INTRODUCTORY
The City Council of the City
of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday,
February 1, 1999, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The
roll was taken with the following results: Council members CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, and CROCKETT 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 January 19, 1999, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a
motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Mrs. Crockett.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING
CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Janku explained that
he has been in communication with the applicant/developer of the Barberry/Westwind
rezoning, and he also spoke with the neighbors who have been in contact with
the developer. He reported it appears some of the concerns can be addressed.
Mr. Janku made the motion
that the ordinance be reconsidered. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
The agenda, as amended, including
the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made
by Mr. Campbell and a second by Mr. Kruse.
SPECIAL ITEMS
(1) Special Recognition
of Jonathan and Jordan Grant.
Fire Chief Markgraf explained
how the two young men had responded to a fire in their home, which resulted
in no personal injuries to the family and the house did not incur any major
damage.
The Mayor congratulated the
Grant brothers on the great job they had performed. He presented both
with Citizens Life Saving Award plaques.
Mr. Beck awarded each young
man with a Certificate of Merit.
(2) Recognition
of 39 years of service to City Manager, Raymond A. Beck.
Mayor Hindman noted that
39 years ago today the City of Columbia hired Mr. Beck as a City Engineer. He
reported on Mr. Beck's remarkable record of service to the community and
the impact he had upon the City of Columbia is beyond description.
Mr. Beck thanked everyone
for their support.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B377-98 Rezoning
property located on the southeast corner of I-70 Drive Southeast and
Woodridge
Drive from R-2 and C-1 to C-P.
The bill was read by the
Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
issue had been tabled from the last meeting in order to give the neighborhood
and the property owner further time to discuss the plans for the area. He
said meetings have taken place and he understood that many of the issues
have been resolved.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Tom Schneider, an attorney
with offices at 11 N. Seventh, spoke on behalf of the applicant. With
Mrs. Crockett's assistance, he said Mr. Ousley had resolved the issues with
the neighbors. He explained that Mr. Ousley has agreed to deed the
back 100 feet of property to the abutting neighbors on Evergreen. This
would be pursuant to restrictive covenants which would require that the neighborhood
maintain the natural tree and vegetative cover, that ordinary tree conservation
and maintenance be accepted, and that nothing be constructed on this buffer
strip. Mr. Schneider stated the neighbors have since agreed they would
support the C-P rezoning. In addition, the front 2.5 acres, which is
now unplanned open commercial, will be brought under the plan. It was
felt that everyone's interest will be well-served by the application.
Mr. Campbell asked if all
aspects to the plan which have been previously discussed would remain
in place. Mr. Schneider said that was correct.
George Ousley, property owner,
felt the agreement that has been reached with the home owners is a fair one. He
offered to answer any questions.
Mrs. Crockett asked when
Mr. Ousley planned to deed the additional 100 feet to the abutting property
owners. Mr. Ousley said he would do that as quickly as he could. Mrs.
Crockett asked how the Council would be assured this would be taken care
of in a timely manner. Mayor Hindman noted that the C-P plan would
have to be approved by the Council before any development can proceed. Mr.
Kruse noted that the 100 foot buffer strip is an issue between Mr. Ousley
and the neighborhood. Mrs. Crockett asked about the zoning of the buffer
strip. Mr. Boeckmann said it would be rezoned along with the other
property, but there would be restrictive covenants in place which would not
allow any type of development. Mrs. Crockett was concerned about the
taxes being higher. Mr. Boeckmann said the zoning itself would not
do that. With the restriction that the property cannot be developed
in any way, the value is not going to be changed by the fact that it is zoned
commercial.
Mrs. Crockett thanked Mr.
Ousley for working with the neighbors.
Roy Fullerton, 3812 Evergreen,
commented that his neighbors living on Evergreen supported the agreement. He
suggested that the northern end of Woodridge be widened.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
B377-98 was read with the
vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN,
COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted,
reading as follows:
B391-98 Rezoning
property located at the northwest corner of Nifong Boulevard and Forum
Boulevard
from R-1 and R-3 to PUD-5 and C-P.
The bill was read by the
Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that a letter
had been received from the attorney for the applicant requesting to further
table this issue to the next Council meeting.
Mayor Hindman reopened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman continued the public hearing.
Mr. Kruse made the motion
that B391-98 be tabled to the February 15, 1999, meeting. The motion
was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(A) Construction
of Sanitary Sewer Wetlands Treatment Unit No. 4.
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this
issue had also been tabled from the last meeting in order for another report
to be prepared giving the history of the City's relationship with the property
owner from the time the land was purchased. It is felt that a buffer
zone should be considered in this situation, similar to that which was done
with the regional wastewater plant. Mr. Beck noted it might be well
to purchase the portion of the property which would include the existing
house, but not all of the farm. Mr. Beck explained that the City has
a very large investment in the Wetland program. He stated it is important
to maintain the ability to add a new unit at this location.
Mr. Patterson noted that
when staff learned about Mr. Florea's concerns, a meeting had been scheduled
with him. At that meeting, Mr. Florea had been assured that the City
would look at possible options to mitigate any of the problems that might
be associated with the Wetlands. Mr. Patterson stated staff also outlined
the design process with Mr. Florea to explain the constraints on the property
in regards to the archeological findings, the floodway of the creek, and
the size limitations. Mr. Florea's engineer was also present at the
meeting.
Mr. Patterson reported Mr.
Galen Miller, primary design consultant with Burns & McDonnell, is present
this evening to answer any remaining technical questions.
Mr. Patterson said whether
or not the Council gives authorization to proceed with the project this evening,
it has always been staff's intention to follow through with what they told
Mr. Florea at that meeting. He reported that the project should not
be delayed because it would cause them to lose a year. Mr. Patterson
suggested that staff should continue with the process initiated prior to
the hearing with Mr. Florea, and a report will be forwarded to Council with
a recommendation that could possibly entail purchase of land that would provide
a buffer -- which would certainly summarize options that would fairly represent
the opportunities and alternatives that would be available to the City. He
noted staff indicated to Mr. Florea that regardless of the status of the
project, there would be no attempt to penalize or treat him unfavorably --
it is the City's intent to be fair and responsive to his concerns.
Mr. Beck said another question
raised by Presiding Commissioner Stamper at the last meeting related to drainage. He
asked if the engineer could address that. Mr. Patterson said he could. He
noted the issue had also been addressed in the meeting with Mr. Florea, who
had been assured that drainage was being designed as part of the project.
Galen Miller, Consulting
Engineer with Burns & McDonnell, explained that the project is designed
to drain to the borrow area. He noted that the surface grades would
be rather flat and will not drain as well as most front yards, but it will
not be an impoundment.
Mr. Campbell asked if it
was possible to have an odor abatement program by management, or to in any
way change the amount of odor that will coming from such units. Mr.
Miller explained that is a primary function in the operation of the mechanical
plant -- when it discharges to the Wetland unit, the operations in the plant
drive the nature of odors. He said there is nothing in the treatment
unit in and of itself that could be expected to change, positively or negatively,
the odors and discharges from the mechanical plant. Mr. Campbell asked
what it would take in the management of the plant itself to reduce odors. Mr.
Miller hesitated to answer that because he was not involved with the design
of the mechanical plant. Mr. Beck remembered some testimony from property
owners in the area who indicated that odor was not really a problem. Mr.
Patterson said generally, the experience with odors of the wetlands had been
that of marsh-like odors that are associated with a natural wetlands area. Mr.
Campbell asked if that would be the smell of decaying vegetation and that
type of thing. Mr. Patterson replied that is correct.
Mrs. Crockett noted that
when this property was purchased, it had been for sludge injection. She
felt Mr. Florea was concerned because he had not been notified that it was
going to be a Wetland cell. Mr. Patterson said there was definitely
some misunderstanding about that because as soon as staff received the Burns & McDonnell
report, they forwarded it to Mr. Florea with a letter and followed-up with
a meeting. He said that occurred on January 30, 1997. At that
time, Mr. Patterson explained it was stated to Mr. Florea that this was the
preferred location and the reasons for it were the fact that the pump station
would be required if the unit was constructed on the Bailey property. In
addition, several of the design considerations were explained to him. Mrs.
Crockett asked if Mr. Florea was in agreement. Mr. Patterson said he
would not say Mr. Florea was excited about the Wetlands being constructed
there, but it was during that conversation that he indicated he had not noticed
the problem with the Wetlands Unit Number One that he had anticipated.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Bruce Florea, 4316 S. Coats
Lane, said he was not very much in disagreement with anything. He felt
the document was pretty fair and also that everyone was well aware of his
situation and reasonably concerned about it. He said the treatment
unit was well-resigned and felt the City should go ahead and proceed with
it. Mr. Florea said he and has family understood the need for the Wetlands. Regarding
his knowledge about a Wetlands being located on the property, he envisioned
some "wiggle room" as far as where it could be located and he assumed, incorrectly,
it could be located at a considerable distance from his house. Upon
surveying, which Mr. Florea stated had occurred subsequent to the meeting
Mr. Patterson referred to, the judgment of the engineer's was that the most
feasible way of laying out the Wetlands was to come down the right-of-way
line, thus it will be located as close to his house as it could be. Mr.
Florea had a different conception of the feasibility of being able to move
the Wetlands around to accommodate not only the Wetlands process itself,
but also the neighbors. He is looking forward to negotiating with the
City in good faith and working out some sort of agreement.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Ms. Coble made the motion
that the Council authorize the completion of final plans and specifications
and, further, that staff be directed to negotiate with Mr. Florea for mitigation
of his concerns, including the potential purchase of the residence and a
buffer zone around the property related to the Wetlands Unit No. 4. The
motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.
B16-99 Calling
for bids for the construction of Sanitary Sewer Wetland Treatment Unit
No. 4.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted the estimated
cost to be $5.24 million. He reported staff would try to bid the project
in March to have it on-line in the year 2000. The new unit will increase
capacity from 16.5 million to 20.6 million gallons per day, and is anticipated
to carry the City through the year 2010.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B16-99 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B13-99 Authorizing
construction of an 8-inch water main serving Springdale Estates, Plats
6 and 7;
payment
of differential costs; appropriating funds.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the
City would be constructing an 8-inch main rather than a 6-inch main. The
length of the main is 1,975 feet with the City's cost of the differential
being $5,056, which will be paid for out of the City's Water and Light fund.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B13-99 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared
enacted, reading as follows:
B15-99 Calling
for bids for the historic restoration of the lobby and mezzanine of
the Daniel Boone
Building.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that the Council
had appointed a committee and an architect was hired to examine the historic
aspects of the Daniel Boone Building lobby for the purpose of renovation
work. The work will primarily consist of the construction of a second
stairway from the mezzanine to the lobby, restoration of the wood ceiling,
new light fixtures, new hand rails, carpeting on the mezzanine (for an area
where some new meeting rooms have been added), and new wall finishes. Included
in the bid will be a sprinkler system for the lobby, fire alarm system for
the building, and the reconstruction of the vestibule is being included as
an alternate bid in the event funds are available for that phase of work. Mr.
Beck noted that donors are being invited to contribute toward the work on
the lobby. Because of the highly specialized nature of the work required
in the ceiling restoration, Mr. Beck said the City will pre-qualify sub-contractors
for that part of the project. He said they want to be assured that
the contractor working on the ceiling has done that type of work previously. The
estimated project cost is $226,000, and Mr. Beck said they are hopeful to
begin the project during the next several months if the Council motions to
proceed after the public hearing.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Mr. Janku commented that
it is appropriate on a night when two individuals were recognized for performing
fire safety activities, that City Hall will actually be brought up to standards
to meet fire codes.
B15-99 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared
enacted, reading as follows:
B21-99 Establishing
permanent R-1 zoning on property located on the southeast side of Old
Plank
Road,
south of Glasgow Drive.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mayor Hindman noted that
a request had been received asking that this item be tabled to the February
15, 1999, council meeting.
Mr. Beck explained that this
is an approximate 16 acre tract of land in south central Columbia. Both
the staff and the Commission are recommending R-1 zoning for the parcel.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Ms. Coble made the motion
that B21-99 be tabled to the February 15, 1999, council meeting. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Coffman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(B) Construction
of Bear Creek Pedestrian and Bicycle Trail, Phase III.
Item B was read by the Clerk.
The Mayor read the following
statement for the record:
(D) Improvements
to Grant Lane from Scott Boulevard east and northward to the south
end of
the
existing improved pavement.
Item D was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Patterson displayed a
map on the overhead indicating the location of the project. He explained
that this public hearing is to determine the necessity for reconstructing
approximately 3,500 feet of Grant Lane from the end of the existing improved
section south and west of Scott Boulevard. The resolution estimate
is $755,000, with the project to be funded from the 1996 1/4% sales tax as
a specified project in that ballot issue. If approved by Council, Mr.
Patterson noted that tax bills could be levied against the adjacent property
owners not to exceed $12.00 per abutting foot. He explained several
lots affected by the project are through lots, and at the discretion of the
Council these could be subject to further reductions up to as much as 50%,
provided access to Grant Lane is forfeited. He pointed out that a portion
of the project is outside the City limits, and these properties would not
be subject to tax billing. Mr. Patterson said an agreement with Boone
County will also be necessary to address the easement acquisition process
and jurisdictional responsibilities.
Mr. Patterson reported that
two formal neighborhood meetings have been held and the staff has individually
met with interested property owners. He felt the staff has made an
extensive effort to respond to questions and answers. Mr. Patterson
stated it was not possible to develop a recommendation that reflected all
property owner requests, while still being consistent with the directions
staff received regarding other projects and amenities that should be included
in the design concept stage. He assured the Council that every effort
has been made to keep the residents associated with this project as informed
as possible. A detailed staff report was sent to the property owners
so they would have the information prior to the meeting tonight.
Mr. Patterson stated that
Grant Lane is designated as a collector street on the Major Thoroughfare
Plan, and that the existing roadway is approximately 20 feet in width consisting
of gravel in portions and asphalt in others. He noted that it has roadside
ditches, is without sidewalks, the vertical alignment does not provide safe
sight distances, and the existing street width and lack of sidewalk does
not allow for safe bicycle traveling and walking. In order to achieve
the perceived community desired amenities, even though it certainly does
not satisfy many property owners, staff recommends that the street be constructed
to collector standards of 38 feet in width. He pointed out that it
is not felt that this section of Grant Lane will be more than a local collector
street. Mr. Patterson explained that staff thought it would function
as a major commercial collector and, therefore, no traffic volume considerations
would dictate the design parameters as much as the other factors associated
with its location. The 38-foot width street is recommended to accommodate
two lanes of traffic, two four and one-half foot bicycle lanes, and two and
one-half foot curb and gutter sections for the conveyance of storm water. Mr.
Patterson said it is also recommended that parking be eliminated on this
section of Grant Lane, but this is not thought to be a major inconvenience
as most of the properties along the entire stretch back up to interior streets
and do not require front driveways on to the street.
Mr. Patterson explained staff
also recommended that Class II bicycle lanes be placed on the street since
it has been identified as a Class II bicycle route. It could be anticipated
the uses of this corridor will include a mixture of commuters and recreational
bicycles, such as families and younger riders, due to the many residential
areas close to Grant Lane. Mr. Patterson reported staff had consulted
the Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission with regard to the project, and the Commission
also recommended that the street be 38 feet wide with the two four and one-half
foot bike lanes. He said there continues to be some differences in
opinion with regard to whether the lanes should actually be striped, or whether
the pavement should simply be in place to allow for the bicycles to utilize. He
said staff recommends that five foot sidewalks along the entire length of
the project be constructed.
Mr. Patterson stated the
placement of the sidewalk is proposed, in general, to be nine-feet from the
back of the curb with the purpose being to provide for street tree planting. He
said the sidewalks would be shifted to as close as four feet in some areas
where it is possible to salvage some more mature trees. Mr. Patterson
said it had been suggested that the bicycle lane could be combined with the
sidewalk, but staff felt this would not remove bicyclists from the street
-- who should be accommodated safely and separately from pedestrians. Staff
also recommended that approximately 150 street scape trees be planted along
the project between the curb and sidewalk. He said that is consistent
with the concept of planning for a street scape.
Mr. Patterson reported staff
had spent a lot of time trying to reduce the impact the project would have
on trees, and it became apparent the only way to do so would be to reduce
the cross section of the street to 28-feet, eliminate bicycle combinations
of any type, eliminate sidewalks on one side, and shift the roadway all the
way to one side or the other. He said that would virtually result in
saving all trees along one side of the street. The disadvantages would
be the lack of adequate vehicle lanes, bicycle lanes, pedestrian accommodations,
and deciding which side of the street to take the trees off of. He
said they looked at alternating the street, but that resulted in losing more
trees because the transition from one side to the other caused even more
loss. Mr. Patterson explained staff felt this project would provide
the first opportunity to plan a street scape, and that is the basis for the
recommendation to plant trees. He reported trees would be planted approximately
50 feet apart. He noted that was probably as close as trees should
be planted in order to have the desired canopy at maturity.
Some of the other recommendations
included in the proposal were a roundabout at the intersection of Grant Lane
and Post Oak and Trailside Drive. Mr. Patterson stated that at the
neighborhood meetings, residents expressed concerns regarding the speeding
on the street, and he felt roundabouts were legitimate even though a relatively
low design speed of 30 mph is targeted for this area. He noted staff
is still recommending the traffic calming be incorporated in the project
if it is constructed. It is felt the intersection of Grant Lane with
Trailside and Post Oak to be an ideal location to incorporate a roundabout. Mr.
Patterson said it would break up the stretch of the approximately 2,700 feet
of Grant Lane into two sections, and the design shown would have an outside
diameter of 102 feet with a 40 foot diameter interior landscape island. In
addition, a 12-foot mountable truck apron is proposed to surround the landscape
island. Mr. Patterson commented the above-mentioned diameter is necessary
in order to safely accommodate emergency vehicles and school buses.
Mr. Patterson explained the
advantages of a roundabout at this location is that it would serve as a speed
control device, which would eliminate the certain request in the future for
an unwarranted four-way stop. It is also thought that the roundabout
would provide a visual enhancement for the neighborhood, as well as providing
a pedestrian friendly crossing at Grant Lane with the delineated crosswalks
and rumble strips to separate the traffic lanes. The additional cost
of the project for construction of the roundabout over a standard cross intersection
has been estimated at $20,100.
Mr. Patterson noted another
roundabout is recommended at the intersection of the Grant Lane and the Maple
Bluff Acres entrance. He pointed out the original proposal would have
had a very severe impact on property to the south and to the east. Mr.
Patterson reported staff prepared an alternative, which consisted of a tee
intersection. It is felt this design would work, but would not have
the traffic characteristics of the roundabout. He noted this type of
intersection could handle the traffic that is expected. After
designing the tee intersection, staff received information from the property
owner of the lot at the northwest corner indicating a desire and willingness
to negotiate with the City for the acquisition of the lot which would allow
putting the roundabout more to the northwest, minimizing the affect on the
south and east property owners. He said it would also provide an additional
area for landscaping and green space on the project for beautification. The
additional cost for this roundabout is approximately $24,150.
Regarding tax billing, Mr.
Patterson said prior to making any special assessments, another public hearing
is necessary to determine if there are benefits accrued to the properties. He
reiterated the possible cost reduction for the previously mentioned through
lots. Mr. Patterson reported the benefits the Council may wish to consider
if the project is completed and tax billing is proposed are as follows: the
street will be curbed and guttered, which will provide improved storm water
management; the decrease in maintenance requirements by elimination of roadside
ditches; the street improves the appearance of properties; the sidewalks
would provide improved safety for pedestrian traffic, as well as the bicycle
lanes providing safety for people in the area; and the improved street would
also eliminate dust problems that exist and improve the riding surface which
has a tendency to decrease maintenance costs on vehicles.
Mr. Campbell asked if the
cost of the second roundabout included the land acquisition costs. Mr.
Patterson said that amount was not included. With the new location
for the one roundabout, Mr. Campbell asked about the distance between the
roundabout and the property on the southwest corner. Mr. Patterson
overlaid the two overheads to show the difference. Mr. Campbell
could not see much difference.
Regarding the tee intersection
considered in place of a second roundabout, Mr. Janku asked if it would include
stop signs or yield signs. Mr. Patterson said it would not fit the
description for stop signs at that location. He said it would be similar
to what is currently at Sunflower. He said that was one of the reasons
staff felt a roundabout would work better, it would allow for safer traffic
movements.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Roy Robinson, 2981 Maple
Bluff, whose home is located at the southeast corner of the intersection
with Grant Lane, said he was speaking on his own behalf as well as President
of the Maple Bluff Home Owners Association, and also for Bob Grant who is
out of state presently. He stated Mr. Grant's property is probably
affected more by this project than anyone else. By designating Grant
Lane as a collector street, Mr. Robinson said the City standard is for a
road similar to Chapel Hill. He said if one were to objectively review
the traffic on Grant Lane, they would agree that the proposed standard is
excessive. He said a 38-foot street is overkill. Mr. Robinson
did not think the proposed "experimental" roundabout would be the best use
of funds. He complimented Mr. Patterson's staff for meeting with the
residents to try to work that out. He said Mr. King has attempted to
keep the roundabout out of his yard. Mr. Robinson had concerns about
drainage and the affect it would have on his property as well as on Mr. Grant's
property.
Ms. Coble asked Mr. Robinson
if he had an alternative suggestion to the 38-foot wide street. Mr.
Robinson said if it could be reduced to 30-feet, residents would be pleased.
Gae Dene Vance, 4008 Bent
Oak Drive, spoke as a representative of the Oak Bridge II area. She
said almost every neighbor she has heard from has been unanimous on one topic
-- street width. She said many felt the best plan would be to simply
black top Grant Lane and leave it as is. Ms. Vance stated residents
recognize that black top does not coincide with the City's overall plan and,
in light of that, they propose the most minimum street width possible, preferably
a 24 foot street, but certainly not to exceed a 32 foot street. Ms.
Vance noted that Dan Burden has indicated that Columbia streets are too wide. While
residents realize sidewalk width is a controversial subject, she indicated
they would prefer a four-foot sidewalk on only one side of the street. If
sidewalk width and number is not negotiable, they suggested an alternative
might be found in regard to considering the bike routes and sidewalk issue. Ms.
Vance gave an example of a five-foot sidewalk on one side of the street and
six-feet on the other side, with the six-foot walk being used as a combination
bike path/pedestrian area. She said that would allow for a narrow street
width and for the protection of bikers. She added that it would also
allow for on-street parking, which many of the residents oppose, but some
houses front on Grant Lane and these individuals would appreciate and expect
the convenience of on-street parking. Most neighbors agree that roundabouts
are unnecessary. Residents felt what is absolutely necessary is the
slowing of traffic. She said they have suggested many alternatives,
yet the roundabouts remain an issue. If the roundabouts are not negotiable,
Ms. Vance said the neighborhood requested that the width of the roundabouts
be kept small enough to lessen the impact on the home owners at those sites. What
was initially a 100 foot roundabout has now become the possibility of over
120 feet. She noted concerns raised about adequate storm water control
and street lighting -- which should be kept to an absolute minimum, if used
at all.
If the neighborhood does
not support the use of roundabouts, which would reduce the speed of vehicular
traffic through the area, Mayor Hindman asked what residents had in mind
for controlling speed. Ms. Vance explained that some of the neighbors
had requested stop signs and others have mentioned rumble strips. She
said their concern is in keeping the roundabouts small enough so as to not
impact the properties at these locations. Regarding the parking, Mayor
Hindman said he had received calls on both sides and there seemed to be no
unanimity. Ms. Vance explained that many people whose homes do not
face Grant Lane feel that on-street parking is not necessary and very undesirable,
but there are those few houses that front Grant and those residents want
that option.
Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Patterson
to address the storm water issue. Mr. Patterson said approximately
20% of the construction cost is being used for storm water management. He
said the preliminary designs call for inlets, drainage pipes and outlets. Mr.
Patterson explained that staff met with the home owners in the area to determine
what their specific problems are so solutions could be incorporated in the
design. Mr. Janku asked about the existing storm water control. Mr.
Patterson said it consists of open ditches and added that there are some
areas that do not drain very well.
Larry Hampton, 3906 Bent
Oak, said he had not been living in the neighborhood at the time the previous
meetings were held concerning the project. He said Mr. King had come
out and met with him and another neighbor a few weeks ago to explain the
impact the project would have on their neighborhood as well as their property. He
explained that he lives at the corner where the first roundabout is being
proposed -- at the entrance of the Katy Lakes Subdivision. Mr. Hampton
is opposed to the project because the traffic circle will encroach upon his
property. Environmentally, he is opposed to it because of the removal
of 125 trees in excess of 6-inches in diameter. He did not feel that
a 38-foot street with bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides is necessary
for this area. Mr. Hampton felt that Grant Lane should be widened to
no more than 24 feet, and resurfaced with minimum impact to the country-like
environment of their neighborhood.
Mr. Kruse asked how much
of Mr. Hampton's yard would be taken for the roundabout. Mr. Hampton
thought it was somewhere between 500 and 700 square feet that would have
to come off of one corner. He said it would bring the roundabout much
too close to his back door. Mr. Kruse asked about the depth of the
lot from his house to the rear property line. Mr. Hampton did not know
what that would be.
Tony Bartel, resident of
Maple Bluff, said everyone that he has talked with from the three neighborhood
associations are opposed to the widening of the street. He wondered
why the City would continue to push a project that everyone is opposed to. Mr.
Bartel reported he had conducted traffic counts, and the numbers did not
warrant a 32-foot wide street nor any roundabouts. He thought that
one or two stop signs would be enough to control traffic. The most
dangerous portion of Grant Lane, in his opinion, is the hill north of Post
Oak Drive. Mr. Bartel felt too much land would be lost to the street
yard and sidewalks. He felt residents could get by with a lot less
street, one sidewalk, and a bicycle path on one side to allow for parking
on the other side of the street.
Scott Shoulders, 4007 Brentwood
in Katy Lakes Subdivision, explained that his property backs up to Grant
Lane where it is currently gravel. His concern is that his property
drops off vertically where there are a lot of trees. He questioned
how it would be graded and how it would help erosion. Mr. Shoulders
said that he has a privacy fence in place and he did not care to have it
removed. He noted that the trees that would be removed are to be replaced
with trees that would take 50 years to grow to the size of the trees that
currently exists.
Mr. Patterson explained that
all projects with tapered and sloped grading call for seeding and mulch. He
said these areas are maintained until a vegetative growth is reestablished. He
pointed out that permanent right-of-way has already been dedicated in the
area, and the only easements that would be necessary would be the grading
easements in order to allow for the project to drain properly, and could
be mowed and taken care of. He said the City already has 66-feet of
right-of-way along that stretch that is dedicated as part of the plat. Regarding
the privacy fence, Mr. Patterson explained that traditionally, staff negotiates
the easements with the property owner, and the fence replacement and other
items that could be impacted by the project are addressed at a later date. He
noted the City very frequently replaces fences that need to be relocated
or removed during construction.
Jim Sheppers, 4009 Beach
Point, President of the Katy Lake Home Owners Association, said the group
has had numerous meetings and have sent fliers out. He had heard from
only one person who is in support of the project. The majority of the
home owners would like to see Grant Lane improved somewhat, but not to this
magnitude. They felt the roundabouts were too extensive, with the design
at Trailside and Bent Oak taking a lot of property away from people. Mr.
Sheppers observed it would also probably ruin the best looking entrance to
the subdivision. Regarding parking, he said the owners who face Grant
Lane want parking on the street.
Mr. Campbell asked if the
neighborhood would prefer narrower streets or wider streets with on-street
parking. Mr. Sheppers said the majority of people he had spoken with
would probably prefer a narrower street without parking. Mr. Janku
noted those people do not live on Grant Lane. Mr. Sheppers pointed
out that out of 150 members, less than 10% would be affected by having ownership
on that street.
Mr. Janku noted that there
are still a number of houses to be built on the eastern end that will have
driveways directly accessing the street. Mr. Campbell suggested that
off-street parking could be taken into account in the construction phase. Mr.
Sheppers supposed it could, but he said there are limited streets that visitors
might park on. He said Trailside and Brentwood are a considerable distance
to the west and south.
Tom Murphy, 4016 Bent Oak
Lane, voiced his preference for a narrower road. He noted than Dan
Burden recommends a smaller planting area than what is being recommended
for this project (nine feet versus six feet). Mr. Murphy pointed out
that if the sidewalk is next to the property line, roughly two feet of walking
space would be lost. Mr. Janku asked if that was because fences might
be built at the property line. Mr. Murphy said that was correct.
Doug Moore, 4010 Bent Oak,
echoed concerns about the street width being too wide. Regarding the
bike lanes, he explained Grant Lane is a street that intersects with Scott
Boulevard. Mr. Janku interjected that the City is in the process of
improving Scott Boulevard. He said the southern portion will be improved
with a sidewalk and bike lanes. Mr. Moore said that would only be up
to a point past the intersection, where Grant intersects with Scott. Mr.
Moore also read a statement from a neighbor who could not come to the meeting. The
concern was about the location of sidewalks. He said placing the sidewalk
at the property owners lot line would cause a sense of intrusion and loss
of privacy. He felt that could result in a "hodge-podge" of privacy
fences and hedge rows negating the aesthetic affect envisioned in the plan
as presented. Mr. Moore said he did not think many people would appreciate
pedestrians walking through their back yards. Mr. Kruse noted that
sidewalks are typically built at the property line in front yards. Mr.
Moore said he did not think front yards were considered as much of a private
area as rear yards are. Mr. Kruse thought that to be a good point.
Erin New, 4010 Brentwood,
noted that his home does not abut Grant Lane. He questioned the size
of replacement trees. Mr. Patterson replied they are usually one and
one-half inch trees. He said the Council could direct staff to look
at something larger, but their experience has been that the smaller trees
have a better chance of survival than the larger ones, and typically do not
have to be replaced as frequently. Mr. New asked if the width, whatever
the choice may be, would affect the elevation on the 2,700 foot stretch. He
had concerns about the hill, and is hopeful the elevation could be leveled
out some. Mr. Patterson reported there is a projected cut at the intersection
of about two and one-half feet, and there would be subsequent fills in the
low areas in order to improve the sight distance in the dips. Mr. Patterson
said whatever the width of the street is reduced by, there would be some
horizontal impact, but there would be no vertical impact.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Campbell suggested it
was time to look at the City's street standards. He noted that he travels
down Stewart Road several times a day, which is 27½ feet wide, several
times a day. He said it was built to that standard after much negotiation
and protest by the neighbors. Mr. Campbell noted that the street functions
very well and has no parking on it. He said it is inconvenient not
to have on-street parking, but residents learn to deal with it. He
suggested a 30-foot street for Grant Lane. Mr. Campbell stated there
could be two 12 foot lanes, with two and one-half feet on each side for curb
and gutter, which would total 29 feet. He said that would leave one-foot
left over. Mr. Campbell reported that a 30 foot street width, however,
would not allow for on-street parking. He noted that he spoke to very
few residents who wanted a narrower street.
Regarding the bike lanes,
Mr. Campbell explained that he classifies bike riding into two major types
-- commuting and recreational. Bicyclists who commute travel from point
A to point B on a regular basis, and they want to do it as expeditiously
as possible. Recreational biking is when children and adults ride for
pleasure. He did not think that is the same type of traffic movement
that involves commuting. When looking at the area, Mr. Campbell noted
there are no schools or commercial areas close to Grant Lane, which suggests
to him that bike traffic through this area would much more likely be recreational. Mr.
Campbell proposed that a six-foot wide sidewalk on one side would accommodate
both bicycle and pedestrian traffic. He knew the argument about bicycles
and pedestrians not mixing well, but noted that riders and cars do not mix
very well either. He felt bicyclists would be much better off to be
out of the traffic way. Mr. Campbell pointed out that the City built
such a thing on Old 63, and it seems to work very well. By reducing
the size, Mr. Campbell noted that the city could probably save $50,000 that
could be used in many other places for traffic development of other kinds.
As to the roundabouts and
intersections, Mr. Campbell's understood that a tee intersection would be
preferred at the one, but the other he had mixed feelings about. Mr.
Campbell said he would suggest a roundabout because traffic control would
be greatly needed there. He did not think a stop sign would give the
amount of traffic control that a roundabout would, which is another reason
for having a narrower street than a wider street. Mr. Campbell pointed
out that a wider street invites faster driving than a narrower street does. He
referred to the traffic on Chapel Hill Road.
With respect to the roundabout
as it relates to the street width, Mr. Kruse asked if the street is 30-feet
wide, whether that meant the roundabout would be smaller. He realized
there would have to be a certain turning radius for school buses and emergency
vehicles. Mr. Patterson said it would not change the radius of the
roundabout significantly because the radius is determined by what is required
to get those types of vehicles through the roundabout. Mr. Kruse said
he had recently been in Portland where roundabouts on residential collector
streets are used extensively. He felt they had been very effective
and attractive, and are better than stop signs. He agreed with Mr.
Campbell that at least a roundabout in the middle of the 2,700 foot stretch
would be appropriate. He understood that would have an impact upon
some yards. With respect to the sidewalks and bike lanes, he prefers
Class II bike lanes, but he could see where they could do without them here
if the sidewalks were adequate. He preferred to see sidewalks on both
sides of the street, but said there are positives and negatives to every
one of the issues.
With respect to sidewalk
location, Mr. Janku agreed it would be better to move it back from the adjoining
property line. He thought a valid point had been made about how the
property owner's use of their property, whether it be through fences or plantings,
could adversely affect the use of the sidewalk. Mr. Janku thought the
tree yard could probably be made somewhat narrower, and the sidewalk could
be moved closer to the street. He did not think the stop signs would
be appreciated because of the braking and acceleration noises that would
be heard. He did believe the roundabout could have some benefits for
the adjoining property owner. Mr. Janku noted the Bicycle Commission
would like to have a wider street, and if the Council chooses not to go with
a 38-foot wide street, he thought it should be at least 34 feet wide. He
reported that was what had been done on Old 63. Mr. Janku observed
that realistically, the City could not keep bike riders off the street, and
they needed to be given space. When the homes on the eastern end of
the street are built, Mr. Janku said it would be hard to take away parking. He
did not think they would necessarily want to designate bike lanes because
he thought the property owners who have access to the street would not want
it.
Mr. Campbell noted if there
is on-street parking, it would be difficult to establish effective bike traffic. In
reality, Mr. Janku said what happens is the on-street parking is used very
rarely and, while it does inhibit traffic, most of the time it is not used
so bike travel is relatively easy. He observed most people who have
access to a street expect to have the right to park on it. Mr. Janku
stated the Council has learned over the years that it is hard to take parking
away. Mr. Campbell noted that construction has not occurred in much
of this area, and he assumed the developer would take that into account when
building the houses. Mrs. Crockett said there are already some houses
built. Mr. Campbell said there are very few. Mayor Hindman asked
if there was on-street parking for those who presently live on Grant Lane. Mr.
Campbell said there is not. Mayor Hindman noted then there would be
no change. Mr. Janku said currently, there is a series of homes being
built, and they would be the ones adversely affected by a no parking policy.
Mr. Coffman asked how many
trees would be preserved if the Council agreed to Mr. Campbell's compromise
suggestion. Mr. Patterson said it would not significantly make a difference
because the trees are clumped so close to the existing roadway that a couple
of feet would not matter. Mr. Coffman asked about eliminating one of
the sidewalks and one of the roundabouts. Mr. Patterson said a 28-foot
street, widened all on one side and pushed to the right-of-way was about
the only way to save any significant trees.
Looking at the entire package,
Mrs. Crockett said everything is included that the Council has been asking
for in a subdivision; wide streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and roundabouts. She
noted the residents that currently live in the Grant Lane area do not agree
to many of these improvements. Mrs. Crockett felt the City is experimenting
with roundabouts in this situation to see if it would work. She wondered
why this should be done in a residential subdivision, when stop signs would
be sufficient. Mrs. Crockett thought a narrower street and sidewalks
on one side would be adequate. She said it was a good plan, but she
could not see putting it in a neighborhood that does not want it.
Ms. Coble said she did not
think of it as an experimental design, and all over the City there has been
a push for wide streets. She said looking at the large scale area map
of this part of the City, knowing it is going to keep growing, one of the
hardest problems to fix is to go back in and undo a project when planning
was not done adequately and there was no roadway and right-of-way ability. She
reported it is always an "uncomfortable right now" situation in any neighborhood
when this happens, but it will be the same, if not more so, on down the line. Ms.
Coble felt the roundabouts made a lot of sense, especially with a straightaway
like this one through a residential neighborhood. She thought the tree
planting was generous.
Mr. Kruse did not think the
Council had ever asked for wide streets. He said the Council tends
to prefer narrow streets and Class II bike lanes when they can get them on
collector streets, which do make streets wider. He said the plan staff
has put together is excellent, exactly the kind of design the Council has
been asking for. Mr. Kruse stated it is an ideal model that works great
if no development has occurred. He thought it was where the City should
start with every road project. Mr. Kruse observed the plan accommodates
pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles, while also incorporating landscaping
and traffic calming. He said what the Council is attempting to do is
to take the plan and work toward a reasonable compromise.
Mayor Hindman said the staff
has taken what the Council has been talking about -- what modern road design
has been and looking at what has been successful in other cities. He
thanked the staff for their forward thinking on this project. Mayor
Hindman said this is a collector street, a street for the general use of
the public, rather than just a neighborhood street, so they have to look
at it from two points of view -- the affect on the neighborhood, and also
the affect on the community as a whole. Mayor Hindman agreed the Council
needed to look at some form of compromise. He felt the narrower street
without on-street parking might be a good solution since there is no parking
on it presently, and the developer could take that into consideration when
homes are built. By allowing space for the on-street parking,
Mayor Hindman said this would result in a 2,700 foot long, very wide street. He
said his experience was that it would be a speedway and the residents will
be very unhappy about it. He is considering a 27½ foot wide
street just because of Stewart Road. Mayor Hindman notes he drives
on Stewart Road a couple of times a day, and it has a lot of bicycles on
it, no on-street parking, and it seems to work pretty well. He is in
favor of five-foot sidewalks on both sides of the street, but felt the green
space between the sidewalk and the street could be narrowed. He also
supported the roundabout. Mayor Hindman suggested that the lighting
be looked at to make it as satisfactory as possible to the neighbors. Regarding
the tree removal, he regretted that it will have to occur, but is impressed
by the table in the report about the endangering of the trees. He said
if the City does remove the trees, new ones would be planted to develop into
a beautiful treescape in a relatively short period of time.
Mr. Beck commented that he
did not feel the street should be built any less than 32-feet wide for several
reasons. He said citizens committees that have been appointed over
the years have always found that collector streets should be from 32 to 38
feet wide. He said the City really adopted the 38-foot standard, although
some have been waived in the past. He gave Clinkscales Avenue as an
example which carries hundreds of cars per day, is 32-feet wide, has bicycles
on it, and parking on both sides of the street. At times, Mr.
Beck noted it is very congested. He felt that bicycles on Grant Lane
would be on the street, bike lanes or no bike lanes, except for children
riding tricycles in front yards. He thought the width of the sidewalk
was a judgment call as to whether it should be four or five feet wide in
that area. Regarding walks on both sides of the street, he noted that
the standard has called for walks on one side of collector/arterial streets
as a minimum. Mr. Beck recommended that bike lanes not be painted,
and that it be classified a Class III with signs put up.
Mayor Hindman said if the
street is 30 feet wide, his recommendation would be to paint the lanes narrower
to slow traffic down.
Ms. Coble commented that
she is uncomfortable with this engineering by the Council, and pulling street
widths out of the air when they have been presented with an extensive engineering
report, a lot of public comments, and a lot of ideas that are less than crystal
clear. Mr. Campbell felt the time to have the discussion and decision
making is when the people are present so it can be done in front of them.
Mr. Campbell made a motion
that the staff be directed to design a 30-foot wide street along Grant Lane. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse.
Mr. Janku asked if
two and one-half feet would be taken off of both sides for curb and gutter. Mr.
Campbell said that would be twelve and one-half feet, which is wider than
most traffic lanes. Mr. Janku said his concern as a bicyclist is that
he is uncomfortable when he puts his wheel next to the edge caused by the
curb and gutter. He said the cars would not be affected so much,
but the people trying to move up next to the curb when there is traffic coming
both ways would be. Mr. Campbell said it would be a trade-off with
a relatively narrow street that will control traffic, or a wide street that
encourages fast traffic which would be more dangerous to cyclists.
Mrs. Crockett asked about
the width of Oakland Gravel. Mr. Patterson said it is a collector street
and was built 38-feet wide. Mrs. Crockett said she travels Oakland
Gravel all of the time and she has never noticed speeding on it. She
was not suggesting a 38-foot width, but at least 32.
Mr. Janku said he did not
think 38-feet was needed when on-street parking is not part of the possibility. He
agreed that as street designs and restrictions are in place on collector
streets to take off driveway access on newer streets, they probably need
to look at that standard. He did not know how to address the question
about the bicycle population. He did not know how much slower traffic
would be between two and four feet widths. Mr. Janku agreed at some
point the street width would make a difference. Mayor Hindman reminded
him of Stewart Road which has lots of bicycles on it. Mr. Beck said
there is no play between shoving a car next to the curb and a car coming
out of a side street. He said there is not much space for judgement. He
also pointed out there will be drop inlets. Mr. Beck asked Mr. Patterson
what that would take out of the street width. Mr. Patterson said that
was one of the big reasons they are concerned about the narrower street ,
even if the bicycle lanes are taken off. He said people are going to
ride bikes on it and there are several drop inlets. Mr. Patterson reported
he quit riding on Stewart Road the second time he got run into an inlet. He
noted that there would be disabled vehicles and people parking, and cars
would not be able to pass if there is a vehicle on the street. Mr.
Patterson stated that is another reason the standard was set -- to allow
for that eventuality.
The motion made by Mr. Campbell,
seconded by Mr. Kruse, was approved by voice vote.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that there be a tee intersection at the corner of Maple Bluff and Grant,
and that a roundabout be constructed at Post Oak. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that five-foot sidewalks be built on both sides of the street, set back six
feet from the curb. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse.
Mr. Kruse said that would
leave room for street trees between the curb and sidewalk, as well as leaving
room for landscaping on the other side of the sidewalk in some locations. Mrs.
Crockett asked if there would be utilities between the sidewalk and the street. Mr.
Patterson said typically that is where they are placed. Mrs. Crockett
asked if trees would be planted on top of the utilities. Mr. Campbell
said most of the area along there would have no utilities. Mr. Kruse
asked if this consists of above ground or below ground utilities. It
was suggested that be left open. Mr. Patterson said he had the understanding
that where possible, the Council wants it set in from the property line by
at least two or three feet.
Mr. Campbell withdrew his
motion. Mr. Kruse withdrew his second. Mr. Campbell felt that
Mr. Patterson understood what it was the Council wanted.
It was decided the Council
would leave the plan as is as far as the sidewalks are concerned.
Ms. Coble noted that there
is no plan -- the Council has adopted two additional motions, which negates
what is in the plan.
Mayor Hindman made the motion
that the Council adopt the plan subject to the motions. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Kruse.
Mr. Janku asked when an ordinance
would be brought forward about no parking. He thought it needed to
be done quickly. Mr. Patterson said staff could bring an ordinance
forward at any time.
The motion made by Mayor
Hindman, seconded by Mr. Kruse, was approved by voice vote.
(E) Voluntary
annexation of property located on the southeast corner of Sinclair
Street and
Southampton
Drive.
Mr. Beck reported this is
a 40.3 acre tract of land located on the southeast corner of Sinclair Street
and Southampton Drive. The applicant is requesting that 5.47 acres
be zoned C-P, 16.86 acres be zoned PUD-8, and 17.93 acres be zoned R-1.
Mr. Bondra pointed out that
this property is part of a larger island of unincorporated land. He
stated the developer does not choose to annex the other portion of the tract
at this time, but he assumes that at some point the additional property will
be developed and the applicant will be forced to annex in order to obtain
sewer service. Mr. Bondra noted one of the reasons the developer does
not want to annex the entire property is because the applicant is not sure
how he wants to develop the southern portion. It was explained that
when property is located within the city, the zoning ordinances stipulate
that a preliminary plat must include plans for the entire tract owned by
that individual, even if a portion of it is not included in the plat. This
is not the case when property is yet to be annexed.
Roy Rogers, 1614 Whitburn,
stated that he owns the property in question. He briefly summarized
his plans for the property, and offered to answer any questions.
It was noted that no action
is necessary at this time.
(F) Ice Skating
Facility.
Item F was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained the Committee
is requesting that the Council authorize staff to develop a request for qualifications
in order to proceed towards selecting an experienced private operator for
a possible partnership on an ice skating facility.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway,
thanked the Mayor for inviting him to the focus group that met last Thursday
to discuss the recreation center. He was hopeful the Council would
look at the project from the viewpoint of the tax payer. He noted that
back in the 80's, the Ice Chalet failed for whatever reason and did not remain
in business very long. Mr. Lane stated that should not occur again
at the expense of the tax payers. He suggested that a private company
finance the entire operations, or that it be done by donations.
Don Spadone, 5400 West Tayside,
explained that he is with the group, Ice Skate Columbia. He said they
(a lobbying group) examined the issue of bringing ice into Columbia. Initially,
the group looked at both public/private cooperation because they realized
the burden to the tax payers to build a recreation center with assorted amenities,
as well as an ice rink, would be tremendous. Mr. Spadone noted that
ice skating has changed quite a bit in the last 20 years, and the economics
that have gone into the dynamics of ice skating have changed. He commented
that the popularity of the sport has increased tremendously. Mr. Spadone
said what the group is interested in at this point is for the City to simply
take some land that is sitting vacant, and authorize leasing it to a private
company -- let a private operator take the risk and the burden to make it
successful. Mr. Spadone reported that a multi-million dollar ice facility
would help the vitality of the community, and it would not in any way increase
the burden of taxation.
Mr. Janku asked if there
were examples of where this has been done elsewhere. Mr. Spadone stated
that Mayor Hindman and other Council members went to Fairview Heights, Illinois
and viewed that facility. He reported with an investment of land from
the community, they brought in a $5.5 million facility which has been tremendously
successful. He said they have been able to secure the equivalent to
the Show-Me State Games to their town, which brings in revenue. Mr.
Spadone noted it is a win/win situation for that community, and it did not
cost the tax payers but a small pittance of the total cost of the entire
project. He thought that model could be used effectively in Columbia.
Carol Harl, 204 Westwood,
spoke as a 35-year resident of Columbia in support of an ice skating facility. As
a real estate salesperson, she felt Columbia has been hurt by not having
any winter-time facilities. In Money Magazine, she noted that Columbia
was ranked low in regards to those types of activities.
Craig Klumzach, 2001 Katy
Lane, father of a daughter who ice skates, explained that they are forced
to travel quite a bit. He said they take their dollars to Jefferson
City and St. Louis because there is no facility in Columbia for his children
to use. He thought this proposal is a compromise. He said they
are not asking the city to build an ice rink, or asking that it be funded
with a tax issue, but the Committee is asking for help to induce a private
organization to come in and build an ice rink for this community. Mr.
Klumzach felt the community has a lot of resources that are currently dormant
and could be used to encourage an organization to come to Columbia and build
an ice rink. He explained that he has been working with the Recreation
Committee to search out potential developers, and they have been somewhat
successful in drawing interest from some private firms. He noted there
are some individuals who are interested as well, but they would ask that
the City make a partnership or some investment in the venture. In conjunction
with the recreation center, Mr. Klumzach thought five or six million dollars
could be saved by bringing in a private investor and, at the same time, leverage
the resources that Columbia has to meet the need in the community.
Mr. Janku asked if there
was anything other than the land they would be requesting. At the present
time, Mr. Klumzach said the main focus is that they have that resource
available to them. In Fairview Heights, he noted that the City had
given a cash donation with some kind of a reverter agreement to the firm
that built the rink. Because two sites have been identified,
they felt that Columbia has an advantage as there is an abundance of land
that would be suitable for this purpose. Mr. Janku asked if this proposal
would be publicized and made available to anyone, local or out of town. Mr.
Klumzach said that was correct. He said they have actually been contacting
national developers and rink owners. He said some of the owners operate
as many as 25 rinks. Mr. Klumzach reported the group has spoken to
rink developers that would like to have some alternative funding -- the City
would actually own the property, offer 501 C3 corporation and would issue
revenue bonds. He said there are a lot of different possibilities on
how the issue could be approached, but they have to determine as a group
which one would be most suitable. Mr. Klumzach reported the group thought
that the incentive with the land and the appropriate reverter agreement is
the best option at this time.
Emily Willitt, 1111 W. Rollins,
stated that she has been figure skating for five plus years. She explained
that she had been skating in St. Louis just this afternoon. She spoke
about the benefits of skating, and reported a lot of her friends do not have
the resources to enjoy it because of the time and expense of having to go
out of town.
Paul Spadone, 5400 W. Tayside
Circle, explained that his team plays their games in Jefferson City and St.
Louis, with Jefferson City being considered their home ice rink. He
noted that a round trip to the rink takes an hour, which cuts into their
homework time. He is certain that a local rink would be greatly used.
Mrs. Crockett asked how many
people in Paul's age group travel to Jefferson City for games and practice. Paul
replied that quite a few people make the trip.
Kevin Colewater, 1043 Cooper,
a member of the MU Hockey Team, commented that a rink in Columbia would do
a lot toward advancing the team, as well as giving them better practice times.
In terms of the general student
population, Mr. Janku asked about the interest in skating. Mr. Colewater
explained that many of the students are from St. Louis and Kansas City and
places that have local access to ice rinks. He said the students are
very interested in hockey. Mr. Colewater reported that about 150 people
are in attendance at 11:00 p.m. to watch the team play in Jefferson City. He
said the residents in Jefferson City stay and watch their games after public
sessions.
Mr. Kruse asked if the MU
team received any support from the University. Mr. Colewater said they
are provided enough to pay for ice time and a small amount of travel.
Jean Graebner, 1800 S. Roby
Farm Road, spoke on behalf of the senior citizens. She said the dedicated
skaters are not just the young ones. She noted that a number of seniors
love to ice skate and make the trip to Jefferson City. Mr. Graebner
stated that an ice rink would not just support the young people in Columbia,
but people of all ages.
Harry Web, 3406 Rangeline,
a youth hockey coach, explained that he grew up in St. Louis and played youth
hockey. He said it is very discouraging to have to drive to Jefferson
City to play hockey. He reported that his team was in Jefferson City
on Saturday, and as they were leaving, he noted that the line for public
skating was out the door and around the side of the building. Mr. Web
commented there is a tremendous interest in skating. As a teacher at
Oakland, he hears students saying how much they would enjoy ice skating more
often. He said the school itself has had two functions this year where
they take bus loads of students to go skating in Jefferson City on Tuesday
evenings. Mr. Web felt a rink in Columbia would be very successful.
John LaMont, 1715 Cannif
Circle, explained that he is a Jefferson City youth volunteer and Parks and
Recreation participant. He currently coaches the Jefferson City High
School Hockey Team as well as a pee wee team there. Being born in Canada,
he has had the opportunity to witness very successful youth hockey programs. He
felt Columbia definitely has a demographic influence to have that kind of
program. By not having a rink, Mr. LaMont thought Columbia was
missing a major youth and adult recreation activity.
Paul Archombo, 1039 Cooper
Drive, captain of the MU Ice Hockey Team, explained that they would probably
have sell-out crowds in a Columbia rink, which would generate revenue for
the City.
James Robinett, III, 754
Demaret, a pee wee team member, spoke in support of an ice rink in Columbia.
James Robinett, Jr., 7554
Demaret, said besides his son playing ice hockey, his daughter takes ice
skating lessons as well. He asked for the Council's support for an
ice rink in Columbia.
Doug Abrams, 249 E. High
Pointe Lane, President of the Jefferson City Youth Hockey Program, explained
that there are 160 players in the youth program right now, with the biggest
problem being how to fit everyone in. He pointed out that he is in
his 30th year of coaching youth hockey, and knows what an ice rink does for
a community. Mr. Abrams reported he has seen the direction it has given
kids in those communities. He remarked that he had no question whatsoever
that in this town of 75,000 people, an ice rink would be busting at the seams
the day after it is built. Mr. Abrams is hopeful the Council would
support the issue for people of all ages in Columbia.
Scott Lincoln, 811 Cornell,
commented that skating is an affordable sport.
Shawn Gray, 2507 Black Oak
Drive, said that he and his brother usually leave after school to go to hockey
practice and do not get home until nine. He sometimes has problems
finishing his homework because of the time it takes to drive to Jefferson
City. A rink in Columbia would help him get more homework done. Mr.
Gray thought that a lot of his friends that do not skate would learn how
if there was a rink in Columbia.
Kathy Spadone, 5400 West
Tayside Circle, said they have been talking about the "ice rink" this evening;
however, to maximize the use of such a facility it would need two ice surfaces. The
reason for this would be to allow enough room for different types of skating. With
Columbia being located in the center of the state, Ms. Spadone said if a
rink were to open here, figure skating would become more popular and, inevitably,
competitions would develop. She said the same is true of hockey. Ms.
Spadone commented that geographically, Columbia would be able to draw from
both the Kansas City and St. Louis areas for tournaments and competitions. She
said a two-ice surface would draw larger tournaments to the area, and perhaps
tie into the Show-Me State Games for ice competitions, which would bring
a lot of tourism revenue into the community.
Brad Litton, 2409 Lacewood
Drive, a pee wee team member, spoke in support of an ice rink in Columbia
because of the travel time involved in getting to and from practices.
Greg Steinhoff, 5708 Sundance,
reported Mr. Lane raised a good point about the risk involved when entering
into this kind of strategy. If the private operator does not survive,
the City would be left with a white elephant. He explained that the
Committee's responsibility is to make sure that the viability of the potential
private operator is very well-documented, and that any operator of such a
facility has a proven record for it being sustainable. He said the
group has done a lot of work to analyze the demographics of the community
and to understand the difference between ice rinks that are successful and
those that seem to have not made it. They felt the demographics over
the last 25 years and the popularity of the sport have changed to the point
where now one could make a much better case for the sustainability of a project
like this. Mr. Steinhoff said the Committee is aware of the need to
make sure a legitimate operator is found, and if that is not the case, no
recommendation will be sent to the City Council. He wanted to make
sure that was clear to the ice skating community.
Mr. Janku asked if the RFQ
would specify the nature of a facility (one ice surface versus two). Mr.
Steinhoff said the Committee would like to see the operators run numbers
on both. He pointed out that it costs about 25% more to run an additional
sheet of ice, so the facility would need to exceed capacity by at least that
amount to justify the second sheet. Once that is done, the margin goes
way up as many more skaters could be accommodated, which would create that
much more revenue. They understood most rinks to be two sheets. Mr.
Steinhoff noted that some of the consultants the Committee has spoken to
have indicated that at this time, ice skating has not developed to the point
where there is an interest from all segments of the community. He said
the developer would have to be able to survive while the sport develops locally.
Mr. Campbell asked about
the size of such a facility. Mr. Steinhoff replied there are
two sizes, a NHL size rink and an Olympic size rink. He said the City
could have one of each, or any other combination. The NHL is about
200 x 85 and the footprint of a double rink is about an acre and one-quarter. He
said Olympic size is larger, 200 x 100. Mr. Kruse asked if that would
include seating. Mr. Steinhoff said the seating is generally 800 to
900 people -- five to six rows of bleachers the entire length of the ice. He
said there are usually locker room facilities underneath the seating to maximize
space utilization.
Mr. Steinhoff reported the
Committee felt, after looking at the cost of constructing a rink as part
of the recreation center project, it was something that would put them over
the top in terms of what the tax payers would support. He said that
is why they recommend pursuing this from the private sector angle.
Kyle Thompson, 3708 Wakefield,
spoke in support of a rink.
Susan Niederberger, 3614
Hermitage Road, manager of the MU Ice Hockey Team, noted that they play a
lot of their games in St. Louis because the team does not have to pay for
the ice or towels. Of the crowds they see in St. Louis, she thought
three-quarters of the spectators supported the MU league. Ms. Niederberger
reported if these fans are willing to go to St. Louis, they would certainly
be willing to come to the games if they were in Columbia.
Lottie Bushman, 818 W. Rollins
Road, reported that she is a professional ice skating coach and has coached
in Jefferson City for 17 years. She explained that she runs the figure
skating club there, and has found there are many families in Columbia who
would love for their kids to be involved, but are apprehensive because of
the time involved getting to and from Jefferson City. She said the
main reason for Columbia to support a rink is because ice skating is a sport
families can participate in together. Ms. Bushman noted it is a wonderful
opportunity for families.
Michael Laskey, 3514 Woods
Edge, pointed out that the rink in Jefferson City is not a world class facility. He
reported the facility closes in March and does not open again until October
or November as they do not have the mechanical ability to keep water frozen
all summer long. If a new facility were to be built in Columbia, it
would obviously be built to better standards and will be opened 12 months
a year. He noted if such a rink is constructed in this City, many of
the skaters would be traveling from Jefferson City for the other six months
of the year.
Mike Sweeney, Scott Boulevard,
said he had actually skated at the old Ice Chalet and added that he still
skates to this day. He said the number one growing sport is ice hockey,
and wondered why a facility should not be built.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Mayor Hindman made the motion
that a Request for Qualifications be developed to select an experienced builder/operator
with a proven record of success for an ice rink. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
OLD BUSINESS
R8-99 Authorizing
an agreement with Show-Me Central Habitat for Humanity for a grant of CDBG
funds
for the development of Haden Park Subdivision.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mayor Hindman noted that
a request had been received to table the issue further.
Mr. Janku made the motion
that R8-99 be tabled to the March 1, 1999, meeting. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
B25-99 Ozark
Ground Lease Agreement.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
would authorize Ozark to build a hangar and corporate offices at the airport. He
said it would be about 100 feet south of the postal building. Mr. Beck
reported the City's standard lease document for property is about 190 x 215
feet, and it provides for the first right of refusal for an additional
200 x 215 feet south of the initial tract. The lease rate would be
the same as for other tenants. The provision is for a 40-year lease
arrangement, with a 10-year renewal, after which time the structure would
become the property of the City. Mr. Beck noted the City would be providing
infrastructure as has occurred at the airport for other lease holders. He
also noted a request for waiver of the landing fees during the certification
process (when testing is occurring), and the FAA has indicated this is a
common practice in other communities. Mr. Beck reported Ozark would
be paying landing fees as soon as they go into business serving the public.
B25-99 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, AND CROCKETT. 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.
B14-99 Accepting
conveyances for utility purposes.
B17-99 Authorizing
a cooperative agreement with Boone County for the 1999 revenue sharing
funding
for improvements to Scott Boulevard and Oakland Gravel Road.
B18-99 Amending
Chapter 14 of the City Code to establish one way direction for alley between
Sixth
and Seventh Streets.
B19-99 Authorizing
the acquisition of easements for the construction of Bear Creek Trail Phase
III
and
Hinkson Creek Trail Phase II.
B20-99 Authorizing
the acquisition of land for the construction of C-6 Trunk Sewer to Bearfield
Subdivision.
B22-99 Amending
Chapter 14 of the City Code to correct the description of the location of
the 45
mph
speed zone on State Route PP.
B23-99 Adopting
the City of Columbia Employee Health Care Plan and the Employee Dental Plan.
B24-99 Authorizing
an agreement with RightChoice Managed Care, Inc., to administer the City's
Employee
Health Care Plan and Employee Dental Plan.
R21-99 Authorizing
a grant application to the Missouri Arts Council to provide funding for cultural
arts
administration and Columbia Festival of the Arts.
R22-99 Authorizing
a grant application to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources for loans
and
grants under the Missouri Clean Water Law for sanitary sewer improvement
projects.
R23-99 Renewing
an agreement with the Columbia Housing Authority for use of the Blind Boone
Center
Medical Clinic facilities.
R24-99 Authorizing
an agreement with the Missouri State Department of Social Services, Division
of
Family Services to assist families applying for expanded Medicaid for children.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
NEW BUSINESS
R25-99 Approving
the preliminary plat of Community View Subdivision.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Bondra explained that
this tract of land is zoned R-3 and had been proposed as a church site for
Community United Methodist Church, instead, however, the church moved onto
the Silvey Insurance property north of Broadway. Although the property
is zoned R-3, he explained that it is deed restricted to single family homes
or a church. Mr. Bondra reported this proposal is for a 27 lot subdivision. He
said Yorkshire Drive would be extended from the north to Kunlun Drive, and
there would be another cul-de-sac running westward off of Yorkshire. He
noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission had unanimously recommended
approval of the request.
Mrs. Crockett asked if anything
had been decided about the street name situation. Mr. Bondra said the
Commission talked about there being a problem with names. He said one
particular Commissioner had a problem with a street name, but he did not
know that the rest of the Commission shared the concern, or at least not
enough to recommend that street names be changed in this area.
Mr. Janku thought the idea
of the 80 acre issue, where an entire area is planned, would help. He
said if it was known in advance there might be a connection, it would make
a difference.
Mayor Hindman said this is
one more example of why the City needs to be thinking about interconnecting
areas.
The vote on R25-99 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE,
JANKU, CROCKETT. 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:
B26-99 Approving
the final plat of M.N.S. Subdivision; authorizing a performance contract.
B27-99 Approving
the final plat of Sidra Subdivision, Plat 2 a replat of lot 7 of Sidra Subdivision,
Plat
1; authorizing a performance contract.
B28-99 Rezoning
property located at 1302 Lakeview Avenue and adjoining property to the east
from
R-3 to C-3.
B29-99 Rezoning
property located between Westwind Drive and Barberry Avenue from A-1 to R-1
and
from A-1 and R-1 to R-2.
B30-99 Voluntary
annexation of property located on the southeast corner of Sinclair Street
and
Southampton
Drive; establishing permanent zoning.
B31-99 Approving
the final plat of Thornbrook, Plat No. 3.
B32-99 Amending
Chapter 29 of the Code to place a one year time limit on resubmittals of
zoning
map
amendments.
B33-99 Amending
Chapter 14-248 of the Code to correct an erroneous reference.
B34-99 Amending
Chapter 22 of the Code to establish a consistent expiration date for certificates
of
compliance.
B35-99 Levying
special tax assessment against property located at 207 Third Avenue for
abatement
of weed nuisance.
B36-99 Accepting
conveyances for utility purposes.
B37-99 Appropriating
funds for the Route PP improvement project.
B38-99 Authorizing
Changer Order No. 1 to the contract with Westport Pools, Inc. for the Oakland
Pool
renovation and appropriating funds.
Mayor Hindman made the motion
that the Council adjourn to a closed session on Tuesday, February 16, 1999,
immediately following a public work session beginning at 6:00 p.m, for the
purpose of discussing litigation, real estate, and personnel matters.
The motion was seconded by
Ms. Coble with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Motion
passed.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Intra-Departmental
Transfer of Funds.
Report accepted.
(B) Policy of
Prosecution of Marijuana Possession.
Mr. Kruse thanked the staff
for the helpful report. Mr. Coffman was appreciative of everyone involved
in the recent resolution that has been worked out. Ms. Coble thought
it had been a good compromise by all parts. Mayor Hindman commented
that it had taken a lot of good work.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
None.
COMMENTS OF THE COUNCIL, STAFF, AND PUBLIC
Mrs. Crockett commented that
she had received a call about the gate behind the Wal-Mart Super Store and
the snow being piled there. She said since that call, she had been
forwarded a report by Mr. Patterson and knew that it would be taken care
of. Mr. Patterson assured her the staff was following-up on the
situation.
Ms. Coble asked about a target
date for the completion of the extensive road work on North Garth, north
of Sexton. Mr. Patterson said he was sure there was a projected date
on the project, but he would have to check on it.
Mr. Janku mentioned a request
received from the County Commission concerning notification of residents
within 1,000 feet of proposed annexations. He thought it would be limited
to large tract annexations, which would mean it would not be a major problem. He
asked that such a policy be reviewed.
Mr. Janku noted that extra
funds were received for bus operations and asked if some of it could be used
for maps and schedules as had been discussed on previous occasions.
Mr. Janku asked for an update
from the staff as to where the City stands on the 1995 ballot issue projects. He
noted that the City of Springfield has a very active campaign of notifying
the public and keeping citizens updated about the status of projects, which
verifies that the plans are being carried out. Mr. Janku suggested
putting together an information campaign. He noted that many of the
City's projects do not have signage in place indicating the funding source.
Mr. Janku said he had received
information from a constituent concerning the Con-Agg agreement the Council
approved about a year ago. He said there were portions of the concrete
plant that were to be removed from the site, but apparently are still in
place. Mr. Janku requested that staff determine whether or not the
obligations were met by the other party.
Mr. Coffman noted that the
Stadium/Audubon improvements are coming along. He said the light has
not been installed as quickly as had been hoped, but he had received a faxed
letter today from Hollywood Theaters today stating their commitment to sign
the intersection improvement agreement. Mr. Coffman reported the letter
stated they are working on bids, and claim the project is expected to begin
March 1. It should take 120 days to complete.
Mayor Hindman said he had
been on the radio this morning and had received a request about the Hitt
and Broadway intersection. He said the Council had discussed plans
for having adjustments made for a proper pedestrian crossing at Hitt and
Broadway and asked about the status.
Mayor Hindman reported another
complaint pertained to road striping or painting on Route B. Mr. Beck
commented that is a state project, and agreed it needs to be fixed because
when the road is wet, it is very difficult to see where the lanes are.
Mayor Hindman said he was
concerned about comments that were heard earlier referring to the utilities
in the area between the curb and the sidewalk. Mayor Hindman felt the
City should be able to have street yards allowing people to plant trees in
these areas, and said there needs to be a way to do that. He reported
there seems to be a conflict when the utilities are run under the street
yards, and maybe they should be run under the street or sidewalk, or further
up into the yard. He asked for a report on the situation. Mr.
Janku said the Council had received a report years ago relating to this issue,
and he thought it was generally not a problem, but there are certain areas
where sight distance can be affected. Mayor Hindman thought it had
something to do with the roots interfering with the utilities. He wanted
to know what the policies are, and then perhaps look into what other communities
are doing to deal with this situation. Mr. Beck said he would forward
a report to the Council detailing the pros and cons.
Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway,
asked about procedures when an issue has been tabled.
Dan Viets, an attorney with
offices at 15 N. Tenth Street, after thanking the Council and the staff for
the work they do, commented on the marijuana report that was discussed earlier. He
found it interesting that the three municipalities in Missouri who were surveyed,
all have city ordinances just like Columbia's -- mirroring the state statute. He
noted it provides for the same range of punishment, up to one year in jail
and up to a $1,000 fine, or some combination. And just like the state
statute, it also provides for a maximum weight under which this can be charged. While
the written report from County Prosecutor Kevin Crane indicates that small
amounts may now be prosecuted in City Court, he reported Mr. Crane has made
verbal statements indicating what his idea of "small amounts" might constitute,
which may be something as small as 5 grams. Mr. Viets noted none of
the other municipalities surveyed have that kind of restrictive limitation
on the amounts which are charged to city court. He reported the Missouri
cities surveyed charge up to 35 grams under the ordinance -- as Columbia's
ordinance provides for.
Mr. Viets stated the only
distinction between cases that are referred to the County Prosecutor and
cases referred to the Municipal Prosecutor are the fact that one who goes
to Circuit Court under state statute may very well wind-up with a criminal
drug conviction record. Such a conviction will haunt that individual
for the rest of his or her life, and may become a serious obstacle toward
obtaining employment or seeking higher education opportunities, which might
otherwise be available. He pointed out that those who are prosecuted
in Municipal Court may suffer the same range of punishment, and will have
exactly the same type of record, with the exception that these individuals
can say they have not been convicted of a crime. Mr. Viets said the
City needs to monitor how this new policy is applied, reserve judgment on
it, and keep in mind the possibility that future Council action might be
required.
The meeting adjourned at
11:30 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Penny
St. Romaine
City
Clerk
© 2024 City of Columbia