INTRODUCTORY
The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for
a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, November 3, 2003, in the Council Chamber
of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results:
Council Members HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON and JANKU were
present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department
Heads were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of October 20, 2003 were
approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Janku and a second by Ms.
Crayton.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Hindman noted that Item I would be added under Reports
and Petitions.
The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was
approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Janku and a second by Mr.
Loveless.
SPECIAL ITEMS
Columbia Fire Department - Residential Fire Safety Institute Achievement
Award for the Year 2002.
Fire Chief Markgraf invited Mayor Hindman and City Manager
Beck to join him at the podium. On behalf of the men and women of the Columbia
Fire Department the Chief presented them with a Residential Fire Safety Institute
Award for the year 2002. He explained this to be the fifth consecutive year to
receive this award -- going five consecutive years without a fire fatality.
Mayor Hindman commended the Fire Department and their efforts
on behalf of the citizens of Columbia.
Mr. Beck congratulated Chief Markgraf and the men and women
of the Columbia Fire Department for the great job they do.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B344-03 Rezoning property located on
the northwest corner of Campusview Drive and Carter Lane from A-1 to C-P;
approving the C-P Development Plan to be known as "First Met Mortgage."
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck described the property as an approximate one-acre
tract of ground which has been recommended for approval by both the Planning
and Zoning Commission and the staff, subject to conditions. The conditions are
that (1) the uses be limited to O-1 uses and barber and beauty shops, (2) a sidewalk
would be constructed on Carter Lane, adjacent to the site, however, construction
of a sidewalk along Providence Road would be waived, and (3) the road would be
built at 28-feet, rather than 32- feet in width.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Brian Harrington, Allstate Consultants, 3312 LeMone Industrial,
offered to answer any questions.
Mayor Hindman asked if there were any problems, topographically
or otherwise, with constructing a sidewalk along Providence, other than the fact
there is no connecting point for a sidewalk at this location. Mr. Harrington
replied that due to the University, there is limited development potential between
this site and the University's land. Therefore, there is not much opportunity
for the sidewalk to be extended in the future. He also noted that a bridge would
be required to cross Hinkson Creek further downstream. Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Mr. John noted that if they waive the sidewalk, based on the
current ordinance, the City would have the right to come back and have it built
and tax billed. Mr. Boeckmann replied that was correct, assuming a benefit to
the property.
Mayor Hindman commented that he assumes that Providence Road,
no matter how far out one goes, will always be a well-traveled road and a route
that everybody would like to use, to include pedestrian and bicyclists. He suggested
the Council keep in mind that sooner or later, the City will want to provide
that kind of access.
B344-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B345-03 Rezoning property located on
the southwest corner of North College Avenue and East Walnut Street (11
North College Avenue) from R-3 to C-2.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck pointed out that staff had recommended denial of
the request while the Commission recommended approval by a four to three vote.
Mr. Dudark explained this to be the first of two related items
on the agenda. Staff concluded they could not recommend this proposal because
it was not part of the core, but at the fringe of the core, surrounded by either
University or residential property. He noted there was not much commercial property
in the area. There is no parking in C-2, there is no parking on Walnut permitted,
and there is no parking garage in the area. He also stated there are no setbacks
or landscaping requirements in C-2, so one could build to the property line.
The staff suggested C-P versus C-2, so some of the issues could be dealt with
-- like having minimal parking requirements and reduction in setbacks. Mr. Dudark
explained that the Commission debated the issue and eventually voted to recommend
approval.
Mr. Ash asked if it came in as a C-P, how difficult it would
be to get a parking variance. Mr. Dudark explained they could include the variance
request in the C-P application where the Council could reduce the amount of parking
required or they could go to the Board of Adjustment and seek the variance. Mr.
Ash asked about the probability of obtaining such a variance. Mr. Dudark explained
there was no way to predict that. He noted there is some parking there currently,
but added that with C-2, they would not have to keep it.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Bruce Beckett, an attorney with offices at 111 S. Ninth, spoke
on behalf of the applicant, the Rileys. He explained that Stephens College presented
a letter opposing this rezoning request at the Planning and Zoning public hearing.
Their fear was that the C-2 would allow unsavory uses. Since that time, Mr. Beckett
remarked an agreement has been reached with the College to impose restrictive
covenants, both on the applicant's property and Stephens College property lying
to the west of College Avenue. This agreement restricts many of the uses they
were concerned with. He passed out copies of the letter of agreement. In addition,
he passed around copies of an aerial photo outlining the property purchased from
the College by his applicant in 1996. The photo depicts the property subject
to this zoning request as well as the property subject to the next request, just
to the west. It also shows the Smith Hall property, which he stated was rezoned
some years ago. Mr. Beckett explained this property houses a building previously
known as Dearing Hall, a Stephens College residence hall before the Rileys purchased
it. It is a 30,600 square feet building consisting of three floors and a basement.
Presently there are 38 residents living in the upper floors of the building.
Mr. Beckett described the first floor of the eastern part of the building as
a large open area which may be suitable for commercial or office usage. The basement
could be used for a restaurant or kitchen because it is partially above ground
and well ventilated to the outside.
It is the applicant's present intention to continue to use
the upper floors of the building for residential purposes. The applicant is seeking
re-zoning in order to take advantage of this building for commercial and office
purposes. Presently, Mr. Beckett noted the only plans they have for this property
is to allow their daughter to operate a fitness exercise business in the large
open area of the building. Potentially, the building and property may be suitable
for a local market, a retail shop, an art studio, or quick shop to serve the
area.
Regarding the lack of parking requirements in C-2 zoning,
Mr. Beckett noted that this building is served by 41 on-site parking places lying
to the west of the building. If for any reason there is a need for overflow parking
from uses in this building, he pointed out that the Rileys also own a 59-space
parking lot directly across Walnut Street at the northwest corner of Walnut and
College. Mr. Beckett does not think parking is an issue. Regarding the area not
having a "commercial feel," Mr. Beckett believes there should be some commercial
uses in this area. He also stated this plan is consistent with every plan the
City has put on the table.
Mr. Ash asked why the applicant is resistant to taking the
C-P approach. Mr. Beckett responded it was the uncertainty of knowing what extractions
might be brought out in the zoning process. He said they also have some reservations
about their ability to compete with other downtown areas that are not restricted
by a C-P zoning designation.
Mr. Hutton asked if the 59-space parking lot is primarily
used for the residential section of the building. Mr. Beckett replied that a
few residents park there, but most are accommodated on the property itself. He
thought Mr. Riley had discussed with Stephens College the potential for making
the parking lot available on a first come first served basis. He noted it was
not a fully utilized parking lot.
John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, spoke on behalf of the North Central
Columbia Neighborhood Association. He stated the Association unanimously voted
for denial of the request. Although they were pleased to hear about the agreement
restricting uses, they were concerned about several issues. He noted that Walnut,
past Short Street, going east, narrows dramatically which is why there is no
parking on either side of the street. He felt that was important because the
core characteristics of the city center land use district are the use of on-street
parking, catering to the pedestrian, or having parking garages. Unless there
was a plan for the street to be widened, this would not be possible. He also
emphasized that there is not a necessary connection between C-2 zoning and city
center land use and added that no other property in the city center area going
up College Avenue is currently zoned C-2. Only one small parcel on Walnut is
currently zoned C-2. He also brought up the mention of a strip mall on College
Avenue at the Planning hearing as an issue of concern.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Regarding parking for C-P, Mr. Janku asked if they would have
to provide parking for the most intense use listed under the plan. Mr. Dudark
explained that the standard is based on the uses actually occurring at the building,
not the potential uses. He stated the uses are reviewed when the occupancy permits
are submitted and the ratio of those uses determines the parking requirements.
Mr. Janku asked if the property owner would have to apply for a waiver or create
additional parking if the uses change. Mr. Dudark replied that if the occupancy
changed, the parking requirement would change. He stated that additional parking
could be handled with an off-site location.
Since it appears the only reason to change the zoning is to
open an exercise studio, Mr. Ash asked if some type of variance or conditional
use could be obtained. Mr. Dudark explained that the Board of Adjustment cannot
grant use variances because they cannot allow uses that are not permitted in
the district, but can amend mentions such as set backs, heights, etc.
Mayor Hindman felt if this was found to be an appropriate
extension of downtown there ought not be any parking requirements because that
is what downtown is all about. He agreed they did not want to see a strip mall
along College Avenue.
Mr. Janku noted the request by the Downtown Association to
put a moratorium on tearing buildings down to create parking. He thought they
would protect the parking they have to make sure they could operate a viable
business. He did not anticipate forcing the applicant to have parking.
Mr. Loveless stated he did not have a problem with extending
commercial to this property, but said he would shy away from open C-2 zoning
in this area. He felt the Council would want more control of how things looked
if the downtown area were to be expanded. He thought C-P was appropriate and
stated he would not support C-2.
Mr. John stated he did not have a problem with height and
setback. He asked what the Council would require with a C-P. He noted various
zoning districts in the area and stated that because it happens to be one block
over, it should not be open zoning. Mr. John felt the problem is that there is
no half way point.
When upzoning, Mr. Ash felt it should be planned zoning and
suggested it may be time to bring in a more simplified plan with less parking
and less bells and whistles. He was concerned that C-2 would continue in the
area.
Mr. Hutton saw this as downtown space and C-2 zoning being
more or less in compliance with virtually everything else downtown. He was not
receptive to planned zoning downtown. He understood Mr. Beckett's concerns about
extractions, having already talked about right of way on Walnut and on Providence.
Mr. Hutton noted that they have tried making the C-P rules and regulations easier
a number of times, but said they end up where they started every time.
Mayor Hindman stated his concern regarding open zoning, if
it is downtown, may be the opposite of the usual concern. If it is an extension
of downtown, Mayor Hindman said it makes sense that they be able to build the
downtown type buildings without having to go through a lot of elaborate procedures.
Mr. Janku agreed that the city center could have different
types of zoning. If they are concerned about C-2 not being appropriate in certain
areas because it is too open, he suggested they start building restrictions into
that zoning to make it more restrictive. He did not want to end up taking away
the flexibility that everyone thinks makes downtown a positive place. Mr. Janku
did not see this property changing much in the short term. To alter the building,
he felt, would be a major cost.
B345-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, JOHN, HINDMAN, JANKU. VOTING NO: LOVELESS, ASH.
CRAYTON. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B346-03 Rezoning property located on
the south side of East Walnut Street, approximately 280 feet west of
North College Avenue (1208 and 1210 East Walnut) from R-3 to C-2.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that approval was recommended by the Commission
on a four to three vote. He assumed the same staff comments would apply.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Bruce Beckett, an attorney with offices at 111 S. Ninth, again
spoke on behalf of the applicant. He explained they included this property in
a second zoning request because this property is somewhat different than the
first property. The property has two houses on it presently with the house on
the far east being a two unit home and the other being a one unit home. They
thought it made sense that if the property on College Avenue was zoned C-2 and
the property to the west of it is zoned C-2, this property should also be zoned
C-2 because it is between the two properties. Mr. Beckett noted they have no
immediate plans for the two houses other than to continue their present use.
John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, spoke on behalf of the North Central
Columbia Neighborhood Association. He asked the Council to vote against the request
saying this was even more premature because there is not an immediate proposed
use for it.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mayor Hindman was concerned about creating the possibility
of a long strip mall on Walnut Street. He thought it would be inconsistent to
insist that it be planned, yet, it would have the impact of affecting, to a certain
degree, what could be done with the entire strip of property under single ownership.
B346-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON,
JANKU. Bill defeated.
B352-03 Authorizing construction of
water main serving Stonecrest Plat 5.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck described the project as 4,000 feet of 8-inch water
line with the developer paying the major share and the City paying the differential
cost of approximately $4,700.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B352-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B353-03 Authorizing relocation of water
main along Rollins Road and Rothwell Drive.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this would relocate an eight-inch
water main in conjunction with a section of Rollins Road. The estimated cost
is $50,300 to be paid out of Water and Light funds.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B353-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows; VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
(A) Voluntary
annexation of property located on the northwest side of Old Field Road,
approximately 700 feet south of Vawter School Road.
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck described this as a nine-acre tract located in southwest
Columbia. The applicant is requesting R-1 zoning. He noted a companion bill under
Introduction and First Reading.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
OLD BUSINESS
B347-03 Granting a variance from the
subdivision regulations regarding sidewalk construction along the east side
of Sinclair Road, adjacent to Lots 125 through 130 in Heritage Meadows Subdivision,
Plat No. 6.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that there are Council adopted guidelines
as to where sidewalk variances would be appropriate. He said the guidelines have
been applied to this request and both staff and the Commission recommended denial.
Roy Rogers, 1614 Whitburn, explained that six homeowners are
involved in homes he developed. Mr. Rogers claimed a precedent had been set along
Gillespie Bridge Road for the Stonecrest Subdivision. He passed out pictures
of that area and said it was a situation where the road does not go anywhere
and does not come from anywhere. He said this is a similar situation as it is
over one mile to the next sidewalk to the south and over a quarter of a mile
to the sidewalk to the north. He passed around pictures of his development and
stated he would like some time. He did not know what was going to happen to the
Sinclair Farm to the west, but said he owned 20 acres of PUD-8 north of this
area which he would probably build a PUD-5 attached development with sidewalks.
By that time, Mr. Rogers said they would have a reason to build this sidewalk.
He pointed out that the homeowners were told that the City needed to know of
their plans because if the owners did not build the sidewalk, the City would.
Mr. Rogers stated that if the variance was not approved, they intended to build
the sidewalk. Mr. Rogers pointed out that this sidewalk would add 2600 square
feet of impervious surface. He noted that The Cascades is south of this development
and said there would be more development south of that area. Mr. Rogers felt
this sidewalk would only have to be torn out and replaced when the road is widened.
Mr. Loveless asked if a variance would preclude the City from
requiring sidewalks at a later date. Mayor Hindman said it would not, but a benefit
to the property would have to be shown. Mr. Janku pointed out they had not found
a benefit in the case of Scott Boulevard. He said it is not guaranteed that the
City would be able to recover costs, it would be up to the Council at the time.
Mr. Hutton said a decent argument could be made against it in this case since
it is back yard sidewalks.
Mr. Janku noted that the staff report addressed the topography
issue and had found no challenge. He also noted that there were a lot of development
issues surrounding the Gillespie Bridge Road area and that the temporary sidewalks
did not seem to be functioning well. Mr. Janku recalled a variance that was granted
on the north side of Nifong near the school, where there is no sidewalk to this
day. Mr. Hutton asked if that was done before or after Nifong was improved. Mr.
Janku said it was after the improvement and he thought the school was already
there. Mr. Janku noted that the staff report indicates that the sidewalk would
not necessarily need to be torn out as the road is constructed. He anticipated
a lot of development in the area which would probably proceed the City's ability
to improve Sinclair Road. Mr. Janku stated that he would like to have the sidewalk
network in place so the kids could walk to Mill Creek Elementary School.
Mr. Hutton asked about lots having lesser tax bills and if
there was a mechanism where the City could force this to happen as part of street
reconstruction and have the people who are supposed to pay for it, pay for it.
Mr. Patterson felt the key was that when the City tax bills at some later point
it has to prove benefit to the property. In the case of the subdivision platting
process, he said it is part of the defined infrastructure requirements unless
it is specifically waived. There have been cases where the Council has waived
them when it did not seem reasonable to require them. Unless there is a waiver,
the City requires that all infrastructure as required by the subdivision ordinance
be in place before a certificate of occupancy is issued. In this case, he said
there were a few of them that received certificates of occupancy before finding
out the sidewalks were not constructed. Mr. Hutton asked if the City could do
a development agreement or something other than tax billing. Mr. Boeckmann read
from the Policy Resolution on sidewalks a provision reading as follows: if the
City finds there is not an immediate or near future need for a sidewalk or walkway
at the location of the variance request, the City will approve the variance request
only if a development agreement is entered into between the property owner and
the City which provides the owner shall pay to the City an amount equivalent
to the cost of construction of a conventional sidewalk.
Mr. Hutton commented that his issue was not getting the sidewalk
built, but was surprised that we would say we could build a sidewalk prior to
street construction and not have to tear it out during street construction. Mr.
Patterson said because of the right of way and topography that it could be designed
so that it would not need to be torn out.
Regarding the cost of the agreement, Mr. Hutton noted if the
City entered into a development agreement the cost would be what it would cost
the City. Mr. Patterson believed that was accurate. Mr. Hutton pointed out when
people build sidewalks themselves the cost is considerably less.
Because Sinclair was noted as being a dangerous road, Mr.
Ash felt that was exactly the reason a sidewalk was needed.
Mayor Hindman agreed with Mr. Janku and Mr. Ash saying that
this does not fit the criteria for approval of a variance. On roads such as this
where there are no shoulders and people have to walk out in the streets and subject
themselves to fast moving traffic, in addition to the fact that the location
is near a school, Mayor Hindman felt that there should be a sidewalk. He said
there will always be an issue with the first sidewalk not connecting to anything.
B347-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: NO ONE. VOTING NO: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN,
CRAYTON, JANKU. Bill defeated.
B354-03 Amending Chapter 27 of the
City Code to implement a net metering rate for electric service.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Malon explained that the State Legislature passed legislation
requiring electric utilities to develop a net metering rate for consumers who
might wish to own, install and operate, for their own use, a solar, wind, bio-mass
generating facility or hydrogen fuel cell with a capacity of not more than 100
kilowatts. They had to set a price for excess energy, if generated by this device
and pumped back into the electric utility system. Rate studies have been done
and the rate will be $.02 per kilowatt hour. He pointed out that has been the
small power producer co-generator rate for some time and as a result of the net
metering, that rate will be modified accordingly. Both the staff and Advisory
Board recommend approval.
Referring to Section 27-105 (d), Mr. Loveless thought the
liability insurance seemed to be an additional expense that would make this even
more economically unattractive. Mr. Boeckmann noted that it is a regulation required
by the Public Service Commission.
B354-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B355-03 Amending Chapter 27 of the city Code relating to the
Super Saver Loan program.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Malon explained that this energy conservation program
has been in effect for about 22 years and has not been updated for about 11 years.
The loan program is basically for homeowners and designed to make improvements
in insulation and replace old, inefficient units with high efficiency heat pumps
and air-conditioning units. Approximately 1,560 consumers have taken advantage
of this program since its inception. The loans are available for both residential
and small commercial customers with loans being capped at $5,000. The most important
changes are that they are increasing the rating for the air-conditioners from
a 10 to a 12 and allowing an additional $500 per rating for devices higher than
12. He noted that the City wold not subordinate the deed of trust securing these
loans for any other loan or refinancing. Mr. Malon said that has been standard
practice although it has not been outlined as such in the ordinance.
Mayor Hindman asked if there is an income requirement. Mr.
Malon replied there is not. He said it is strictly a business situation and if
you are a Water and Light customer and your bills have been current and you have
had no delinquencies, you are eligible.
Mr. Janku asked if these loans are primarily residential.
Mr. Malon stated they have had some small commercial loans, but most are residential.
Mr. Janku was hopeful a little publicity could generate some more use by businesses.
Mr. Hutton asked about advertising for the program. Mr. Malon
explained that they advertise it at certain venues such as the Home Show, and
from time to time ads are run in the newspapers and various brochures.
B355-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
CONSENT AGENDA
The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions
were read by the Clerk.
B348-03 Approving the final plat of
Kunzler Subdivision; authorizing a performance contract.
B349-03 Approving the final plat of
First-Met Plat 1; authorizing a performance contract.
B350-03 Approving the plat of Phi Kappa
Theta Subdivision.
B351-03 Authorizing vacation of a utility
easement located within lot 2C1 of East Pointe Plat 2-C.
R237-03 Authorizing an agreement with
First Night Columbia, Inc. for support of the New Year's Eve celebration.
R238-03 Authorizing an agreement with
Magic City Enterprises for operation of a passenger shuttle service at Columbia
Regional Airport.
R239-03 Directing the City Manager to
review the feasibility of annexing City-owned property located at the west
terminus of Manhasset Drive and south of Smith Drive into the City.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions were
read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH,
HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions
declared adopted, reading as follows:
NEW BUSINESS
R240-03 Approving Preliminary Plat #2
of Stonecrest Subdivision.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Dudark displayed the plat located on the north side of
Chapel Hill Road, three-tenths of a mile west of Scott Boulevard, consisting
of just under 20 acres. The right of way on this particular property has been
the subject of much discussion. The plat consists of 45 R-1 lots -- 42 with access
from Chapel Hill Road and 3 with access from the north. The discussion centered
on whether or not Chapel Hill, to be widened, would need a wider right of way
than a 40 foot half width which was proposed by the applicant and was the subject
of a development agreement between the applicant and the City in July. The applicant
proposed a greater setback, 35-feet instead of 25, on the rear of the lots so
if there was widening in the future, it would not affect any buildings. They
also agreed to a 20-foot utility easement, rather than the standard 10-foot.
In effect, Mr. Dudark said, there would be room to set back the utilities so
they would not have to be relocated. The Planning and Zoning Commission agreed
to accept the alternative with recommendation to the Council to approve the plat
with those two conditions. In addition to those conditions, the Commission is
recommending that Chapel Hill Road be built at a 49-foot street width, which
is the minimum in the subdivision regulations for arterial streets. Mr. Dudark
explained that the development agreement proposed a 42-foot width versus the
49-foot width recommended by the Commission. Mr. Dudark though it was important
for the Council to determine the street width since the applicant would be preparing
the final plans for the street as part of the development agreement. He displayed
three options (49 feet; 46 feet; and 42 feet) and explained how each would work.
Part of the discussion was about providing bicycle facilities from west Columbia
or merely Scott Boulevard to Perche Creek Trail and a planned trail in the future
that would ultimately connect down to the MKT Trail to the south. He thought
the issue was what should initially be constructed in the area.
Mr. Boeckmann noted that the street is not internal to the
final plat. He said they would not have to present plans as part of the final
plat. Mr. Dudark thought it was part of the development agreement - that they
present final plans with the final plat.
Mr. Ash asked if the City would have to pay the difference
if the Council agreed to a 49-feet street since the development agreement stated
42-feet. Mr. Dudark stated Mr. Ash was correct.
Mr. Patterson explained that the Council determined the width
at the time of public hearing for construction and that there was no need to
determine width at this point.
Mr. Dudark believed the design would come back to the Council
with the final plat as part of the development agreement. He felt the question
was whether it would have to be redesigned or whether the Council accept the
plans at 42-feet.
Mr. Boeckmann's recollection of the development agreement
was that the City would follow the normal procedure for a street with a public
hearing, etc. But, he said it did give the option to the developer to construct
a street if he did not want to wait that long. Mr. John asked Mr. Patterson to
go through the points of the development agreement -- what was agreed to and
why. Mr. John recalled it was done at an open meeting at a public hearing and
that there had been a discussion. He remembered debating the width of the right
of way and determining 80-feet was sufficient.
Mr. Patterson explained the central issue around the confusion
was the fact that this created exterior streets to subdivisions. Once that is
done, it is not part of Chapter 25 regulations. He explained that it becomes
subject to Chapter 22 where the City has to go through the process of tax billing
the developer. If it is an interior street, the developer is required to do the
grading within 6 inches of the final grade, provide the drainage structures,
the design and the right of way. If it is an exterior street, the developer is
required to provide right of way. He said they do not submit the final design
with the final plat unless we have some kind of agreement, which we have in place.
Typically, had we not had an agreement, the developer could have platted the
property, which is exactly what was done in South Stonecrest - the developers
were allowed to design the final plat with a 40 foot right of way and no street
plans required. Mr. Patterson pointed out no street plans were required on Gillespie
Bridge Road, Smith Drive, or any other half street or exterior street we have
had. He stated the developer has agreed to assume those responsibilities which
they did not have to do because of the issues that created exterior streets.
He said they reasonably asked that their liability be limited to a maximum contribution
of cost. They have offered to contribute in excess of what they would have had
to had it remained an interior street. They have agreed to build the entire length
of Louisville Drive at 38-feet, which is now an exterior street to two different
tracts, at no expense to the City. They have agreed to pay the local pavement
portion of Chapel Hill if the City proceeds with a normal tax bill construction.
They have agreed to put up the money for the sidewalks so the future property
owners do not have to be faced with paying for them at a later date. Mr. Patterson
stated the developers have agreed to do those things and in return they have
asked to be able to build a 42-foot street, if they are ready to proceed and
the City is not. If the developers design a 42-foot street and the City decides
that is not what it want to build, the City would have several options. Mr. Patterson
stated one option is that the City can modify the designs. The City is capable
of doing that and has the benefits of the hydraulics, the grading, the cross
section, and the work that has already been done. He noted that the modifications
would not be a redesign, but simply a modification of the design that is there.
The City would also have the option of adding to the street, rebuilding it, or
constructing it in phases. What we have assured with the agreement, is that the
developer will pay and contribute more than they would have if it had not been
made into exterior streets. Mr. Patterson pointed out that this is no different
from what has been done in other locations where half-width right of ways have
been platted and the City had to go back in and construct the streets. When we
do that, he explained, the only thing the developer pays is the cost of curb
and guttering. Mr. Patterson felt the real issue to be that these are exterior
streets and no longer a part of the subdivision plat.
Mr. Dudark commented that he did not dispute what Mr. Patterson
was saying and added that this is the arrangement, which is pretty standard,
for an interior street. He pointed out Section 4 b of the development agreement
which says the developer will provide the design and final plans for the construction
of Chapel Hill Road including hydraulic considerations for storm water handling
and storm water management facilities. The street pavement will be 42-feet wide
with integral curbs on both sides. Unless the developer is told otherwise, Mr.
Dudark suspected he would design a 42-foot wide street that would be submitted
to the City. He said if it is not going to be 42-feet, he felt now was the time
to decide what the design should be.
Mr. Janku asked what our cost would be. Mr. Dudark explained
the difference between a standard street and a 42-foot street to be $300,000.
He said that is the City's share of this development agreement. To go wider than
42 would cost more money, but he said there would be more features. He questioned
what kind of road was wanted.
Mr. Loveless asked about the pavement width, curb to curb,
on Chapel Hill, east of Scott Boulevard. Mr. Patterson replied it was 38-feet
wide. He said they have built 30-foot major collector streets and he believed
Forum to have been built at 28-feet. These are decisions the Council makes at
public hearings on road construction. The process followed regarding design and
construction always involves interested parties in order to get their input.
At the time of the public hearing, Mr. Janku remembered discussing
the issue of bike and pedestrian facilities which was deferred because it was
decided that was something that could be addressed later. He wanted to make certain
that it could be done and not precluded this evening. Mr. Patterson stated that
the developer has agreed to pay five feet of it. He said the City could put in
ten feet with the City paying for the additional five feet.
Mr. John commented that with an 80-foot right of way and a
42-foot street, we would have 19 feet on either side. He stated the City could
put in as much pedway as it wanted. He asked why we would go to a wider street
at this point. Mr. Janku felt traffic volumes would have to be considered.
Mayor Hindman asked if the development agreement would eventually
allow a four lane road. Mr. Patterson responded that was correct. Mayor Hindman
asked if they were talking about a half-width right of way currently. Mr. Patterson
replied that was correct, 40 on the south side which was approved in a final
plat and the same on the north side. Mayor Hindman asked about the ten feet for
setback. Mr. John explained there is an additional ten-feet of setback, an additional
ten-feet of utility easement, so if they decided in the future to condemn ten-feet,
none of the houses would be made non-conforming and the utilities would have
plenty of space to be moved out if we wanted to go out to a 100-foot right of
way and a 66-foot, four-lane highway.
Mr. Janku asked if a center turn lane would be essential in
the near future or if it was something that might be an intermediate step. Mr.
Patterson thought the only thing there might be would be some widening at intersections
where if there was traffic that needed a sheltered left turn. Mr. John interjected
that could possibly be at Scott Boulevard.
Mayor Hindman asked if the pedway was something we would build
now. Mr. Patterson said the Council would have that option at any time, particularly
when sidewalks were being built.
Regarding various street widths, Mr. Beck commented that he
would like to see the Planning and Zoning Commission bring forward the standards
so the Council can review them as soon as possible and adopt street standards.
If the City is going to have pedway standards, he stated that he would like to
see that adopted also. Mayor Hindman understood these standards would be discussed
shortly at a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Regarding bicycle and pedestrians issues, Mr. Janku pointed
out that they need to be concerned with how pedestrians would get across the
road safely.
Mr. Janku asked if they voted in favor of this tonight if
there would be another public hearing where they would discuss pedways, etc.
Mr. Patterson explained that the purpose of the agreement was to give the developer
authorization to proceed with a 42-foot street if the City does not take action
on doing something with the street. He assured the Council there would be no
permits for any streets to be built until the City Council has the opportunity
to determine if they wish to proceed with something different. Any money the
City puts into a project, he reiterated, has to have a public hearing. He said
that is when the Council has the ability and authority to give direction as to
what public improvement project is to be built.
Mayor Hindman asked if they wanted to include the pedway whether
they should be calling for it now. Mr. John replied that if they do that, they
would basically be saying they were going to spend money that they have not been
authorized to spend. Mayor Hindman did not want to be in the situation where
the developer is designing something the City was not going to want. He asked
how long it would take to design the street. He did not want to hold up the final
plat. Mr. Boeckmann stated that he did not remember that the final plans were
tied to the final plat.
Mr. Dudark commented that a 42-foot street would certainly
work, but said it was not any standard that the City has had. He asked the Council
to decide whether it was going to be three lanes or two. He said it needed to
be 42-feet with three lanes or narrower with two lanes. He felt it was too wide
for two lanes. Mayor Hindman asked if it would be too wide with two bicycle lanes.
Mr. Dudark said it would be, and added that 38-feet would be fine with two travel
lanes and marked bike lanes. He said the problem was that when you get to the
intersection, where there is a three lane, you run out of room for the bicyclists.
Mayor Hindman asked if the road could be widened at the intersections. Mr. Dudark
stated that they could, but it would be wider than 42. He said they would go
to 49 feet to get the extra width, otherwise the bicyclist runs out of space.
Mr. Dudark felt the developer could proceed with the final plat drawing because
the right of way and the easements would not change. He said it was a question
of what street to build within that available right of way. Mr. Hutton pointed
out that plat would not have the specific street design on it.
Mr. Loveless disagreed with the recommendation of 49-feet
from the Commission. He stated one of the main concerns with Chapel Hill is speeding
because it is so wide.
Fred Overton, the developer, explained that the development
agreement has been in place since the second meeting in August. He stated that
they have already designed a 42-foot street per the development agreement. The
design has already been submitted to the City. Mr. Overton apologized for any
misunderstandings and thanked Mr. Beck, Mr. Boeckmann and Mr. Patterson for their
assistance and cooperation in trying to get the issues resolved.
Thad Simmons, 5002 Orchard Lane, explained there had been
a charity run in the area under discussion. He said it had been quite dangerous
along parts of Forum and Chapel Hill because of the wide streets and absence
of a clearly marked pedestrian walkway. He stated it had been a harrowing experience.
Mr. Simmons encouraged the Council to keep in mind that wider or bigger is not
always better. He felt narrower would be better, especially when utilizing some
of the easement for a proper pedestrian walkway off the street.
Mr. John questioned a stubbed street coming in from the north.
Chris Sander, Crockett Engineering, asked if Mr. John was talking about the apparent
street right of way on the northwest side. Mr. John replied that he was referring
to that. Mr. Sander explained that it shows up on the assessor's map as a Louisville
Court extension. He said it has been determined to be private property and is
not a street right of way. There is no street there, but he said an easement
for access had been granted to the Georgetown neighborhood. He said it is only
for Georgetown, not for public use. Mr. John assumed it was the Daniel Boone
Little League land that was swapped.
The vote on R240-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON,
LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R241-03 Approving Preliminary Plat
No. 8 of Vanderveen Crossing.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained this to be an approximate six and one-half
acre tract in north central Columbia.
Mr. Dudark noted the plat consists of twelve R-1 zoned lots.
It is an extension of an existing platted area. The recommendation is for approval
of the request.
The vote on R241-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON,
LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R242-03 Approving the Preliminary Plat
of Hanover Plaza Phase 6.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Dudark explained this to be a C-3 zoned area consisting
of 11 acres. This six-lot subdivision is designed with a short cul-de-sac coming
off of Hanover Boulevard, a local non-residential street. The cul-de-sac will
serve four of the lots. He pointed out a note on the plat saying all the lots
will have driveways off the cul-de-sac and not off of Hanover. There are two
other lots to the north of the cul-de-sac which would have access from Hanover
Drive. The recommendation is for approval.
Mr. John asked if lot one has access onto Clark Lane. Mr.
Dudark replied there is no access to Clark Lane.
The vote on R242-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON,
LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R243-03 Rejecting the bids for the
Fifth Street and Cherry Street sidewalk project and authorizing readvertisement
for bids.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Patterson noted that the low bid was very close to the
resolution estimate, but the bid bond specified in the documents was not used.
The staff has reason to believe the City will receive several bids if it is rebid.
In the meantime, he explained they are working with the Law Department on some
language changes so this type of situation can be avoided in the future.
The vote on R243-03 was recorded as follows; VOTING YES: HUTTON,
LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R244-03 Authorizing the sale of SO2
allowances for repair and rehabilitation of Boiler #7.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Malon explained this to be a follow up to a report at
the last meeting. The proceeds of the sale will be used for repair of boiler
#7.
Mayor Hindman noted that the allowances are available because
the City uses such low sulphur coal, which is a voluntary action on our part.
Mr. Loveless reiterated his feelings about selling someone
else our right to pollute. He commended the staff for using the innovative financing
mechanism.
The vote on R244-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: VOTING
YES: HUTTON, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: LOVELESS. Resolution
declared enacted, reading as follows:
R245-03 Authorizing a letter of support
for the Yarco Company's proposed acquisition of five properties on Claudell
Lane.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that a staff report had been prepared by
Mr. Dudark which had been sent to the Council. The recommendation is for approval.
Mayor Hindman asked if they voted to support the Yarco Company's
request if they would be favoring one over another when applying for limited
funds. Mr. Beck explained there are two different type of applications and it
was thought that it would be best that both be supported. The Claudell Lane project
is for the acquisition and renovation of family housing and the proposed application
in south Columbia is for the construction of new housing for the elderly. He
said both projects will be rated on their own merits. He noted the City does
not have to prioritize the applications for MHDC in order to be considered for
funding.
Mayor Hindman commented that he had driven by Columbia Square
and that it already looks much better. Ms. Crayton remarked that she had been
inside and that they had done a wonderful rehabilitation job. She pointed out
that it had been the tenants that called about problems, not Grass Roots Organizing.
She felt they did not need a third party to work between the residents and the
new owner.
The vote on R245-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON,
LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
The following bills were introduced by the Mayor unless otherwise
indicated, and all were given first reading:
B356-03 Voluntary annexation of property
located on the northwest side of Old Field Road (3601 Old Field Road);
establishing permanent R-1 zoning.
B357-03 Rezoning property located generally
east of Strawn Road and north of West Worley Street, extended from A-1 to
R-1.
B358-03 Approving the final plat of
Boone County Bank plat 1; authorizing a performance contract.
B359-03 Appropriating funds for the
Housing Market Analysis Study.
B360-03 Authorizing reconveyance of
development rights for lots 117, 118, 120, 121 and 125 of Bearfield Meadows
Subdivision.
B361-03 Authorizing a right of use permit
with The Curators of the University of Missouri for chilled water lines and
control cable conduit within Elm Street right of way.
B362-03 Authorizing an agreement with
Columbia's Woodcrest Chapel to allow limited access onto Nifong Boulevard.
B363-03 Appropriating FY 03 Fleet Operations
revenues to the FY 03 operating budget to offset expenditures for items for
resale.
B364-03 Amending Chapter 14 of the City
Code requiring protective covers on trucks hauling rock. (Introduced
by Janku)
B365-03 Imposing a moratorium on the
demolition of buildings in the Special Business District.
B366-03 Authorizing a supplemental agreement
with the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission for the installation
of active warning devices at the Rogers Street COLT highway-rail crossing.
B367-03 Accepting conveyances for utility
purposes.
B368-03 Appropriating fire equipment
sale proceed funds.
B369-03 Accepting a grant from the Missouri
Department of Public Safety for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Program project; authorizing subgrant agreements; appropriating funds.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Inter-departmental
Transfer of Funds.
Mr. Janku asked about the marketing funding for transportation.
Mr. Patterson explained they were putting some of the marketing budget into hiring
people to do person-to-person type marketing. Mr. Janku asked if they would be
doing any route changes. Mr. Patterson replied that he would be submitting a
report with some recommended adjustments for Council consideration. The adjustments
would allow them to add several hundred hours of service on the routes without
any change in their annual budget. This is a result of our expanded contract
with the University.
(B) Review
of Substance Abuse Commission Report Regarding City Business and Liquor
Licensing Policies and Ordinances.
Mr. Beck explained the report and noted that since notification
of the cutbacks Chief Boehm has reorganized the Community Action Team to fill
the void created. The report suggested we have a staff committee set up to hear
appeals. With the current process, the appeal goes to the City Manager and on
to the City Council. Mr. Beck did not recall any going to the Council and stated
that very few came to his office since the State took care of most of them. Because
more of these actions will have to be handled by the City, the committee looked
at how Jefferson City was operating. Jefferson City has a staff committee that
hears appeals and from there, it goes to the court system. The committee suggested
that we look at our guidelines. If the Council wishes to proceed, Mr. Beck suggested
they direct staff to prepare an ordinance incorporating the suggestions in the
report.
Based on another discussion, Mr. Janku did not feel they would
necessarily want what was stated in the report. He felt there should be something
spelled out about a hearing procedure and that the appeals should go to the court
system, not the City Council.
Mr. Loveless recalled discussion regarding reassessing the
fine structure for violations both of the establishment as well as the offending
individuals. He said he would like to see those included if they ask for ordinance
modifications.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that staff be directed to prepare
ordinance modifications. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved
by voice vote.
(C) Rezoning
Notification Signs.
Mr. Dudark explained that the current signs are two-feet by
four-feet metal signs which take two people to handle them and get them in the
ground. He explained this as an efficiency move and said the graphics person
has been asked to fit the message on a standard real estate advertising sign
which they believe can be done. The signs are wearing out and need to be replaced.
In addition, the new signs will have a box attached to pick up pamphlets if someone
wants more information.
Mr. Janku made the motion that the issue be referred to the
Planning and Zoning Commission for a public hearing and recommendation. The motion
was seconded by Ms. Crayton.
Mr. John mentioned a sign size of 30 x 24 which is pretty
standard. While looking, he suggested the larger sign be considered. Mr. Dudark
said they would look into it.
The motion made by Mr. Janku, seconded by Ms. Crayton, was
approved unanimously by voice vote.
(D) Grasslands
Open Space and Parks Special Assessments.
Mr. Beck explained that issues have come up regarding the
assessments in the Grasslands. One issue was that seven properties were omitted
from the tax bill ordinance and the other is that owners of a 43-foot wide parcel
of land and owners of a six condominium unit apartment building in the Grasslands
are requesting tax bill relief.
Mr. Boeckmann pointed out that another ordinance is needed
to assess the seven properties. He asked for Council direction on the two requests
for tax bill relief.
Mr. Hutton asked if there are other two and three unit buildings.
Mayor Hindman said there were mostly two unit buildings, but there were quite
a few. Mr. John said there had been one charge for each unit -- the duplexes
were charged as having two separate units. Mr. John explained that the tax law
changed because up until the mid-nineties an apartment building was taxed as
commercial property if it was over four units. So people separated their buildings
into units of less than four in order for it to be taxed as residential property
which was taxed at about half the rate of a commercial property. Now, apartment
buildings with several hundred units are taxed as residential property. He said
these properties were divided into condominiums to avoid paying taxes and what
has happened is that it ended up costing them separate tax bills.
Mr. Ash asked if they would need to adjust down what the other
residents were tax billed. Mr. Boeckmann replied that the amount of the tax bills
totaled the amount that should be tax billed. Mayor Hindman asked about the legal
uses of the funds. Mr. Boeckmann thought any excesses collected could be used
for development of the park. Mr. Ash saw it as a fairness issue and thought that
was what they should base their decision on.
Regarding the 43-foot strip, Mr. John was not sure how that
happened, except it had to do with a reorganization of plats. He said it is a
single house sitting on what is basically, by tax bill, two lots. He thought
that one should be considered a single lot.
Regarding the other properties, Mr. John sympathized with
them but could not see how, in fairness to the duplex owners that are paying
two bills, they could be exempt.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that staff be directed to prepare
legislation levying special assessments against the seven Grassland properties
omitted from the special assessment ordinance and further that the 43-foot strip
tax billed as one lot, be removed from the tax bill ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(E) Energy & Environment
Commission - Revision to the Tree Ordinance.
Mr. Loveless made the motion that the issue be added to a
work session agenda. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously
by voice vote.
Mr. Janku assumed they would get a report on the issues, particularly
on prior removal and how it affects enforcement. Mr. Loveless agreed to include
his suggestion in his motion.
(F) City
Planning & Zoning and County Planning & Zoning Mutual Concerns.
Mayor Hindman suggested they accept the report with the expectation
there will be a recommendation for action shortly. He announced there would be
a meeting this Saturday morning at 9:00 in the County Government Center. Experts
will be discussing sketch planning.
Mr. Ash asked if they accepted the report it meant they would
start the process of sketch planning. Mr. Janku felt the Saturday meeting was
part of the initial fact finding. When completed, he thought they would forward
something explaining what they want to do. His understanding was that the Council
would be required to take a formal vote at that point.
(G) Appraisals
of Properties for Future Fire Stations.
Mr. Beck explained that in August the staff was directed to
obtain appraisals of properties that were identified as possible sites for future
fire stations to be located in the west, north central, and east areas of town.
Mr. Beck explained that they were having difficulties finding locations in the
west, but would continue to work on that. The appraisals have been completed
and the staff is ready to begin negotiations for sites on the north central and
east areas. Based on appraisals received, he said it may be necessary to review
additional sites in the east.
Mr. Loveless made the motion that staff be directed to proceed
with negotiations, acquisition of properties, and drafting the proper legislation.
The motion was seconded by Mr. John.
Mr. Ash asked about condemnation when it benefits the property
owner. Mr. Beck said they would probably discuss the benefits with the property
owner. Mr. Ash did not have a problem with the property owner suggesting it,
but did not agree with us pursuing condemnation without continuing to look for
another location unless it was a last resort.
Mr. Janku understood the staff was continuing to look in the
northwest area. He asked if this would preclude us from eventually finding a
site and purchasing it at that location. Mr. Beck stated that they were still
looking in the northwest area and would continue to do so.
The motion made by Mr. Loveless, seconded by Mr. John, was
approved unanimously by voice vote.
(H) Local
Tobacco Control Activities.
Although not part of the report, the Council was provided
a sample questionnaire. Mr. Ash suggested additions to the questionnaire that
would be used when surveying bars and restaurants. Specifically, he suggested,
possible alternatives or types of exemptions to consider if resistence is met,
such as a certain percentage of sales being alcohol, outdoor dining, a certain
ventilation system, etc.
Mr. Ash made the motion that as they go forward with the survey
they add a question about what possible alternatives the business would support
if they have answered "no" to the question about supporting the smoking ban.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku asked that the Energy and Environment Commission
be informed as to how we are responding to their communication.
(I) Donnelly
Street Improvement Project.
Mr. Beck commented that the staff has proceeded with design
of the project and that right of way is being acquired. A petition was received
from concerned property owners living along the street which he felt needed a
timely response.
Mayor Hindman remarked about having discussed this at pre-Council
and said they had agreed they would like to see a map and find out some things
about the design that had been put together. Mr. Ash interjected that they also
wanted to see a report with specifics as to why these people are opposed.
Mr. Loveless suggested that they receive aerial photos of
the area.
Mr. Loveless made the motion that staff be directed to report
back regarding the concerns and that the report include photos. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
None.
COMMENTS BY STAFF, COUNCIL AND PUBLIC
Mr. Janku relayed a parking concern along Leslie, between
Garth and Providence, particularly in the area of George Court. He asked the
staff to look into the possibility of restricted parking on one side in a limited
area.
Mr. Janku referred to an article about Kansas City trying
to get back into State Championship bidding for various sporting events. He realized
we support some of these events, but was hopeful Columbia could be more aggressive
with some of the new facilities. He passed the article on to the City Manager,
asking that the staff look into the issue.
Mayor Hindman stated he is convinced that the bright school
signs that have been put up at the elementary schools have worked very well.
He asked that the middle schools, and eventually the junior high schools, have
the same signage. Mr. Patterson replied that it was his understanding that they
were going to work on some of the middle schools this year. Mayor Hindman noted
that Jefferson Junior High School needs signage to let people now they are entering
a school zone.
Mayor Hindman commented on an article about the parents of
Parkade Elementary students wanting a crosswalk. The response from the City's
Traffic Engineer was that this location is at the top of a hill and cars are
moving very fast and that the City should not put a crosswalk at this location
because it would provide a sense of security that was not justified. Although
he felt the Traffic Engineer does a great job, Mayor Hindman disagreed with his
philosophy. He asked that the situation be looked into. He feels that it is up
to the City to slow the cars down. Mayor Hindman suggested the possibility of
developing a policy regarding the steps to be taken around the schools to slow
down traffic.
Mayor Hindman remarked that he and the City Manager met with
the President of Stephens College and she would like to have crosswalks on Broadway
at Hickman Hall and also between the campuses. He asked that the staff look into
crosswalks where mentioned, perhaps with flags or whatever it would take to get
people safely across.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that staff be directed to look
into getting crosswalks on Broadway for the needs Stephens College. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Janku.
Mr. Ash disagreed with the placement of a crosswalk between
the Independent School and Hickman Hall because he said it was not much further
to go up to Broadway and cross with the light.
The motion made by Mayor Hindman, seconded by Mr. Janku, was
approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman requested that the countdown timers be installed
in the downtown area before the Christmas rush. Mr. Patterson responded that
he would have a report on the issue at the next meeting. Mayor Hindman was concerned
about timing. Mr. Patterson replied that they would check on the order time and
include the information in the report. Mr. Janku noted other areas where the
timers are needed.
Mayor reminded everyone to get out and vote tomorrow.
Mr. Beck commented on recent controversy regarding development
agreements and recommended that the Council consider whether they want to look
into any of the processes followed over the years.
Regarding recent articles involving City staff and the appointment
of a Housing Analysis Committee, Mr. Beck noted that the articles were somewhat
accusing staff of lying. He said that this has never been the situation with
any staff that has worked for him, and after looking into this particular issue,
he had not found it to be the case at all. What he did find was a misunderstanding
and thought perhaps there could have been more communication. He noted that all
development agreements are brought before the Council and ordinances are adopted
after public discussion. Mr. Beck voiced disappointment in all of the untruths
floating around about the operation of the City staff.
Thad Simmons, 5002 Orchard Lane, spoke on the report regarding
smoking in bars and restaurants. He lived in San Francisco when California passed
their ordinance against smoking in bars and restaurants. Before passage of the
measure, he reported bar and restaurant owners felt it was going to ruin their
business. It was voted on by the public and passed by an overwhelming majority.
He noted exceptions were made for sole proprietors having no more than three
employees which allowed them to accommodate the small business owners while still
protecting workers of large establishments. After the measure passed, the owners
found that their business actually increased rather than decreased. He encouraged
placing the issue on the ballot.
The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sheela Amin
City Clerk
© 2024 City of Columbia