whereas the new plat would use the creek as a natural area
and nothing would have to be done to it. He said when this issue had
been discussed at the last meeting, he was surprised to hear that there was
a problem with it because he assumed it was acceptable. Mr. Rogers
saw nothing wrong with the plat, and added that he had brought his engineer
along to answer any questions.
Mr. Campbell said that one
of the questions had been how all of the roads would fit together. Mr.
Rogers said estate lots containing one to two acres are planned for the 40
acres south of this plat. He said the development would have two entrances
and exits, and would have no need for extra signs. The construction
plan is for this spring. He displayed an overhead of the development.
Mayor Hindman asked about
a pedestrian connection between the two cul-de-sacs. Mr. Rogers said
there was none. He said if the homeowners on either one of the cul-de-sacs
requested the developer to put a connection between them, he would do that. Mayor
Hindman said he did not think that was likely. Mr. Rogers said there
was no public easement for one. Mayor Hindman said it would create
circulation within the neighborhood which would be very good.
Mr. Campbell said he did
not think there were any destinations people would be looking for in this
situation.
Mr. Janku said it was very
helpful to see the other plat. Mr. Campbell agreed and said Mr. Crockett's
overall rendering had been very helpful. He encouraged, whenever possible,
that these plats be submitted so the Council can see how the bits and pieces
fit together.
B344-97 was read with the
vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE,
JANKU, CAMPBELL. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSTAINING: CROCKETT. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B358-97 Authorizing
amendatory agreement #2 to the Associated Electric interchange agreement.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that the Water
and Light Advisory Board and the staff recommended approval of this ordinance. He
said the agreement would trade power equipment between Associated Electric
and the City so there is no duplication of lines.
Mr. Campbell asked why the
City is dealing with this group rather than Union Electric. Mr. Malon
explained that the City's interchange agreement is with Associated Electric
Co-op. He said that is where all of the power exchanges are handled
-- no matter who the arrangement is for, it is arranged through Associated.
B358-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: KRUSE, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B359-97 Appropriating
funds for water main project across I-70.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Malon said a question
had come up regarding the amount appropriated. He said the actual bids
taken were for the construction. He said he had given the Council an
outline of the actual cost estimate for this particular project. Two
of the three bids for the project are within the appropriation. Mr.
Malon explained that this particular project is for approximately 2,400 feet
of 16" and 12" water main under I-70, including a 30" casing, as well as
easements, engineering, inspections, labor, equipment, materials and contingencies. The
total for the project is $370,000.
Mr. Malon reported there
had been a question as to whether or not a previous appropriation had been
made. He said staff thought there had been, but after going through
HTE reports they were unable to find it. He said funds were placed
in a revised budget at one point, but apparently these had never actually
been appropriated. Because the appropriation does not show on the books,
staff had no other alternative than to bring the project forward for an appropriation.
Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway,
noted that he had been the person who brought this issue up at the last meeting. He
had been concerned about an overstatement in the amount of the additional
appropriation. He was appreciative of the response. Mr. Lane
explained where he had gotten his information from and had assumed he was
working with good data, although apparently this had not been the case.
B359-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows; VOTING YES: KRUSE, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B360-97 Accepting
donation of land located in the upper section of Harmony Branch.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said some time ago
the issue of building a sidewalk along West Worley had been discussed. Part
of the frontage for this sidewalk runs along property on both sides of Hominy
Branch Creek in northwest Columbia. In discussions with the property
owner, Mr. Beck said this individual had indicated a willingness to deed
an eleven acre tract of land along the Creek to the City, if the City would
pay the sidewalk tax bill -- which amounts to $6,700. Mr. Beck said
he imagined if the Silvey's deeded this land to the City, it would be left
as open space. There is no intended use for it other than open space
along one of the waterways.
Mr. Janku asked if the sidewalk
had been built. Mr. Beck replied that staff is getting ready to build
it.
Mayor Hindman thought it
seemed like a fair trade.
Mr. Campbell thought it was
a generous gift and made the motion that the Council go on record as thanking
the family. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously
by voice vote.
B360-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: KRUSE, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B361-97 Amending
Article III of Chapter 11 of the City Code pertaining to beverage containers.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
As written, Mr. Beck said
the bill would postpone the enforcement of the deposit ordinance for existing
establishments selling applicable beverages after the property is annexed
into the City. Mr. Beck explained the Mayor had requested an amendment
sheet to be prepared which would change the beginning date of the five year
period -- it would begin at the signing of the agreement rather than after
the annexation. Mr. Beck stated the amendment would set more of a date
certain as to when time would run out.
Mayor Hindman made the motion
that B361-97 be amended per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Janku.
Mayor Hindman said as the
land is not in the City now, then obviously the deposit law would not apply. Since
nobody knows exactly when the property might be annexed into the city, he
felt this amendment would be a fair approach to the situation. Mayor
Hindman reported it could be assumed it would be a period of time before
annexation occurs because the property is not adjacent to the City. At
this point, he said the owners have not been agreeable to voluntary annexation. If
the clock starts running now, the exemption would only apply for the remainder
of the five years. However, if the property is not annexed into the
City for more than five years and the ordinance is not amended, the exemption
would go into effect immediately upon annexation.
The motion to amend, made
by Mayor Hindman, seconded by Mr. Janku, was approved unanimously by voice
vote.
Waldo Palmer, 414 Alexander,
thought the ordinance was not fair. He said the original ordinance
should be eliminated and, now that the cans are aluminum, he said it was
a free source of cigar money. He said if the Council wants to eliminate
the cans, eliminate the ordinance, otherwise it would be giving a newcomer
into the City cash savings over present merchants. Mr. Palmer said
that was a disgrace. Referring to B364-97, Mr. Palmer said one of those people
would be getting a double break -- a can exemption and an exemption to the
sign ordinance.
Mr. Campbell commented that
he could read the ordinance several different ways. Regarding Subsection "3" and
the five year provision, he understood the ordinance to mean that would be
when the exemption would begin. He said it had not been specified when
the exemption would stop. Mr. Boeckmann explained that Section "a" starts
out saying that, "The provision of this Article shall not apply to any sale
on recently annexed property." He said then the question is what is
meant by "recently annexed property". Mr. Boeckmann said that is defined
in Section "b", and one of the elements for recently annexed property is
that the property has been within the City limits for less than five years. He
said if the property has been annexed for longer than five years, it no longer
meets the criterion of being recently annexed property. Mr. Campbell
said that was true, but as far as he was concerned that was not a clear statement.
Mr. Campbell suggested that
this section read to say, "the exemption, if granted, shall not be for more
than five years". Mr. Coffman suggested making an addition to the amendment. He
said the Council could add Section "d" which could say, "to no extent shall
this exemption last any longer than five years from the date of the agreement
signing." He thought it might be redundant, but did not think it would
hurt anything.
Mayor Hindman asked if that
addition would make Subsection "3" ambiguous. Mr. Boeckmann said if
he were reading it, with no background, he would be wondering what that statement
meant. Mr. Janku said if the same thing is stated twice, it would make
people think that one of the sections was indicating something different.
Mr. Janku wondered about
the merit of tabling the issue again for further clarification. He
was concerned that the ordinance could be challenged. At the end of
five years, Mr. Campbell said if he was an owner of a business he would be
taking it to court. Mr. Boeckmann said if that were the case and the
Council was of the same mind as exists now, he would think the exception
would be repealed so it would be clear. Mr. Campbell said he would
prefer to make it clear from the start.
Mr. Beck asked Mr. Patterson
if he saw a problem with the Sewer District if this issue was tabled for
two weeks. Mr. Patterson said he did not see a problem as far as construction
is concerned.
Mr. Coffman asked if the
phrase "annexation agreement" refers to the same thing as the pre-annexation
agreements that have been previously discussed. Mr. Boeckmann said
the agreements have all been called annexation agreements, although some
people call them pre-annexation agreements.
Mrs. Crockett asked if the
ordinance would allow the exemption for five years beginning now, or if the
exemption would be permitted, regardless of the time. Mayor Hindman
explained that this ordinance would provide a five year exemption from the
deposit ordinance from the date of the signing of an annexation agreement. He
further explained that if the property comes into the City before five years,
an exemption to the deposit law would continue for the difference between
the time that it was brought into the City and five years from the date the
agreement was signed. He said if the property was not annexed into
the City within the five year period, the exemption would not apply at all. Mrs.
Crockett said if a business came into the City after two years, they would
then be exempt from the container deposit ordinance for three years. Mayor
Hindman said that was correct. Mrs. Crockett did not feel the deposit
ordinance should be waived when there are businesses in Columbia that have
dealt with the mess associated with the cans and bottles year after year
in their stores. She was hoping the health hazard that has been created
in the stores would be addressed with the solid waste issue. She saw
the exemption as the beginning of a major problem.
Mr. Kruse said the Council
should keep in mind that this amendment to the ordinance only applies to
existing establishments at the time of annexation. It was decided this
would not preclude someone from establishing a business before the actual
annexation. Mayor Hindman suggested that there be some type of established
business that would meet some criteria for having been in operation for a
period of years.
Mr. Campbell said he was
concerned about an existing convenience store being under the five year provision,
while a new one that might be built just down the road would not be eligible
for the exemption.
Mr. Janku thought the Council
should make it clear that it is not the deposit ordinance causing the problem,
but rather the annexation laws that do not allow proper planning for annexation.
Mr. Kruse asked how staff
had arrived with the five year number. Mayor Hindman said he suspected
there was nothing magic about the number of years, but was probably considered
by the staff to be a reasonable time. Mr. Kruse said he was comfortable
with the seven years on the fireworks activity because it was not an ongoing
activity everyday of the year. He thought maybe the five year exemption
from the deposit ordinance was too long.
Mayor Hindman suggested that
the Council table the issue in order to discuss it at a work session.
Mayor Hindman made the motion
that B361-97 be tabled to February 2, 1998, and that it be scheduled as a
topic for the January 26, 1998, work session. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Kruse.
Mr. Patterson asked if tabling
this issue would prevent the other agreements from preceding. He saw
this ordinance as affecting only one piece of property. Mr. Boeckmann
thought there would be a problem. He believed the interconnection agreement
with the Sewer District was contingent on the three annexation agreements. He
said the Council could authorize execution of all of the agreements because
it would be up to each property owner on whether to sign the agreements prior
to action on this ordinance.
Mr. Campbell asked that the
staff explore different time periods, one, three, five, etc.
The motion to table, made
by Mayor Hindman, seconded by Mr. Kruse, was passed unanimously by voice
vote.
B363-97 Authorizing
Change Order No. 1 and the engineer's final report for the William
and
Anthony
Drainage Project; and appropriating funds.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that the project
has been completed at a cost of approximately $138,000, with $112,000 to
be paid for by the stormwater utility funds, and the remainder of $26,270
to be paid for by sanitary sewer funds.
B363-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: KRUSE, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B364-97 Authorizing
execution of annexation agreements with Evans, Putnam, Putnam and
Storey;
authorizing interconnection agreement with Boone County Regional Sewer
District.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck commented that this
is the issue that had been previously discussed regarding the beverage containers
exemption. He said this bill would authorize staff to proceed with
annexation agreements.
Mayor Hindman asked about
the free-standing animated sign that does not comply with the sign ordinance. He
asked if it would be permanent, or if the sign would have to come in to compliance
at the end of the amortization period. Mr. Boeckmann said the agreement
did not deal with that. He said this was basically a contractual obligation,
not an exercise of the City's police power because the sign is located outside
of the City limits. He said the property owner would be agreeing to
comply with a lot of City standards, but on this particular issue, the agreement
allows construction of a sign that does not meet the sign ordinance requirements. Once
the property is annexed into the City, Mr. Boeckmann said grandfathered rights
have been established under the sign ordinance. He said the business
would be subject to the sign ordinance provisions on non-conforming signs. He
believed some sign ordinance amendments would be coming through and, at that
point, he was anticipating the issue would be dealt with. Mr. Boeckmann
thought basically that would mean treating this sign as all other signs in
the City -- meaning that in the year 2007, all of the free-standing signs
are supposed to be brought into conformance with the sign ordinance. He
said there is a pending issue the Council has not addressed regarding the
sign ordinance, and variances that have been granted by the Board of Adjustment. He
said the Board suggested some time ago that the ordinance be amended. When
the Board granted variances, they were under the impression that those signs
would have to come into conformance at the same time that all of the other
signs in the City did. However, the way the ordinance is written this
is not covered.
Mayor Hindman suggested that
it be made clear at the time of the signing that the City takes the position
that it will have the right to deal with the issue, and that this is not
a situation where the City cannot later regulate the sign.
Waldo Palmer, 414 Alexander,
said he learned that this whole issue involved building a sewer line up through
this property. He said if these people put up a $15,000 sign, they
were not going to want to take it down in a few years. Mr. Palmer said
it appeared the City was bribing this person in order to put a sewer line
through his property.
Mr. Beck said this agreement
is not tied to the City's right to obtain a sewer easement. Sewer easements
can be acquired through eminent domain. Mr. Beck reported this issue
pertains to the pre-annexation agreement in which certain individuals have
agreed to annexation under certain provisions, and sewer service is one of
those provisions. He said part of the land that is to be sewered is
Lake of the Woods, but this will be handled through an agreement with the
Boone County Regional Sewer District. Mr. Beck said there are four
or five groups involved and, if one or two of them decide not to be involved,
someone else would have to pay a lot more.
For clarification, Mr. Patterson
described the history of the project. He said the Pin Oak sewer project
served the golf course, and the subdivision was developed as a Neighborhood
Improvement District by the Boone County Sewer District. In doing so,
the pump station force main was designed and sized for that sewer district. Then
the opportunity to include the Storey, Putnam, and Evans properties came
about when these individuals agreed to pay the Sewer District additional
costs for enlarging the pump station and putting in the additional lines. Mr.
Patterson said the Sewer District has a contractual agreement with these
three parties to put money into the project, and they also have a Neighborhood
Improvement District to pay for the Sewer District tax bill assessment. He
said the City is not putting any money in to construction of sewer lines,
it is being entirely done through Boone County Sewer District financing of
the construction. He said the option here is, if these three parties
are not included in the agreement, going back to a much smaller project and
still having lagoons and improper treatment in the area. He said the
idea is to get the area cleaned up.
Mr. Palmer asked why the
City had to give the one business an exemption on the deposit ordinance and
the sign ordinance if it was the Sewer District building the sewer lines.
Mayor Hindman said the annexation
agreements do not provide any exemptions for the deposit ordinance. He
said this issue pertained to the free-standing sign, which would not apply
on this land that is currently outside the City anyway.
Mr. Campbell said he was
in favor of going ahead with the agreements because, in essence, these people
are grandfathered in with their sign. He said the question that would
have to be addressed is the rebuilding of it. He said it is an interesting
question, but is also part of the cost of annexation. He said people
would be coming in under grandfathered rules.
Mr. Kruse said if this business
had been in the City and had the animated sign when the sign ordinance was
amended making such signs illegal and, therefore, existing signs were made
non-conforming, they would have been given until the year 2007 to stop the
animation. He said the sign would not necessarily have to be torn down,
they would just have to eliminate the moving lights. He thought it
seemed fair to allow them to have at least that period of time also.
Mr. Janku said if this property
becomes contiguous before the free-standing sign is constructed, the City
Manager could petition for annexation. He said at that point, the business
would not have the authority to erect the sign.
B364-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: KRUSE, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL. 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.
B354-97 Approving
final plat of the Curtis Rollins Subdivision; Block 2, a major subdivision.
B355-97 Approving
final plat of Renaissance Meadows, Plat 1, a major subdivision.
B362-97 Declaring
the necessity to proceed with land acquisition for a recreation trail along
Bear
Creek
Phase II.
R1-98 Setting
a public hearing regarding differential payment for a 12-inch water main
in
Richland
Heights, Phase 1 & 2.
R2-98 Setting
a public hearing regarding differential payment for an 8-inch water main
serving
Richland
Heights, Phase 1 & 2.
R3-98 Setting
a public hearing on voluntary annexation of property located on the southwest
corner
of Vawter School Road and Old Mill Creek Road.
R4-98 Setting
a public hearing on voluntary annexation of property located south of Thompson
Road,
east of and adjacent to Garden City Subdivision.
R5-98 Setting
a public hearing on voluntary annexation of property located west of Bearfield
Road
and south of Nifong Boulevard.
R7-98 Approving
amendment to the 1996 Emergency Shelter Grant Program contract.
R8-98 Authorizing
agreement with Ms. A's Express Delivery to deliver and receive baggage at
Columbia
Regional Airport.
R9-98 Authorizing
execution of annual certifications and assurances required by the Federal
Transit
Administration.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
NEW BUSINESS
R6-98 Setting
a public hearing for street construction on Brown Station Road.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck commented that this
is a major project in northeast Columbia, with an estimated construction
cost of $1.68 million.
Mrs. Crockett asked if the
street would be built in one phase. Mr. Patterson said one contract
for the entire project may be possible, but the construction would be phased. Mrs.
Crockett asked if the work would begin in 1999. Mr. Patterson said
construction can begin as soon as the right-of-way is obtained. He
said it appears that Route B will be finished by then, and it is currently
thought that the south end still will not be torn up so they should be able
to get this done in between the two projects.
Mr. Janku said at the time
of the public hearing, he wanted to address the issue of landscaping at the
Brown Station Road/Route B intersection. He said it would be a good
area for an Adopt-a-Spot agreement.
The vote on R6-98 was recorded
as follows; VOTING YES: KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU,
JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R10-98 Requiring
removal of an elevated walkway adjacent to Eighth and Cherry parking
facility.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck reminded the Council
that rehabilitation work is planned on the Eighth and Cherry facility upon
the completion of the new garage in the southwest corridor. He said
currently, there is a connecting overhead walkway between a private structure
north of the alley and the garage. Mr. Beck said the agreement calls
for giving one year notice to discontinue the use. He said there was
concern, because of the way the structure will be redesigned, as to what
additional costs might be involved in connecting the walkway again. Mr.
Beck explained this would be contingent on what kind of siding was installed,
and other things of that nature.
Mayor Hindman indicated he
would like to know what the cost for the walkway would be because he thought
it was a good idea to provide access to the second floors. Mr. Patterson
said staff had no idea at this point as to what it might cost, but there
would be additional design costs. He thought he could safely say it
would be a couple of thousand dollars worth of work. He said pre-case
concrete panels will be put on the exterior of the garage rather than the
metal vertical panels. While walkways could be accommodated, he said
there would be considerable expense to remodifying the design and performing
the construction to allow a walkway at this location. Mr. Patterson
did not think it should be a City expense if it was to be used for a private
purpose.
Mayor Hindman asked if the
plans had been designed without consideration of the walkway. Mr. Patterson
said that was correct. He said this was a long, drawn-out project and
had been delayed several years in order to get the other parking structures
in place. He said this project went through a design process and public
hearings had been held. Mr. Patterson said there also had been a video
made of the garage that was used as a demonstration. He said the contract
had come up at the time. It was very questionable whether there were
assignable rights under the agreement. Mr. Patterson said staff did
want to provide the courtesy of what the notice would have required from
the original holder of the contract.
Mrs. Crockett asked if the
owner of the walkway had been notified that the garage was being redesigned,
so this individual could have some input. Mr. Patterson said the owner
of the contract at the time was no longer there, and it had been an individual
agreement. He said they were aware that the walkway still existed and,
in an effort to give full consideration of the contract, a full year's notice
was given in accordance with the original contract. Mr. Patterson pointed
out that the walkway was not a required exit of the building, but an accommodation.
Bruce Beckett, an attorney
for Joan Menser, the owner of the buildings served by the walkway, said he
had sent the Council a letter establishing his client's comments regarding
the situation. He said Ms. Menser had an architect, Mr. Connell, look
at the walkway, and those comments had been forwarded to the Council just
this afternoon. Mr. Connell spoke with Protective Inspection and learned
that the elevated walkway is not a condition of continuing to use the buildings
in their present fashion. However, it was indicated if the use ever
changes, a second access would be required. Because these buildings
extend all the way to the lot lines, Mr. Beckett said the only method of
obtaining a second access to the upper levels of the building would be to
bore a stairway down through the lower floors. He said that would be
exceptionally expensive to do. While the buildings could continue to
be used without this elevated walkway to provide a second access, it was
easy to see from purely a safety consideration and most certainly from a
convenience consideration, the elevated walkway is very important to the
upper level apartments. Mr. Beckett asked that the Council not terminate
Ms. Menser's right to continue to use the elevated walkway. In addition,
it had been indicated that Ms. Menser would volunteer to pay any additional
design or engineering expense which might be incurred in connection with
trying to incorporate this walkway into the renovations of the parking garage. Mr.
Beckett asked that the issue be delayed long enough for them to study the
issue to determine what all would be involved. He pointed out that
the first Ms. Menser knew of this situation was from a letter sent by City
staff dated December 19, 1997, which she received some time later.
Mr Janku asked Mr. Beckett
if he knew of any other property owners in the other adjoining buildings
that might have an interest in participating in access, or providing an access
to their buildings. Mr. Beckett said there had been no inquiries made
in that respect. He said this was the only elevated walkway he knew
of over into the parking garage.
Mr. Campbell noted that Mr.
Beckett's letter stated that his client would be willing to pay for any additional
engineering and design work. Mr. Beckett said that was correct. Mr.
Campbell asked if that would also include construction work. Mr. Beckett
said before Ms. Menser could agree to do that, some idea of the approximate
cost is necessary. He said his client is willing to put money where
her mouth is -- to a reasonable degree.
Mayor Hindman asked if the
Council tabled this issue, whether that would affect the one year notice. Mr.
Patterson said staff could give the notice at any time. It will take
about a year for the rehabilitation, and the walkway would be down during
that period of time. He wanted it understood that the process would
be the removal of all of the concrete decks, ramps, and everything in the
structure. He said the walkway would not exist during this construction
phase. Mr. Patterson said it would require Mr. Connell working with
the City's consultant, and having anything being proposed reviewed to make
sure it works with the design of the structure.
Mr. Janku thought it would
be interesting to know if there were other opportunities for access that
might be beneficial to the garage and to the people trying to access Broadway.
Mr. Beck said he was smiling
because he remembered the great debate when Dave Baer come in to make the
connection. He said he knew this day was coming.
Mayor Hindman said he liked
the idea of the access to the garage, and said he agreed with Mr. Janku in
that he thought it would be beneficial to look at every possible access.
Mr. Beck said it was a question
as to how much the utility picks up for a private purpose.
Mr. Campbell said while this
is true, the Council has long had the policy to encourage mixed use of the
downtown area and wanted to encourage residential areas. He said just
as a parking garage will encourage the business use of downtown, he thought
the Council should also encourage a residential use of downtown.
Mr. Janku said if someone
could go through a store to get to Broadway from the garage, he did not see
why a store owner would object to that because of the foot traffic that would
be generated.
Mrs. Crockett made the motion
to table R10-98 to January 20, 1998. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
R11-98 Authorizing
agreement with Crescent Meadows Association for City to provide sanitary
sewer
services.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this
issue is a follow-up to a work session held some time ago regarding the pump
station that serves the Juvenile Justice Center. He said authorization
of this agreement would provide service to the mobile home park, with the
provision that the existing sewers are brought up to standards.
The vote on R11-98 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R12-98 Authorizing
release of Deed of Trust on property located at 1104 Rangeline Street
which
secures
a CDBG rehabilitation loan.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the
new owner of this property is requesting that the Council forgive a loan
previously made to another owner. The amount owed is $27,960. Mr.
Beck is concerned about starting a trend of this sort unless specific conditions
could be established for forgiving these kinds of loans. He said there
had been many of these types of loans granted in the 80's.
Mr. Janku asked how the City
normally recovered loans. He asked if it was taken care of at the sale
of the property. Mr. Hancock said some are amortized, and the older
loans are due at the time of the sale. Mr. Janku asked if the transfer
title occurred with the tax sale in this case. Mr. Hancock said that
was correct. Mr. Janku understood then that the City had no opportunity
to recover the money. Mr. Hancock said apparently the City did not,
and when the home was redeemed by the other property owner, that was when
the issue came up and she realized there was a loan against it. She
felt that the City should forgive the loan so she can make some repairs to
the house. Mr. Janku asked if the City had the ability to step in and
foreclose on the property. Mr. Hancock said that had been possible
if the City had been notified of the sale, but notification does not always
occur when in second or third position. He said the City did not have
a policy or a program to step-in and redeem it, or even to make a bid on
the Court House steps.
Mr. Beck said he would like
to see the house fixed-up and occupied.
Mr. Hancock said he had presented
the Council with a letter from the new owner with a cost estimate on repairs,
and a realtor's opinion of what the property is worth. He said staff
would like to sit down and work something out, but the owner is pretty insistent
that the City forgive the loan -- and expects it to happen.
Mr. Janku asked if there
was any guarantee that the owner would use the property for a single family
home ownership. Mr. Hancock said the individual had first indicated
that the home might be used as rental property, but then there had been the
indication that she might live in it. Mr. Hancock said staff is looking
for the Council to deny the forgiveness, but continue to have staff work
with the owner to bring something back to the Council.
Mayor Hindman asked if there
was any reason why the City could not just foreclose. Mr. Hancock said
it was not an amortized loan, so nothing is in arrears. He did not
know of any provisions that would allow the City to foreclose.
Mr. Campbell asked if this
loan made in 1983 was against the property, regardless of how many times
it was turned over. Mr. Hancock said technically, whoever is doing
the title work notifies the City of the sale. He said the City collects
$60,000 to $70,000 per year from sales of these homes. Mr. Campbell
said if this home was sold, then technically the note is due. Mr. Hancock
said this is correct. Mr. Campbell said he thought the City could foreclose.
Mr. Boeckmann thought this
home was sold at a tax sale, and he did not know what the language of the
note was -- whether or not that would cover it or not. Mr. Campbell
said it was also sold from one owner to another. Mr. Campbell said
he was not suggesting that the City foreclose.
Mayor Hindman felt a certain
obligation to the public treasury, and he could not see forgiving a $27,000
loan on a piece of property that has significant value without doing further
investigation. He said while the Council is anxious to see rehabilitation
of property, the City also needed to receive a fair value.
Mr. Campbell said there was
another public trust he felt strongly about -- the rehabilitation of as many
properties as possible. He said if the Council forgives this loan,
that money cannot be used for rehabilitating any future properties. He
said if the loan is paid back, the money could be used to fund other projects. Mr.
Campbell reported the goal is to encourage and help maintain the housing
stock in a wide area of the City.
Mr. Janku mentioned there
have been other previous situations where social service agencies have had
liens on their property, and those had been transferred to the new property. He
said there was a question of precedent if the Council begins to forgive loans. He
said single family ownership is trying to be encouraged in this central city
area. Mr. Janku said that issue is also missing from this discussion. He
had talked to this woman a number of times on the phone, and has gotten ambiguous
responses to that question. He thought the Council should defeat the
resolution and have Mr. Hancock try to work something out.
The vote on R12-98 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: NO ONE. VOTING NO: KRUSE,
COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL. Bill defeated.
R14-98 Authorizing
human rights enhancement agreements.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that $3,000
had been included in the FY98 Human Rights Commission budget for Human Rights
Education and Outreach programs. He said this resolution would authorize
four agreements with local agencies to provide that service as recommended
by the Commission.
Mark Epstein, 1201 Paquin,
Vice-Chair of the Human Rights Commission, offered to answer any questions
about the proposals. He said the Commission had been very pleased with
the number of proposals received, and that this had been the first time that
the amount of money requested was more than what could be given. He
said the Commission was able to give full funding to one of the proposals,
and only partial funding to some others. Some proposals were not recommended
for funding.
Mayor Hindman thanked the
Commission for all of their work.
Mr. Janku noted that the
agency providing services is supposed to provide a report to the Office of
Community Services within 30 days. He asked that the Council receive
a copy of this report when it is submitted.
The vote on R14-98 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R15-98 Stating
the City's position on state and federal legislative issues.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck indicated that this
is the list the Council had discussed earlier, and had met with the State
legislators to review. He explained that this resolution would formalize
the list so it could be forwarded to the City's legislators.
Mayor Hindman commented that
he personally did not agree with everything on the list, which made it difficult,
but overall it was acceptable. He did not think the Council could debate
each issue individually, and said he was willing to support the resolution,
although there are some areas that he did not agree with the exact language.
Mr. Coffman said if the Council
voted on it with that general understanding, it would help him also.
Mr. Kruse asked that the
letters "ML" be placed in front of item G.
The vote on R15-98 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R16-98 Authorizing
agreement with Sprint Spectrum to conduct radio tests at the downtown
water
tower.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said this is the
company that wants to utilize the water tower for their radio antennas.
The vote on R16-98 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R17-98 Authorizing
settlement agreement with OFW Corporation.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that staff
had been meeting with representatives of the OFW Corporation and had arrived
at, what had been felt to be, a fair settlement. This agreement is
subject to Council approval. He said the recommendation is to approve
a settlement of $74,361.50, most of which is for extra width and thickness
of streets and extra sized water mains. He added that nearly all of
the work would be done in any City subdivision in accordance with current
policies.
The vote on R17-98 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R18-98 Authorizing
sale of surplus property to Roy and Joyce Calvert.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained there
is a home near an 800 acre tract of ground the City owns in north central
Columbia that has been land banked. He said the home owners have been
having problems with their private sewer system, and have been working with
the Water and Light Department to obtain one and one-half acres from the
City on which a small lagoon would be built to serve their property. Staff
review indicated there would be no problem disposing of that amount from
the tract, so staff is recommending approval of the sale for $4,500.
The vote on R18-98 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R19-98 Authorizing
participation in a Federal Communications Commission proceeding to
pre-empt
enforcement of House Bill 620.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that last
year the State Legislature passed HB620 which severely restricted the ability
of cities in the state involved in telecommunications systems. He said
a number of cities have joined together to challenge some of the decisions
that have been made -- primarily Springfield, Missouri. He said the
Council had asked the staff to talk to the City of Springfield about a pro-rated
amount, less than 50/50.
Mr. Campbell understood that
the City would be contributing one-third of the attorney's fees. Mr.
Boeckmann said $1,700 is what the smaller cities have contributed. He
said there may be more, but he said he would not count on it. He said
Columbia would pay basically one-third. Mr. Campbell asked about the
City's liability. Mr. Boeckmann said it was slightly less than $5,000
and slightly less than $10,000. Mr. Coffman understood it was not expected
to be more than $15,000.
Mr. Boeckmann explained that
HB620 basically limits the ability of the cities to engage in telecommunication
systems; however, there are exceptions in what cities can do regarding issues
related to medical and educational purposes on the Internet. The Federal
Telecommunications Act passed in 1996 basically summarizes that no state
or local government can pass legislation which prevents any entity from engaging
in telecommunication services. Mr. Boeckmann said the issue is whether
or not any entity includes a city. He said another issue is whether
or not a state can limit what its political subdivisions do. He explained
that Columbia is a Charter City, which means we have all of the power the
legislature can give us, except what is limited by the constitution, our
own Charter, or by the legislature. Under that state analysis, he said
the legislature has limited what the City can do, and it is a question of
whether or not the federal government can pre-empt and mandate that. Mr.
Boeckmann said the proposal is to file an action with the Federal Communications
Commission that would pre-empt HB620 to prohibit the State of Missouri from
enforcing that statute.
Mr. Coffman said when HB620
was passed, discussions revolved around whether cities should be able to
provide telephone service. He did not know if that was really the role
the City of Columbia should be in. He had not heard that any city indicated
that was what they wanted to do. To the extent that Columbia might
have excess capacity on lines that have already been built, Mr. Coffman thought
HB620 went too far by preventing cities from leasing this excess out to other
small telecommunications competitors that might want to use that space. He
thought the City could provide a lot of benefits to the citizens by providing
additional facilities that could be leased out to anyone. Mr. Coffman
thought the law suit was important to keep the interest of the citizens in
the forefront.
Mayor Hindman considered
it extremely important that Columbia be in a position to provide opportunities
for communications. He thought the kinds of businesses and institutions
that the City tries to attract may need very advanced communications. He
was not sure that the private sector would necessarily find it profitable
to do that and, if that is true, the City may need to be in position to do
it to keep Columbia competitive -- the way it should be. Mayor Hindman
thought it would be well worth the investment and effort.
Mr. Coffman reiterated that
the Council is not suggesting that the City provide telephone service, just
providing facilities that other companies could lease for use.
The vote on R19-98 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
PR20-98 Establishing
a policy on spending City funds for playground equipment on public
school
property.
Mr. Beck explained because
this is a policy resolution, it requires being held over to the next meeting.
Mr. Janku mentioned that
he had an amendment for this policy that would address the situation where
there is income disparity between schools. He said some schools are
more easily able to raise funds where other schools are not.
Mr. Janku made the motion
that the Council amend PR20-98 by adding another factor for consideration
which would say, whether the school is in a CDBG eligible area or has a significant
percentage of students from a low-income background. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Campbell said he agreed
with Mr. Janku, but said the Council did not want to preclude people in those
areas from attempting to help themselves.
The amendment, made by Mr.
Janku, seconded by Mr. Campbell, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
The following bills were introduced by the Mayor, unless otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:
B1-98 Authorizing
construction of a skateboard facility in Cosmo Recreation Area.
B2-98 Authorizing
land acquisition to construct sidewalk along the north side of West Broadway.
B3-98 Authorizing
land acquisition for roadway corridor for Southampton Drive/Green Meadows
loop
connection.
B4-98 Authorizing
payment of differential costs between the construction of a 12-inch and an
8-inch
main serving Richland Heights, Phase 1 & 2.
B5-98 Authorizing
payment of differential costs between the construction of an 8-inch and a
6-inch
main serving Richland Heights, Phase 1 & 2.
B6-98 Approving
engineer's report and authorizing payment of differential costs for an 8-inch
water
main serving Bedford Walk, Phase 6.
B7-98 Calling
for bids for construction of a flood intake structure at Wetland Treatment
Unit No. 3
in
the McBaine bottoms.
B8-98 Approving
final plat of Hyde Park Planned Commercial Subdivision, Block 1, a major
subdivision.
B9-98 Amending
Chapter 29 of the Code of Ordinances relating to the S-R District (Scenic
Roadway
Area Overlay).
B10-98 Rezone
property located on the north side of I-70 Drive NW and west of Garden Drive
from
A-1
to R-1.
B11-98 Approval
of revised PUD Plan for Highlands, Phase 8, and variance to the subdivision
regulations
relating to maximum cul-de-sac length, and street closure.
B12-98 Approval
of replat of Lot 83 of Country Club Villas III.
B13-98 Approval
of replat of Lot 73 of Country Club Villas III.
B14-98 Assessing
special tax for weed cutting to abate a nuisance at 2016 S. Deerborn Circle.
B15-98 Calling
the municipal election to be held April 7, 1998 to elect the Mayor and Council
members
for Wards 3 and 4.
B16-98 Authorizing
acquisition of the Boone House located at 10 N. Fourth Street; authorizing
assistance
to raise funds for restoration.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Traffic Accidents
- Stadium Boulevard, I-70 Drive NW and Business Loop 70 West.
Mr. Beck explained that the
police department had prepared this report spanning a three year period in
which there had been 42 accidents at this location, and 14 of them involved
injuries. He said a total of 22 people had been injured, but there
had been no fatalities. Most accidents were shown to occur between
1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Janku thanked the staff
for their prompt response. He said the numbers were incredible and
he was thankful there were no fatalities. He said the people living
in that area had pointed out that drivers making left turns at that intersection
(north of I-70), and cars waiting to make a left turn located in the inner
most lane, basically obstructs the sight line of other vehicles coming from
behind and in the lane closer to the curb. He said residents are requesting
some sort of protected left turn. Mr. Janku assumed it would have to
be a restricted left turn.
Mr. Janku made the motion
that the staff be directed to contact the Highway Department to see if they
would be amenable. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved
unanimously by voice vote.
(B) TreeKeepers
Volunteer Program.
Mr. Beck explained that this
would involve a six week training period, one night a week. He said
people involved would then donate 36 voluntary hours for a City tree care/tree
maintenance program.
Report accepted.
(C) Old 63 South
Speed Limits.
Mr. Beck noted that the Public
Works staff had conducted some surveys and had come up with a recommended
speed limit to keep things as uniform as possible. The recommendation
is that the speed limits be lowered to 35 mph and 45 mph. The next
step would be for the Council to indicate whether or not an ordinance should
be drafted for review.
Mayor Hindman made the motion
that the staff be directed to prepare an ordinance for Council consideration. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(D) Transfer
of Funds Report.
Report accepted.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
None.
COMMENTS OF THE COUNCIL, STAFF, AND PUBLIC
Mrs. Crockett asked at what
point new employees begin receiving health insurance. Mr. Beck said
new employees are eligible for insurance after six months. Mrs. Crockett
asked if insurance can be purchased during the interim. Mr. Beck said
this is not possible under current guidelines. Mrs. Crockett thought
the State, the University, and the County of Boone had a provision that employees
could purchase insurance from day one, or at least apply for it. She
asked that the City look into this situation to make sure employees have
insurance. Mr. Beck said he knew staff is looking at trying to close
the gap somewhat, and this issue is being reviewed.
Mr. Janku said he did not
know that the City should only provide insurance for purchase to new employees. He
said if the City is trying to recruit good people, he did not know why someone
would take a six month gap in insurance coverage to come work for the City. Mayor
Hindman did not realize this situation even existed, and thought new employees
should be provided insurance immediately after being hired. Mr. Campbell
said University employees have insurance from day one.
Mrs. Crockett noted from
the new Highway 63 to Old 63, around the Broadway Market Place, the traffic
lanes change and narrow down. She had been asked why this is, and could
it be changed to have the same number of lanes. Mrs. Crockett asked
the staff to contact the state to see if there could be the same number of
lanes all of the way between the two highways. Mr. Patterson said the
staff had been in contact with the State, and had also looked at other options
to temporarily help some of the turning point movements at this location. He
said the state does not have funding for the project and it is not in their
short term action plan. He said it would be quite some time before
the state could do anything. Mrs. Crockett said she wanted it brought
to the state's attention.
Regarding the sign ordinance,
Mr. Kruse said he had been in discussions with the Chamber of Commerce and
a couple of sub-committees regarding some additional revisions to the sign
ordinance he proposed about 18 months ago. He had met with representatives
of the Chamber a few weeks ago, and their position at this point is that
they do not wish to see any amendments to the sign ordinance considered. Mr.
Kruse reported this included what he considered to be administrative amendments
that would clean up some inconsistencies in the current language, dealing
with the issues discussed earlier regarding amortization and annexation. Mr.
Kruse said he told the Chamber at the last meeting that he would not be pursuing
any amendments at this point in time, although there are some obvious adjustments
that need to be considered. He thought the approach at this point may
be to schedule this issue for a work session.
Mr. Coffman raised the issue
discussed earlier regarding the landscaping of parking lots and how the Council
might revise the ordinance to better express the intent to evenly distribute
trees throughout a parking lot. He wanted to see something that would
require trees within the interior of the parking lot. Mr. Coffman asked
the staff to report back on how this might be accomplished. Mr. Janku
said the City's ordinance was drawn up with the flexibility to allow people
to plant trees and not take away parking.
Mr. Coffman made the motion
that the staff be directed to report back on the issue. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku commented on how
successful First Night had been. He thought the organizers needed to
be commended.
Mr. Janku noted that the
Council had received a report from Enterprise Development Corporation about
the housing program. He said there had been a great success last year
in new home ownership in the City. In St. Louis, the St. Louis Equity
Fund has been developed, which is a way of getting tax credits for businesses
that support similar type programs. He said large insurance corporations
have made major contributions in other communities. He suggested that
the staff look into how that happened in St. Louis, with the thought in mind
of getting other companies to participate.
Mr. Janku explained that
in Jefferson City, they have established something called the Downtown Fitness
Mile, which is modeled after similar fitness programs that exist in shopping
malls.
Mr. Janku made the motion
that the Parks and Recreation Department work with the Downtown Association
to determine if a fitness walk through downtown Columbia could be established,
maybe linking some of the sights, the new trailhead park and the Boone Home. The
motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman said regarding
the Grant School playground situation, he thought the City's participation
is a good thing. He said the schools are a good target for this type
of opportunity because it is public property that is scattered around different
neighborhoods. He suggested that ways be sought to encourage this type
of neighborhood facility. He also thought the Council should be thinking
about the opportunity of doing similar things in small tracts of land around
these neighborhoods, not necessarily limited to schools. Mayor Hindman
said there was a donation of land earlier this evening, and maybe a small
portion of it could be used for playground equipment. He said the City
could end up with a lot of small areas where mothers could take their young
children to get out of the house. Mr. Campbell said neighborhood pocket
parks are part of the City's current system. He said there were some
scattered around the City now, but the Council has not been pushing them
as of late. Mayor Hindman said what he was talking about did not need
to be even a single lot, just a fraction of a lot. Mr. Janku said it
was a good point and perhaps it could be done in conjunction with established
homeowner associations, and they can provide the maintenance. He said
pieces of land people want to donate could be used for that purpose. Mr.
Janku stated he would like to see a report on ways to do it, and also incentives
the City could establish to get neighbors to participate. He reported
the City would have to provide some financial help, but would also like to
get something back in the way of an agreement to maintain or contribute to
it financially. Mr. Janku thought perhaps tax credits could be provided
through some kind of neighborhood improvement district.
Mr. Janku said the City has
received a donation of land before, and there is one case in which the developer
donated the land and it is not being developed. He said if the City
promised to put equipment in within a year or two, he thought a developer
would be much more likely to donate property because it would help them market
the residential area.
Mr. Campbell pointed out
that donating a lot, in certain parts of the City, is a very expensive kind
of activity.
Mayor Hindman said donations
may not be practical and, in some cases, the idea might be for the neighborhood
to get together and acquire a small tract that is too small to be used as
a lot.
Mayor Hindman made the motion
that the staff report back on the issue. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
The meeting adjourned at
10:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Penny
St. Romaine
City
Clerk
© 2024 City of Columbia